ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) (01/07/89)
In article <992@vsi.COM>, friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > Doug, you are living in a dream world, one full of idealistic fantasy. > You may like your Blit, but for every one of you, there are at least > 50,000 people with Wyse 50s at their desks. For the majority of these > people, a bitmapped interface would be massive overkill. | -- | Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com | V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl | Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backb I'll repeat Doug's reply: the AT&T 630 terminal is available for less than $2k. Support software for either System V or 4.3BSD is also available. I don't think Doug is dreaming; if you're stuck with an old 24x80 non-windowed terminal, it's more like a nightmare. -- Griff Smith AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill Phone: 1-201-582-7736 UUCP: {most AT&T sites}!ulysses!ggs Internet: ggs@ulysses.att.com
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (01/08/89)
Doug Gwyn writes: > > Fine, if you make it a Teletype model 630. If an employee isn't worth > investing $2K for dramatically improved productivity then I feel sorry > for the employer. Followed shortly thereafter by Griff Smith: > > I don't think Doug is dreaming; if you're stuck with an old > 24x80 non-windowed terminal, it's more like a nightmare. It's time for a reality break. You guys need to venture out of your labs and see how The Real World(tm) operates for a change. Clearly, a windowed terminal will dramatically improve productivity for many. You don't have to convince me that a bitmapped interface is wonderful because I am already in complete agreement with you. I want a 630 and will likely get one or two soon. I don't agree, however, with the implication that character terminals are generally obsolete: I say you people are either naive or elitist (or both). I know it will pain you greatly, but programmers are *vastly* in the minority in The Real World. At least two of my customers run applications where the data- entry operators can input, nearly error-free, on their number pads for a long time without looking up from their work -- they simply don't look at the screen. A recent application uses a line-oriented printf/fgets loop because the customer insisted that anything more was overkill. It turned out he was absolutely right, and we saved a ton of develoment time and everything runs more efficiently without the overhead of a fullscreen interface. "Productive" also means that the machine have a fast response time. For these customers, the difference between a $500 Wyse terminal and the $1500 Blit means the difference between getting twelve terminals and getting four. How productive would *you* be if your terminal was on your officemate's desk? How about across the hall? Does anybody out there seriously think that a Blit at the counter of a Dept of Motor Vehicles clerk would make him/her any more productive? *THREE TIMES* more productive? Gee, if we gave them a *Sun* then there would be no more lines, right? Sorry guys, but all The Real World's not a Blit. Steve (working a very nice TeleVideo 9220) -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl -------Nancy Reagan on Usenix in San Diego: "Just say *go*"-------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/08/89)
In article <1000@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >It's time for a reality break. You guys need to venture out of >your labs and see how The Real World(tm) operates for a change. I've got news for you: We're part of the Real World too. Many of the people we work with are "average Joes", not computer whizzes. >I don't agree, however, with the implication that character >terminals are generally obsolete: I say you people are either >naive or elitist (or both). The discussion was originally on the need for standardizing "dumb CRT" interfaces, e.g. curses. Even the spiffiest terminals are used primarily with text interfaces. But there are efficient ways to do this and klutzy ones. >-- they simply don't look at the screen. >... a line-oriented printf/fgets loop because the customer insisted >that anything more was overkill. Obviously then they don't need a curses-oriented interface either. >Does anybody out there seriously think that a Blit at the counter >of a Dept of Motor Vehicles clerk would make him/her any more >productive? *THREE TIMES* more productive? Gee, if we gave them >a *Sun* then there would be no more lines, right? If these clerks had systems that fully exploited spiffy interfaces, they could well be considerably more productive. Lots could be done to improve their use of computing resources even with the hardware they now have, but if one is going to invest effort in improving an application, it is probably better spent in a direction with a future to it than on squeezing the mnost out of archaic technology. People once asked the same questions about ANY use of computers; perhaps you're too young to remember that. Initially there was quite a lot of evidence that "computerization" didn't help productivity, but the reasons for that have vanished in most instances, and it's often hard to appreciate the productivity inherent in such mundane applications as computerized check-out counters. The ability to have several things simultaneously under one's control and to interrelate them, including routing information between them, is a power that could obviously help "average Joes" do their jobs better. The challenge for US is to find ways to make that power accessible to them.
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (01/08/89)
Doug Gwyn wrote: > > Fine, if you make it a Teletype model 630. If an employee isn't worth > investing $2K for dramatically improved productivity then I feel sorry > for the employer. Followed shortly thereafter by Griff Smith: > > I don't think Doug is dreaming; if you're stuck with an old > 24x80 non-windowed terminal, it's more like a nightmare. Speaking as one who used to use a 630MTG with layers under UNIX and is now using a vt220 with VMS, I agree. Just now though, I'd be happy to get a larger display with say 35 lines on the screen and a paper-white phosphor. In part I'm a bit more tolerant of the plain terminal because I'm using emacs and that will sort of give me windows. Followups to comp.terminals please....
