X-no-Archive:yes
As usual, Ron brings out excellent points. I will address the 3 main
points he brought up and make one further comment.
Point 1: Ron writes: "The true test is whether a program that ran on the
older OS runs on the newest OS. Last time I checked, that was the case for
the 3000. Anybody think their same programs for Windows 95
(the same executable files, not upgraded versions) will run unmolested on
Windows 2000?"
My answer is that if you bought applications for you Windows 95/98 and
these run in 32 bit mode, they run better on NT 4.0 and will run fine on
Win2000. The big caveat here is games. If your games take over the
machine (like running in privileged mode on MPE-V and doing bit twiddling
in the system tables and the hardware), they will not run on NT. If the
games use DirectX and DirectSound, they should have no problems on NT 4.0
and Win2000. Older DOS-based applications may or may not run on NT, but it
has been my experience that you are better off getting 32 bit applications
for NT.
Point 2: Ron further writes: "I'm confused. This sounds like most companies
use Windows computers where
all the desktops are the same to begin with. Is there anybody on this list
whose companies use Windows PCs where all the desktops are the same? HP
doesn't even qualify, and it has a corporate program for a standardized
desktop. Just about any HP division can opt out of the program, however."
My answer is that there indeed are many companies or divisions which have
standardized on one brand with perhaps a few models of desktop and laptops.
This makes the support issue a lot more simple. It is much easier to roll
out a fleet of similar machines rather than buying "brand of the day". I
often read stories of companies standardizing on xyz computer with one
basic model and another full featured model. They also do the same for
laptops. HP seems to be standardizing of Kayaks internally. These are
very nice machines with several models ranging from low-end to top of the
line. I am not familiar with their roll-out method so I can't speak to it.
Point 3: Ron concludes with: "How do people "quickly clone" an OS to other
desktops? Share your secrets!
How does it compare to cloning an HP 3000 configuration?"
This is not a secret. There are several methods of cloning desktops. You
can look at products such as Ghost or DiskImage or several others of the
same ilk. However some large shops go so far as to simple copy the disk
drive from a master image. They pull out the disk drive, clone it and put
it back, or they do the final assembly themselves. I draw your collective
attention back a year when I wrote a post about this guy I met on the
airplane. He pulled out a top of the line IBM Stinkpad and proceeded to
boot it up and it had, . . . Windows 3.1. After I managed to stop laughing
and dried my tears, I asked him why he was using 3.1 on such a nice
machine. He said the company issued all the same laptops and when these
laptops were received from the manufacturer (IBM), the IT department wiped
the disk and cloned them all with DOS and Windows 3.1. I recommended to
him that he investigate why such a large, supposedly technology-savvy
company, was issuing a 1992 OS on a late 1997 machine. It was an
incredible waste.
The larger companies who do not standardize and clone their
desktops/laptops should research this method. It makes support much easier
and lowers the Total Cost of Ownership (TOC) significantly.
My comment: I look forward to IA-64 for MPE and UNIX and NT. It will be
very interesting to see how it all plays out. I suspect there will be many
discussions WRT how it easy it is/was to migrate from the current 32 bit OS
to the new 64 bit OS. The trick will be where the migration occurs on the
same system, when one goes from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS on the same box.
Will this necessitate a reload? If it does, will we consider this an easy
migration?
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP America, Inc.
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Seybold [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 1999 9:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Inevitable migration to NT (err... Windows 2000)
Hello Friends
Denys Beauchemin comments that "I believe the challenge [to migrate] would
have been significantly more complicated for MPE if the migration from V to
XL occurred on the same box." NOTE: this is what the HP 3000 customer base
will encounter in 2003, or whenever the IA-64 architecture arrives for the
HP 3000. Systems sold with PA-8500 processors will be IA-64-ready. Your
MPE/iX box will become an IA-64 system. At last week's IPROF conference, HP
continued to stress that this migration won't be complicated at all for HP
3000 users.
Of course, perhaps Denys is noting that Windows 95/98 and Windows 2000
aren't the same operating system at all. The differences between MPE 5.5
and 7.0 probably won't be as great. The true test is whether a program that
ran on the older OS runs on the newest OS. Last time I checked, that was
the case for the 3000. Anybody think their same programs for Windows 95
(the same executable files, not upgraded versions) will run unmolested on
Windows 2000?
Also, Denys tells us that many companies handle the migration from Windows
9x to NT by "preparing a prototype desktop with the target OS, and when it
is tuned the way they want it, they can quickly clone it to other desktops.
This is what most of these people will ultimately do. Of course, this
method only works if your desktops are all the same to begin with."
I'm confused. This sounds like most companies use Windows computers where
all the desktops are the same to begin with. Is there anybody on this list
whose companies use Windows PCs where all the desktops are the same? HP
doesn't even qualify, and it has a corporate program for a standardized
desktop. Just about any HP division can opt out of the program, however.
How do people "quickly clone" an OS to other desktops? Share your secrets!
How does it compare to cloning an HP 3000 configuration?
Ron Seybold, Editor In Chief
The 3000 NewsWire
Independent Information to Maximize Your HP 3000
[log in to unmask] http://www.3000newswire.com/newswire
512.331.0075
|
