Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!microsoft!philba From: philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers Message-ID: <7916@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 1 Oct 89 20:56:09 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7886@microsoft.UUCP> <6361@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 126 In article <6361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >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...". I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that systems integration under a DOS environment is impossible or so difficult as require a guru to get it working? If so, Patently false. Yes, it takes some knowledge but what computer systems dont? Are you saying that there are problems in systems integration for any environment? Then I have to agree. I've worked in several environments and put together dos, proprietary and unix systems and none were particularly easier than the others. I know of numerous small shops that use networking and PCs and other than a day or two of the `Reps' time, they all went together pretty easily and work. One shop is a medical benefits plan administration group. They track invoices, claims, new clients, etc with 15 PCs and Novell netware. They use a standard database (rBase, I think) multiuser/networked version, ms excel, ms word, some mailing list SW and a few others. It works and they are happy. They just added several PCs and it took more time pulling the PCs out of the boxes and getting them running than it did to get them on the network and using the database. Not a guru in sight (or on site). > >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. I guess we just plain disagree. By the way, don't confuse the person with the company. The statement -- everything just plain works is maybe true for a limited set of applications but I find it odd coming from a *NIX support guy. How many times has uucp gotten wedged on you? How many times have you gotten some SW and discovered it hadn't been implemented for or tested on your flavor of *NIX? Don't get me wrong, Unix is great and it has many nice features over DOS but its by no means perfect. There a lots of problems getting a *NIX up and running with all the applications you need. There is no question in my mind that DOS could be a *lot* better but the depth and breadth of applications for it make it a compelling choice to most of the microcomputer users. Binary Compatibility is a key factor -- one which the *NIX market sadly lacks. Its not at all clear the Emulators under unix work that well. There are numerous types of apps that don't work at all and it varys from system to system. > >> 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. Ahem... Perhaps I should have been clearer. Given PC-NET, MS LanMan or Novell nets, file access IS transparent. No special `coding' is required. Other than my multiuser bug database, I use no network aware SW and it all works over the net just fine. Multi-user databases management systems, etc DO require special network support. I don't see this as significantly different from the sort of things one has to do for a DBMS, etc in a multiuser environment. (record/file locking, for example) > >> 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. see above. its available with all the major PC networks. You simply use a server based file model rather than one on your personal machine. There are several large banks that use this approach and they are very happy. > >> 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. I could see how you would think this but its simply not true. Many of our shared files reside on a server and are accessed directly. The aformentioned medical benefits shop keeps their database on a server. The banks above keep most of their shared data on a server. > >> Security isn't >> super tight but its good enough for many (if not most) installations. > >Had a look in comp.virus recently? seen any good internet viruses lately? Found any good security holes in unix lately? Point is that no system is totally secure. Besides, if viruses are a concern, there are simple methods of avoiding them (like don't run stuff off BBSs and don't boot off of suspected diskettes and ...) as well as programs like flu-shot and such. > >> 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. sigh... I think you still haven't gotten it. I can multitask dos apps to my hearts content. There are numerous solutions that work: MS-Windows, os/2, DeskView, SW Carosel (sp?), VM386, ... Not only do I not need to stop the car, I can drive several at once and I can cut and paste between dos apps with several of the above products. Hundreds of thousands of PC users use these products daily so there must something wrong :-) I realize that this won't change your mind. All I'm trying to say is that the statement that PCs are unusable for anything other than a single task at a time in an isolated environment is simply wrong. No environment is perfect, it is usability that counts. You can argue the details but a lot of people use these kind of systems to significant benefit every day. Phil Barrett Microsoft The above opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.