In a message dated 96-02-26 20:19:00 EST, [log in to unmask] (Dan Hollis)
writes:
 
>Microsoft continues to hype NT but consistently fails to deliver. Nobody I
>know of is terribly concerned that NT is going to dominate the marketplace.
>Especially considering its laughable instability compared to MPE or Unix.
>*I* wouldn't trust *MY* payroll system to NT.
>
>
 
The only reason I am answering this one is just to correct some inaccuracies.
Actually at last count there are more than 4 million installed copies of
Windows NT.  I aggree that NT was slow in coming and a lot of hype was
generated on its behalf, but the momentum is increasing and fast.  If you do
not know anyone who is terribly concerned that NT is going to dominate the
market, well here is what you do.  Take a few dollars and buy some magazines,
get some newspapers, access the WWW, go to conferences, meet more people.
 Whilst I do not condone "management by magazine", it is important to read
lots of stuff to at least be aware of what is going on.
 
At UNIX/EXPO in September of 95, we encountered a whole bunch of folks moving
from either UNIX (any flavor) or Novell to NT.  We sell backup products for
UNIX, MPE as well as NT, and whilst UNIX is our main business, NT is catching
up.
 
Furthermore NT 3.51 has proven to be very stable and I know of several large
companies which have installed NT servers and networks and are very happy
with it.  The instability you speak of is more due to the hardware and
peripherals than the OS itself, and even this is changing.
 
If you want to compare an 947 running MPE or the equivalent 9000 running
HP-UX to an NT server, let's be fair.  The former will cost upwards of
$80,000 (I am not sure of the prices these days, no CPL handy), whereas you
may have the NT on a $10,000 box.  If you decide to put NY on a DEC Alpha or
the top end Compaqs or HPs with multiple CPUs, you will be very impressed
with the stability and performance.  MPE it is not, but it has many good
points.  And it is definitely better than UNIX in most respects.
 
Before anyone jumps in and says that MPE recovers nicely from power failures,
let me say that my 486s recover nicely also, I have a little UPS for each
one.  These UPS cost only about $150 and you can still use the machine during
the power failure, unlike my HP3000 which goes into hibernation.  My 9000
commits suicide, but not before thrashing the file system, which even my
Win95 PCs do not do when the battery runs out.
 
I would sooner trust my payroll, to an NT than a UNIX.  But I would trust it
most on MPE.  Which is why our databases are on MPE and we access them
through the magic of IMAGE/SQL.  We can't afford any DBMS on UNIX, nor do we
have a big enough UNIX box to run any DBMS.
 
So be happy, and don't forget to close your eyes when the train hits, it will
be less painful  if they are shut and you keep denying the obvious.
 
Actually, a train can always be diverted or even wrecked by outside forces
but I doubt that it will be by Oracle, no matter how much UNIX folks want NT
stopped.  We are living in exciting times and events are unfolding at
terrific speed!
 
<big snip to which Wirt replied eloquently>
 
 
>
>Of course, this flawed thinking doesn't suprise me coming from MPE'rs,
>considering the difficulty HP3000's have talking to anything except other
>HP3000's.
>
 
I must be missing something here.  I thought that was an MPE list!  Also,
please do not tell my 3000 that is not supposed to talk to anything else but
another 3000.  It would hate to have to stop talking to the 9000 and the PCs
especially since it does the backup for them and let's them get to the IMAGE
databases.
 
 
 
Kind regards,
 
Denys. . .