In a message dated 97-01-24 11:56:52 EST, [log in to unmask] (Michael D.
Hensley) writes:

<<In my humble opinion, UNIX has the same basic flaw that WinNT has: it
 seems to have been designed as a single-user system, and them some
 weak multi-user capabilities were later "grafted" on.  >>

I have never heard Windows NT touted, sold, represented or promoted as a
multi-user system.  Therefore the fact that it is not a multi-user system, is
not a flaw.  Windows NT (AS as in Advanced Server) was designed as a server
and that is the job it does and does well.  Equating a Windows NT system to
an HP 3000 system is more like comparing Client Server vs OLTP.

First off, you must enlarge the scope of the comparison.  You are comparing a
Windows NT-based network versus an HP 3000 centric environment.

A Windows NT-based network is comprised of many workstations running some
form of Windows desktop version, such as Windows 95, Workgroup or Windows NT
workstation.  If you add more Windows NT server in the network, they can
share the load of the original server, in a co-operative fashion.  Virtually
all aspects of Windows NT management are geared, from the ground up, for
networked, co-operative management.

The various workstations on the network are expected to do their share of the
work in a client server paradigm (I can't believe I said that), by fulfilling
the client side.  They can either do all the work and use NT for file and
print, or do some of the work and use NT as a server such as in Exchange or
SQL Server. Or the network can be a mix of both types.

The HP 3000 is still oriented towards OLTP with dumb terminals as
input/output devices or PCs acting as terminals.  The application, the
storage and even most of the screen management reside on the HP 3000.  It is
only recently that the
HP 3000 has taken on server functions, with the advent of ODBC and various
other c/s capabilities.  It is a tribute to the HP 3000 and MPE that it is
able to take on the server role, albeit in a limited fashion. But underneath
it all, the HP 3000 is an OLTP machine.  Because of this, it is vital that
the HP 3000 be as resilient and as bulletproof as possible, because when it
goes down, so do all the people connected to it.

On a Windows NT network, using a proper client server application, one can
take a server down and reboot it and most everybody might not even be aware
that is was gone. As an example, an application such as Exchange can have
multiple servers running the mail for the site.  If one server goes down, the
others keep on trucking and the mail flows.  Only the people whose mailboxes
are actually on the downed server are affected and this is only if they need
to access the mail in their mailboxes at the time the server is down.  If
they do not - maybe they were composing a message - when the server comes
back, the client mail application will continue right where it was and the
user may never even know the server went away.

Bottom line, if you compare an HP 3000 and its terminals to a Windows NT
based network of PCs and servers, be prepared to radically change your
thinking.  This is why I do not see Windows NT displacing the HP 3000, but
rather complementing existing HP 3000 sites by bringing in new capabilities
to the enterprise.  Windows NT is not an OLTP, in fact if you want to see
something real slow, look at some of the accounting packages that run on
Windows NT but act more like HP 3000 applications.  They are so slowwww.
  The HP 3000 does heads-down hard-core OLTP and does it extremely well.  And
this type of computing has a very real place in the industry.  Windows NT
does NOT do OLTP.  But it is an excellent server for many other functions.

I note that recently UNIX folks have started to feel the pressure of Windows
NT.  They are starting to make noises about UNIX being overtaken by NT.  Why
is this happening, and why should they indeed be fearful?  Well, there are 2
reasons.  1-UNIX never delivered on its promise of Open Systems, and has
remained stubbornly as an archipelago of Operating Systems.  2- Windows NT
has most, if not all, of the Internet functions that UNIX has, GUI-driven out
of the box. The remainder can be purchased.  This makes UNIX no longer the
only solution for Internet and Open Systems.  Before someone jumps in, yes
the HP 3000 has a lot of these functions also, but remember that last year
(1996) Windows NT Server was sold to the tune of 550,000 and Windows NT
workstation sold 3.4 millions.  PC UNIX sales dropped to 373,000, all these
numbers are from Dataquest, August 1996. I am not aware of the number of now
HP 3000s sold, but I would venture to say it is not very close to the
preceding numbers. (More numbers? Ok.  For 1996, Windows 95 sold 46 million
unit (for a cumulative total of close to 65 million; Windows 3.x sold 21
million, down from 40 million in 1995; Mac OS sold 5.4 million up from 4.8
million; DOS (no Windows) sold 2 million down from 4; OS/2 sold 1.9 million,
up from 1.7; Netware sold 606,000 up from 509,000; Windows NT WS sold 3.4
million up from 961,000; Windows NT Server sold 550,000 up from 318,000; and
finally UNIX sold 373,000 down from 382,000.)

As an aside, one of the fantasies foisted upon the industry in this, the last
lustrum of the second millenium is the NC (what I call the Non Computer.)
 This is nothing more than a diskless PC with a lobotomized brain and no
local storage.  The NC takes the Personal out of the PC.  This device has
been around for 30 years in the form of a dumb terminal, and while I agree it
may have its place in the corporate world. I feel we are going full circle,
again.

However, consider this; if the Non Computer actually manages to take off, it
will need to depend on a fast, robust OLTP-based central computer, such as
the HP 3000!

Kind regards,

Denys. . .