jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) (02/07/88)
It seems that some people could not follow the train of thought
in my first posting ... here it is a little slower ...
The problem statement is basicly this:
We have sold in the US something between 15 and 20 million PC's
in the last few years.
Based on some off-the-cuff population estimates I guess the
US PC market installed base will stop about 20 million units.
For various reasons this number might be as much as 25 million
or slightly more ... I was hoping someone could make a sound
case for a larger market size.
At the current sales rate of about a million PC's per month it
is simply a matter of months before new sales slow down.
Another way to view the problem is:
The replacement market equilibrium level for PC's is the
market size divided by the useful life of the product.
If we assume the US market size is about 20 million units for
PC's, then the US market equilibium level is about 5 million units
per year with a 4 year useful life.
If we accept this market size of 20 million units, then shipments
MUST fall from the current level of 10 million to 15 million
PC's per year (50% decrease or more in unit volume, much larger
decrease in $$$ volume).
In both cases we are talking major crash ... 50% or more ... not just
some major slowdown due to the general economy.
If some bright person out there has a convincing argument that more than
doubles the estimated market size I would like to hear it.
For you visual folks, here is a simple picture:
# first time buyer sales
* replacement sales (3-5 yr delay of first time curve decaying to equilibrium)
= market equilibrium level (market size divided by replacement interval)
(not to scale)
Volume
^
|
|
| #
|
|
| # #
|
| #
| * *
| # * * *
|=============#=====#==============*==#==============*=
| # # * * * #
-----#--#--*--*--*--*--*--*-----------------#--#--#--#-> TIME
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
The date line is my rough guess based on off-the-cuff estimates of
shipments and market sizes.
Because of the sharp increase in sales during '86 and '87 it doesn't really
matter if my market size estimate is off by a factor of two -- we are
shipping that many units a year. Thus the estimate of the crash date has
about a 1 year window summer 88 to summer 89.
Because of the sharp increase in sales during '86 and '87 most of the
installed base will be less than 4 years old if the crash occurs in
the next year. Thus relatively few replacement purchases will be made in
1988 and 1989.
I got a lot of hate mail on the first posting, little of which addressed the
issue properly ... most people just tried to delare that the crash could not
happen because they did want it to ... best of luck to them ...
As for the wise cracks about posting from an educational site,
I recieved my BS in Computer Science from here a number of years
ago and I've been taking a few classes reciently for the fun of it.
I have been working in the industry for 15 years, working with UNIX
since 1975, and did UNIX systems work in the industry at SRI International('76),
ONYX('80) as a startup, and Fortune Systems('81) as a startup. Since 1984 I have
consulted for a living with the DBA: DMS Design.
The early UNIX record locking code started here at CalPoly as a
semaphore/memory manager in the Lundy Display V6 UNIX driver, became
locking at ONYX with a rewrite, and lockf during the /usr/group standards
effort. My office system (dmsd) lost its disk during Dec, and not everything
worked after reconfiguring the system and upgrading to latest releases of
things ... postnews still doesn't work right.
As for the less than interesting quotes on rose colored market projections
consider two things ...
1) the crash in 1982 took the analysts/industry COMPLETELY off guard.
(no one did accurate market size projections - myself included!!)
and
2) Companies only buy analyst reports that project a rose colored
view of the industry for their prospective investors and bankers.
(doom and gloom doesn't sell well -- how do you present it in a
POSITIVE way to banking, marketing and sales types??)
plan ahead with open eyes ....
Have Fun ...
John L. Bass
DMS Design
(805)541-1575
Email polyslo!dmsd!bass
The above is copyright 1988 by John L. Bass, and may be distributed freely
without any change or modification provided this notice is included in
all copies.campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (02/08/88)
I watched the previous round of drivel on this topic silently. This time,
I can't stand it. There are two MAJOR misconceptions here:
1) "The PC industry" is *NOT* synonymous with "the computer industry".
2) You completely ignore upgrades. Example: every company big enough
to need a mainframe probably had one by 1965. Did the mainframe
business die in 1965? Hardly. It's still probably, what, a
$50 billion a year industry, and going strong (despite all the
smug predictions of extinction by the PC geeks five or six
years ago).
