Nick Demos writes:
> Wirt, it's a shame you didn't ask about terminals, also (the
> "thinnest" of clients). It would have completed the picture
> of where people were with user interfaces.
That's absolutely true. It never crossed my mind. The reason for my asking the
questions was, at its core, to determine the likely longevity of the Windows
3.x operating system and how much longer should we continue to support a
16-bit structure.
However, I'm not too terribly sure that terminals have much of a life left.
Although we have 20 terminals and still use them daily, the times they are
a'changing. This week a manufacturer (name forgotten) announced a sub-$400,
233 MHz pentium-based PC. At this price, when coupled with a reasonably
capable, free terminal emulator, there is obviously very little incentive to
go out and purchase new terminals and not much incentive remaining to purchase
used terminals.
The decline of Windows 3.x has been fairly precipitious of late. Last year,
Computerworld listed its usage percentage at about 60%. This year's statistic
drops it to about 21%. The HP3000 responders put it lower than that.
Of interest, the Mac percentage hasn't been dropping nearly as quickly, and
several people mentioned even today and yesterday their suprise and pleasure
at seeing such a high percentage of Macs among the responders. I attribute
that to two reasons. The first is that there is no obvious migration path as
there is for the 3.x users, thus they are to a great degree "stuck" in a way
that 3.x users are not, whether they regard themselves in that light or not.
Secondly, it was my strong impression that Mac users responded out of
proportion to their actual numbers. Quite a few people wrote something like:
"We really need a good, supported terminal emulator on our Macs."
Unfortunately, we will quite likely never do that with QCTerm. There are
simply not enough Macs in the HP3000 universe to make it worth the trouble of
porting and maintaining two completely separate copies of the terminal
emulator software, especially given that it is a free product.
As I replied to several people who mentioned that concern, the only real hope
is for the Mac OS/Motorola chip is at some point in time to become fully
compatible with the Intel processors, so that the Windows 98/NT OS'es can
operate in a fully partitioned MOS (multiple operating system) environment
with the Mac OS. Apple has been promising/threatening to do this for some
time, but they always seems to back off at the last moment. But if they do --
and they do it correctly -- then our code, and everyone else's, would run
without modification.
If Apple doesn't do this, my most heartfelt advice is, for the sake of future
growth, is that the time has come to abandon the Mac. Please understand that
doesn't mean throwing the Macs you own out. They can continue to run until the
ends of their respective lives.
We started life as a 100% Mac shop, but I found switching over to 95 to be
easier than I imagined. Virtually all software that runs on the Mac is now
available in compatible format for the PC -- and 95/98/NT machines are close
enough to Macs that they're basically indistinguishable from a Mac nowadays.
Indeed, no one has demonstrated a higher regard for the Mac than Bill Gates.
The new Windows systems have consistently proven easier to use by a long-time
Mac user than they are for someone who grew up on DOS.
We still run 4 Macs here, but we now have seven PCs -- and it is my intention
to buy an eighth later today. That's a fair number for a five person company.
It's important to understand that Bill Gates hates cheap PCs, especially when
they're used as terminals, as much as the people at Apple do, but in the
HP3000's universe, such usage is where the world is going -- and I'm not sure
how much good it does to rail at the Moon in protest. The new "thin clients"
are no longer going to be terminals, but rather very cheap PCs. But you
essentially knew that without any taking a survey.
Wirt Atmar
|
