Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers Message-ID: <6361@ficc.uu.net> Date: 29 Sep 89 15:41:32 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7886@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 66 In article <7886@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes: > Hmmm, let me see. Yeah, I'm running on a compaq. Yup, there's dos down > there somewhere. Yup, excel, my bug database and mail program are > all still running. Not to mention my vtp to the local news server which > is what I'm using to post this message (at least when I'm not switching > back to make sure the other stuff is running . The network seems to still > be up -- and so are the servers I'm connected to. And I could run this > stuff on a lowly 286. Yeh, with no end of FM in there to make it work right. Back when MS-DOS was fairly new, I was doing that sort of stuff on a lowly PC-XT running your company's own Version-7 based Microsoft Xenix. Yes, an XT with a 20 meg drive. Of course, these days UNIX is a lot bigger... but it's also a whole lot more powerful. And everything works without the FM. If Bill Gates had any vision left, MS-DOS 3.0 *would* have been Xenix. And of course everythings co-operating now, but remember when you were putting it together. I remember the sorts of things you have to do: "Now, if I run DoubleDOS before Sidekick then I can't get to Sidekick in this window, but if I do it the other way then this doesn't work. How about...". With a real operating system (UNIX, for example, or one of the proprietary operating systems you've plowed under with IBM's money), everything just plain works. > So, quite simply, I can put together a very nice office automation system > with file servers, shared printers, Email and PCs AND still get all the benefits > of all that PC SW out there. Also, there are lots of DOS based SW products > designed to work nicely on a network. That last sentence is the critical one here. You have to have all your applications especially coded to work with the network. I'm still running UNIX software that was born before Ethernet. It hasn't been updated. It doesn't have to be... it doesn't know the nets there and doesn't need to. > You are right that the DOS based networks dont support both server and client > on a single machine reasonably. But so what? Transparent file access is like sex. If you haven't tried it, you don't miss it. If you have tried it, yu can't get along without it. > File sharing is quite easy; > I don't remember the last time I passed a diskette around. i.e., you use the network as a fast modem port. > Security isn't > super tight but its good enough for many (if not most) installations. Had a look in comp.virus recently? > I've > used multiuser systems for years and I really would never want to go back to > one. The amount of SW available is so incredibly limited compared to PCs. If you don't mind having to bring your car to a halt before you can turn the steering wheel, more power to you. Besides, I can already run all that dos software. Ever hear of emulators? And I don't have to worry about program A treading on program B's toes. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)