People will continue to buy PCs because the old ones get obsolete. This
continues to be forced by two functions:
1) The manufacturers will cease to support them. No sane businessperson
will build their business on hardware that can't be repaired, quickly
and relatively cheaply.
2) Software marches on, and the old hardware is too small and slow to
run the new software. Try running OS/2, or Windows, or Microport
System V with DOS Merge, on an 8088-based machine.
Now, it's true that we probably have seen the end of the boom years of the PC
industry, and it's a good thing, too. The dizzying growth and pell-mell
embracing of PC technology has permitted far too many shabby products and
shady companies to succeed in the short term. When the market slows down,
the marginal players should, and will, fail, leaving only the quality outfits.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (02/08/88)
In article <1177@polyslo.UUCP> jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) writes: >The problem statement is basicly this: > We have sold in the US something between 15 and 20 million PC's > in the last few years. > Based on some off-the-cuff population estimates I guess the > US PC market installed base will stop about 20 million units. You have still failed to back up your "off-the-cuff estimates. Given that your original posting assumed 200 million Americans when in fact the figure, as I pointed out before, is 240 million, I am hardly willing to believe your back-of-the-envelope numbers unless you explain what they are -- in *detail*. >Another way to view the problem is: > The replacement market equilibrium level for PC's is the > market size divided by the useful life of the product. > If we assume the US market size is about 20 million units for > PC's, then the US market equilibium level is about 5 million units > per year with a 4 year useful life. > If we accept this market size of 20 million units, then shipments > MUST fall from the current level of 10 million to 15 million > PC's per year (50% decrease or more in unit volume, much larger > decrease in $$$ volume). Ok, let's make some small changes in your numbers (within the error range for your numbers? I dunno, don't know anything about your numbers!) So assume a 25 million unit market, 3 year useful life, and current shipment of .8 million units/month current shipping, then we are talking about a drop from (.8 M/mon * 12 mon) 9.6 million units/year now to a replacement market alone of (25M/3) 8.3 million, a decline of only 13.5%. Surely there will be SOME market for first time buyers. I seriously doubt that the roughly 110 million households in the US all have computers; some will not want them, but who's to say? My personal experiences indicate even lower income households purchase VCRs for example. What's to say PCs won't suddenly interest them this way? The more powerful the machines become the more markets they open up. Who'd of thought of the publishing market for PCs when Apple II's and TRS-80 model I's were the state of the art in micros, for example? And this clearly ignores the business markets -- new businesses start, old businesses find new uses for PCs. ># first time buyer sales >* replacement sales (3-5 yr delay of first time curve decaying to equilibrium) >= market equilibrium level (market size divided by replacement interval) > Volume > ^ > | # > | > | > | # # > | > | # > | * * > | # * * * > |=============#=====#==============*==#==============*= > | # # * * * # > -----#--#--*--*--*--*--*--*-----------------#--#--#--#-> TIME > 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 I have several problems with this graph... (a) it lacks units on the Y axis; (b) it lacks sources for the data; (c) are you trying to say that "#" (number new sales) will be ***0*** by 1991??? > 1) the crash in 1982 took the analysts/industry COMPLETELY off guard. > (no one did accurate market size projections - myself included!!) So why are your numbers suddenly more accurate this time??? > 2) Companies only buy analyst reports that project a rose colored > view of the industry for their prospective investors and bankers. Any well run company is not going to want rose-colored projections. Maybe the companies you've worked with have only wanted the good news, but only a fool would plan this way; and a company with billion$ in sales such as IBM is not run by fools. We may disagree with them, but they aren't stupid. In general, I think you lack sufficient data to make so bold a claim. While I am no marketing whiz, my understanding of demand curves is that they tend to slowly reach a peak, then decline slowly, except with fads, which peak and decline rapidly. I seriously doubt PCs are fads. You are also ignoring the effect a drop in unit price has on demand. Your market of "20 million" may grow to "30 million" if the price for the same functionality drops 25% (hypothetical numbers). Your figures ignore this. Again, I ask -- no, challenge! -- you to document your data and the algorithms used in arriving at your figures. If you want anyone to believe you then you must justify your assertions. Otherwise why bother to post at all? Just for attention? I suspect you're ignoring many factors, but I won't even listen to your claims until you give me some reason to. -- Andrew Burt isis!aburt Fight Denver's pollution: Don't Breathe and Drive.
