better hw -> better sys

better hw -> better sys

Post by joe mc co » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00



My customer intends to upgrade from Xenix to SCO OES R5.  My intention
is to supply a P166 with 32M, 2G, CDROM, SCSI DAT tape etc.  

My competition say that this configuration is over kill, that nobody
knows what market changes will come about in the next three years and
that he should go for their supply of: 486/133, 12M, 850M disk.

I'll confess that he has no network and uses dumb terminals only.
Whatcha think, please ?

--
joe mc cool

 
 
 

better hw -> better sys

Post by Jean-Pierre Radl » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00


joe mc cool propounded certain bytes, to wit:
| X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!benburb.demon.co.uk
| Content-Type: text
| Content-Length: 446
|
| My customer intends to upgrade from Xenix to SCO OES R5.  My intention
| is to supply a P166 with 32M, 2G, CDROM, SCSI DAT tape etc.  
|
| My competition say that this configuration is over kill, that nobody
| knows what market changes will come about in the next three years and
| that he should go for their supply of: 486/133, 12M, 850M disk.
|
| I'll confess that he has no network and uses dumb terminals only.
| Whatcha think, please ?

OSR 5 on 12M is OK if you never run X Window.
The OS plus the DS will take up half of that disk.
And if your competition can make a point of dumping their already somewhat
outdated hardware, good for them, but try this:  They've had Xenix for
what, five, seven years?  Going with the inventory-dumping of your
compeitiors is fine if they think they'd like to rebuy hardware in a year
or two, but it's frankly very shortsighted.  Buy better and faster and
bigger HW now, it'll last them them anohtre five years or more.

--


 
 
 

better hw -> better sys

Post by James R. Sulliva » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> My customer intends to upgrade from Xenix to SCO OES R5.  My intention
> is to supply a P166 with 32M, 2G, CDROM, SCSI DAT tape etc.

> My competition say that this configuration is over kill, that nobody
> knows what market changes will come about in the next three years and
> that he should go for their supply of: 486/133, 12M, 850M disk.

While this statement is probably true, you can bet that 486 computers
are going to disappear.  The biggest market for Pentium computers today
is the Home market and it appears that 486 computers are on their way out.

Quote:> I'll confess that he has no network and uses dumb terminals only.
> Whatcha think, please ?

I'd position it as potential for the future.  One of the problems of
purchasing a computer that is sufficient for today's needs is that it
is rarely sufficient for tomorrow's needs.  Being burdened with the
expansion restrictions that the 486 system would care could prove to
be a factor in their ability to move forward in the future.  Particularly
when you look at the long term costs.

What are the customer's plan for the future?  Does he see the need for
different desktops?  Not just MS/Windows boxes, but possibly Network Computers.
Will he want to connect them, share files and printers, access the Internet?
Even if the answer today is no, the answer tomorrow may be yes, and unless
he has a server that can easily manage the load, he will be unable to take
advantage of these new technologies and techniques.

Try to tie these needs to his business.  A lot of commerce will be happening
over the Internet in the near future.  Just as a FAX machine has become
a must have office appliance, an Internet connection may become a necessity
of business.  Same idea holds for connectivity to MS/Windows desktops.  While
not required today by the customer, if he needs spreadsheet or wordprocessing
support in the future, he will be better off with a more powerful server.

Good luck.  It sounds like the competition is dumping their older products
and you might want to point that out as well.

--

----
Jim Sullivan            "Don't plant your bad days.  They grow into bad
SMB Segment Marketing    weeks and then bad months and before you know it

416 216 4611

 
 
 

better hw -> better sys

Post by David Clayt » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00



>joe mc cool propounded certain bytes, to wit:
>| X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!benburb.demon.co.uk
>| Content-Type: text
>| Content-Length: 446
>|
>| My customer intends to upgrade from Xenix to SCO OES R5.  My intention
>| is to supply a P166 with 32M, 2G, CDROM, SCSI DAT tape etc.  
>|
>| My competition say that this configuration is over kill, that nobody
>| knows what market changes will come about in the next three years and
>| that he should go for their supply of: 486/133, 12M, 850M disk.
>|
>| I'll confess that he has no network and uses dumb terminals only.
>| Whatcha think, please ?
>OSR 5 on 12M is OK if you never run X Window.
>The OS plus the DS will take up half of that disk.
>And if your competition can make a point of dumping their already somewhat
>outdated hardware, good for them, but try this:  They've had Xenix for
>what, five, seven years?  Going with the inventory-dumping of your
>compeitiors is fine if they think they'd like to rebuy hardware in a year
>or two, but it's frankly very shortsighted.  Buy better and faster and
>bigger HW now, it'll last them them anohtre five years or more.