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/09/89)
In article <11072@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes: > I'll repeat Doug's reply: the AT&T 630 terminal is available for less > than $2k. Support software for either System V or 4.3BSD is also > available. I don't think Doug is dreaming; if you're stuck with an old > 24x80 non-windowed terminal, it's more like a nightmare. Most of the UNIX systems in the world run Xenix, not System V or BSD. I strongly suspect the majority of these Xenix systems are still running System III-based kernels. We have, let's see... % wc /etc/passwd 419 1663 36162 /etc/passwd We have 419 accounts, maybe a couple of hundred real users (some accounts are duplicates or administrative) on 30 Xenix systems and two SV systems. We have, oh, at least 300 of these terminals. Replacing them would cost over $600,000, which would be better spent buying disks and upgrading machines to 386es. Or just buying more machines. And, again, most of them would remain terminals. Our 30 Xenix boxes run old SIII kernels. And we are locked into them by applications software (compilers and networking). -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) (01/10/89)
In article <11072@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes: >I'll repeat Doug's reply: the AT&T 630 terminal is available for less >than $2k. Wyse 50's cost just a little over $300. I'd like to see you in a meeting with my manager trying to convince him that it's a good idea to spend six times more on your terminal than everyone else's. I must say that I think higher productivity is realized from a nice multi-window environment, but because I cannot easily quantify the benefits I cannot demonstrate bottom-line advantages of nice workstation-type terminals. -- Mike McNally Lynx Real-Time Systems uucp: {voder,athsys}!lynx!m5 phone: 408 370 2233 Where equal mind and contest equal, go.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/10/89)
In article <5175@lynx.UUCP> m5@lynx.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes: >Wyse 50's cost just a little over $300. I'd like to see you in a >meeting with my manager trying to convince him that it's a good idea to >spend six times more on your terminal than everyone else's. >I must say that I think higher productivity is realized from a nice >multi-window environment, but because I cannot easily quantify the >benefits I cannot demonstrate bottom-line advantages of nice >workstation-type terminals. And there seems to lie the real problem: Harvard Business School- trained managers with their typically short-term, "bottom line", mentality. How, indeed, is one to reduce the advantages of increased flexibility and convenience to a specific dollar value? How much advantage is it to be able to do things in a totally new way, when there is no way to assign ANY cost to that way in the old environment (since the way is impossible there)? It is clear that rationally, economic considerations should take these global factors into consideration, but inability to quantify them in a nice neat matrix form does not mean that they cannot be considered. Perhaps the solution is for practical people who nevertheless have vision to find work environments where they can flourish rather than be under the thumb of unimaginative management.
avr@mtgzz.att.com (a.v.reed) (01/12/89)
In article <9325@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <5175@lynx.UUCP> m5@lynx.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes: > >Wyse 50's cost just a little over $300. I'd like to see you in a > >meeting with my manager trying to convince him that it's a good idea to > >spend six times more on your terminal than everyone else's. > > And there seems to lie the real problem: Harvard Business School- > trained managers with their typically short-term, "bottom line", > mentality. How, indeed, is one to reduce the advantages of > increased flexibility and convenience to a specific dollar value? With figures. A programmer costs her employer about 100,000 dollars a year in salary, benefits, plant, and cost of supervision. A Wyse 50 displays 24 lines; a blit (or 5620, 630 etc.) 62 or more. According to the measurements of Reisel and Shneiderman (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, August 10-15, 1987, in press at North-Holland) the same programmer will get her work done 14% faster with a 60 line terminal than with a 22 line terminal. So getting a 630 instead of a traditional terminal will save $ 14,000 per year in programmer time. Payback time is less than 2 months. How's that for short-term bottom line? Adam Reed (avr@mtgzz.ATT.COM)
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/15/89)
As quoted from <2664@ficc.uu.net> by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | In article <11072@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes: | > I'll repeat Doug's reply: the AT&T 630 terminal is available for less | > than $2k. Support software for either System V or 4.3BSD is also | > available. I don't think Doug is dreaming; if you're stuck with an old | > 24x80 non-windowed terminal, it's more like a nightmare. | | Most of the UNIX systems in the world run Xenix, not System V or BSD. I | strongly suspect the majority of these Xenix systems are still running | System III-based kernels. +--------------- It's worse than you think, Peter: Xenix 3.x runs a *V7* kernel. Some, but not all, of the System III functionality has been added, but it's still basically V7. As for Doug and the other fancy-terminal lovers: Add the cost of the support software for your fancy terminals (one-time cost per CPU, admitted) and people in the real world won't be interested. Case in point: none (well, maybe *one* out of all) of our clients are interested in a windowing setup we've been looking at, to see if it's worth selling. If you can show these people a complete setup *and* a way to retrofit all of their precompiled applications to use it effectively (that does *not* mean a "terminal emulator" window in the X style, people!), for a cost equivalent to a handful of WY-50's, *then* they will be interested. ++Brandon (P.S. Just in case I'm confusing people: the "our" above refers to Telotech, which is not related to ncoast in any way [except that I work for one and administer the other ;-) ].) