#OS comparisons
Robert,
"'NT 3.1 got a lot of bad press because it deserved it. Then Micros**t
hired Dave Cutler to head the NT project team.'
I thought Dave Cutler was in from the beginning. (before 3.1)"
He may have been, but I like VMS, and NT 3.5 IS a lot better than 3.1.
That kind of improved performance would not be a given from
Micros**t's in-house staff.
"Not to mention it has a big problem with device driver availability and with
NT you HAVE to have the right driver."
True. But by many accounts, the same problem plagues OS/2. I can't say I agree
or disagree. My OS/2 experience is measured in minutes, so I refuse to even
pretend to be an expert.
"It's true its "nearly" uncrashable. The only crashes we had when we had an NT
machine were network software."
The only crash I have had is from sending LOTS of differnt disk setups to the
filing system from Disk Administrator on a new installation; the poor system
didn't know whether to s**t or go blind. So it just locked up. But that was a
brand new installation; the only thing lost was a little time. The NT box in my
office has *never* crashed, and I've been using it every day for almost two
months <g>.
"While the resource requirements aren't unrealistic for some individuals and
shops, it is totally unrealistics for 90% of our installed PC's. Most don't
have enough CPU and RAM. I can run it at home, but I don't."
In your case, I certainly can't say that's not true. But my Business Unit
upgraded to all 486's or better last year. I like 386-25's for testing and have
most of the machines of that category that remain in service. My NT box is a
486-33 w/ 16 MB RAM. Individual apps do indeed run a little slower than under
regular Windows, but because I finally have REAL multitasking on a PC, I can
get around tasks in progress same as I've been doing with my Amiga for seven
years. Finally, as a personal purchase, I don't have ANY kind of PC. I am an
Amiga user. I flatly refuse to spend my money on 16-bit DOS/Windows. The system
I intend to buy is a Pentium. My experience (almost two months worth) says that
is plenty enough CPU for NT 3.5. Given Micros**t's design history, no doubt the
next version of NT will just barely plug along on a P6.
"That doesn't count CPU power, and do you know how much, even at these prices,
it would cost for us to upgrade all our PC's…"
We buy 486DX2-66 ISA motherboards for less than $300. Three years ago we went
from being a DOS shop to being a Windows shop. Putting a "pretty good" GUI in
the hands of our ordinary users paid off substantially in terms of individual
user productivity. Are you trying to hang on to old 286's? If so, the money you
are saving is being carved from your customers' hides. Yes, a global upgrade is
going to be expensive. But avoiding that upgrade is NOT free.
I don't have any stake in OS/2's failure. I just don't believe it will succeed
in the long run. The money cost of the OS is trivial; since I am looking at
buying a completely new system, whether I spend a couple hundred dollars on NT
or OS/2 is financially irrelevant. But I don't want to learn ANOTHER OS that
has no presence in my company, and which I believe to have no future. Sadly,
once (the Amiga) was enough.
Finally, my former boss came round my office yesterday. He specifically asked
about my "Commodore." I showed him the A2000 I have set up in my office tied to
a 14.4 modem which I use as my Compuserve machine. Two of my six PC's have
wallpaper scenes generated in Scenery Animator. And today I amazed another
co-worker analyst with the Amiga's features; remember I am impressing Pentium
owners with a 3-MB A2000. The Amiga may be just about gone, but as an Amiga
user, I have been spoiled. It's a tough act to follow.
Tab Trepagnier
Cruising on AutoPilot from Beaumont, Texas