It (should) really depend on what application is to be used on this
machine.

If the application is only ever going to use dumb terminals, (and has
been running happily on a Xenix box), then the 486 configuration may
have more performance than it may EVER need.

If, on the other hand, the intended use of this hardware may change in
the near future, it may be worth while to spend the difference and get
the higher spec'd hardware.

So, in answer to the title, the better hw probably will provide a
better sys, but the difference may be hardly noticeable in your case.

Now, moving a sideways a bit, is it standard practice to recommend the
latest, hottest PC hardware and operating system available even if it
will provide only a marginal improvement on the actual system it is
for?

I used to work for a company who's main product would work quite
happily on a 386 Xenix system with whatever other resources, (memory,
disk space etc.), to suit the installation. Now, to get essentially
the same functionality, you need OSR5 and a much higher spec'd PC
platform to suit it.

I know that most of the computer industry is built on obselecnce, but
it can be appropriate to sometimes use the lesser solution.

Regards, David.
-------------------------------------------------

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

"Virtual Reality - Give it a rest, Actual Reality has me stressed enough as it is."

 
 
 

better hw -> better sys

Post by Stephen M. Du » Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:00:00


$My customer intends to upgrade from Xenix to SCO OES R5.  My intention
$is to supply a P166 with 32M, 2G, CDROM, SCSI DAT tape etc.  
$
$My competition say that this configuration is over kill, that nobody
$knows what market changes will come about in the next three years and
$that he should go for their supply of: 486/133, 12M, 850M disk.

   True - nobody knows what will come about in the next three years.

   Are they suggesting that for the next three years, their system
will provide similar performance to the one you've proposed?

   I don't know what hardware prices are like in the UK, but here
in Canada, the price difference between the two proposed systems
is really not that much.  I'm assuming that your competition is
bright enough to include a CD-ROM drive and a tape drive.

   Without knowing more about what your customer is trying to do,
what software they're running, how much disk space their apps
currently require, how they like the performance of their existing
hardware (whatever that is), it's hard to say whether your
competition's system will satisfy them.

   But my guess is that your system is a better choice for the majority
of customers.
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager, Technical Services                     United System Solutions Inc.
104 Carnforth Road, Toronto, ON, Canada M4A 2K7          (416) 750-7946 x251

 
 
 

1. Red Hat Results - better and better

The company reported an adjusted net loss of $100,000, or break even
per share, for the second
              quarter of fiscal 2002, compared to an adjusted net loss of
              $4.0 million, or $0.02 per share, for the second quarter of
              fiscal 2001. On a reported basis, the net loss was $55.3
              million, or $0.33 per share, compared with a net loss of
              $20.0 million, or $0.12 per share in fiscal 2001.

              During the quarter, the company restructured its
              operations to focus on two primary areas, UNIX to Linux
              migration opportunities in enterprises and delivering
              complete solutions for the embedded system market. This
              restructuring resulted in the company incurring a charge
              of $37.2 million, which was comprised of the impairment
              of $33.8 million in the carrying value of goodwill and
              intangibles related to acquisitions made in prior periods
              and $3.4 million in severance related expenses.

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-18-018-20-NW-BZ-RH

Excellent...

--
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

2. Change LSM hooks in setxattr 2.5.69

3. Is Windows NT a better VMS or a better Unix ?

4. Install image copy error, what to do.

5. Is AMD better or Intel better for Linux?

6. DNS Problem

7. better than "$cmd 2>&1 | cat - > $logfile" ?

8. usrck question

9. Which is better: tar->gzip or gzip->tar?

10. Linux NOT Enduser -> Better Linux -> Next Linux ?

11. Which is better: tar->gzip or gzip->tar?

12. Which Sys Adm book better?

13. Whats Better, Linux or Ethernet <--> ISDN router