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org (soon) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (01/15/89)
In article <9325@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > How, indeed, is one to reduce the advantages of > increased flexibility and convenience to a specific dollar value? In article <4876@mtgzz.att.com>, avr@mtgzz.att.com (a.v.reed) writes: > With figures. A programmer costs her employer about 100,000 dollars a > year in salary, benefits, plant, and cost of supervision. A Wyse 50 > displays 24 lines; a blit (or 5620, 630 etc.) 62 or more. According to > the measurements of Reisel and Shneiderman (Proceedings of the Second > International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, August 10-15, > 1987, in press at North-Holland) the same programmer will get her work > done 14% faster with a 60 line terminal than with a 22 line terminal. > So getting a 630 instead of a traditional terminal will save $ 14,000 > per year in programmer time. Payback time is less than 2 months. How's > that for short-term bottom line? While a Blit may improve a programmer's productivity 14%, it will not make her need 14% less benefits, 14% less plant, or 14% less supervision. In addition, this 14% probably applies to actually on-the-tube time, and I suspect that very few programmers will actually be at their desks all the time: meetings, conferences, netnews :-), etc. will eat into this. In addition, many shops -- like us -- are contractors where they charge out time to customers. While there is a long-term benefit in being more productive (happy customers = higher rates), the short-term payback is not as clear. Finally, nobody in *our* shop costs us $100k per year by any measure of cost, and for many smaller operations this will be the case. On the other hand, I think that 14% is a little low. The ref given only talks about the difference between 24 lines and 60 line terminals, but I would suspect that adding windows to this equation will make a significant difference on the upside. Remember, I really do support bitmapped interfaces, and in any shop with expensive employees the benefits are overwhelming (assuming the system software with handle it), but one must be careful not to present an argument that will get shot down. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl ---------Nancy Reagan on Hawaiian musicians: "Just say Ho"--------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/16/89)
In article <1013@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >In article <9325@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >> How, indeed, is one to reduce the advantages of >> increased flexibility and convenience to a specific dollar value? >In article <4876@mtgzz.att.com>, avr@mtgzz.att.com (a.v.reed) writes: >> With figures. ... >... one must be careful not to present an argument that will get shot down. Exactly. Once you start to play the American business manager's own game, you will lose. There are SO many factors in doing a proper job of economic analysis, including estimating probabilities of future trends, that you will never get the job done "right". And many of the thing s you leave out can be used to "support" the contrary position. This is a case where intuition and vision count for a lot, but those don't lend themselves to cost-accounting techniques.
iv@hal6000.UUCP (01/18/89)
/* Written 1:38 pm Jan 14, 1989 by ncoast!allbery in comp.unix.wizards */ |* ---------- "Re: modern terminals (was: printf," --------------------------- |* It's worse than you think, Peter: Xenix 3.x runs a *V7* kernel. Some, but |* not all, of the System III functionality has been added, but it's still |* basically V7. \* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, no, NO! **SIGH** Do we have to go over this again?? This is INCORRECT!!! Every version of XENIX 3.x I have ever seen has a System III kernel, with some BSD and Microsoft additions. I have hacked XENIX kernels for years, XENIX 2.3 (which WAS v7) and 3.0, so I know. Just because they kept the v7 init and getty does NOT mean the kernel is v7. ---- IV (aka John Elliott IV) Domain: iv@hal6000.Tandy.COM Tandy Systems Software UUCP: ...!killer!sys1!hal6000!iv 1300 Two Tandy Center or: ...!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!hal6000!iv Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817/390-2701; 9:30am-6:00pm CST ps. I'm sorry, ++Brandon, if this came off like a flame, but I am getting tired of this one. [This information was provided by an individual and is not nor should be construed as being provided by Radio Shack or Tandy Corporation. Radio Shack and/or Tandy Corporation have no obligation to support the information provided. Just because Tandy likes DOS doesn't mean that I do. I'm not sure they even know what a kernel is, anyway. This note will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, %s.]