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/08/88)
In article <1177@polyslo.UUCP> jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) writes: > >It seems that some people could not follow the train of thought >in my first posting ... here it is a little slower ... Most of the reply postings I saw seemed to follow your train of thought perfectly well - they just didn't agree with you. You now seem to be on your own dead-end line :-) > We have sold in the US something between 15 and 20 million PC's > in the last few years. True. > Based on some off-the-cuff population estimates I guess the > US PC market installed base will stop about 20 million units. Untrue. I have worked in offices where the PC to personnel ratio was greater than one. I have worked in offices where everyone had their own PCs in the office, and most had them at home. I know many people who own several PCs. Your estimate is NOT based on fact, but on suppositions, which I believe to be wrong. > If we accept this market size of 20 million units But I do not, in any way, accept your market size offhand. You don't provide any data on how you arrived at this figure, and without that I can't comment on its accuracy. My feeling is that it is demonstrably low - if we are approaching saturation, why is it that so many people who don't have PCs are buying them now (I have at least 10 friends in the PC market as I write this), and why is it that so many small businesses are just now beginning to use them (due to plummeting prices), along with other groups who, up until very recently, could not afford them? Until you offer some rational reason why this should be so, and still support your theory that the market is approaching saturation, I reserve the right to believe that your theory holds little water. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (02/09/88)
Since you did not hear the counterarguments, I shall repeat them, slowly...
1. Your argument rests on a number of unjustifiable assumptions.
1. The useful life of a PC is 4 years.
2. The total number of PCs needed is 20 million.
3. Each user needs at most 1 PC.
4. The market is limited to domestic users.
5. Demand for PCs is based totally on the existing uses of PCs.
6. Domestic manufacturers are most vulnerable to a decline in the
market size.
7. Computer makers only make IBM PC compatible computers for home and
office use.
I could write ten thousand words on each of these cases. I will restrain
myself. Nevertheless...
In my experience, both at work and at home, the useful life of a
computer has been less than three years. Computers die of old age or use in
5-10 years. They become obsolete much faster and replacing them is more
economical than expanding them. As the basic technology improves, the rate
of o0bsolescence will stretch out, but I don't think this issue is being
addressed.
As to total numbers, I have a PC at home, and one at work. At work, video
terminals are being replaced by workstations. At home, my wife and I
have begun to compete for computer time. I think demand has not levelled
off yet. This is just my opinion, but I am not making a public prediction of
gloom and doom. I think the claim that 20 million is the total size of the
market forever amen needs more than a back-of-the-napkin justification.
I also think that measuring the market base based solely on today's uses of
computers is a serious mistake. If we'd done that five years ago, would we
have gotten a market size of 20 million units? Seems unlikely. New
technology enables new uses. We don't know the impact of such emerging
technologies as very high capacity disk storage, smart data cards, and parallel
processing on computer use.
The analysis seems reasonable, but only if the assumptions are correct. I
think this is the point where you part company with everybody else. Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com (02/09/88)
In <1052@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) says: > [stuff deleted] > > 2) You completely ignore upgrades. Example: every company big enough > to need a mainframe probably had one by 1965. Did the mainframe > business die in 1965? Hardly. It's still probably, what, a > $50 billion a year industry, and going strong (despite all the > smug predictions of extinction by the PC geeks five or six > years ago). > Excuse me. I assume you did not read Mr. Bass' posting at all. Your first attempt at making a point (ignores upgrades) pretty much set the tone for your somewhat babbling discourse. The issue of upgrades was discussed in both of Mr. Bass' postings, and to some depth in the most recent. Again I assume you missed this 1/4 of the article. >People will continue to buy PCs because the old ones get obsolete. This >continues to be forced by two functions: > > 1) The manufacturers will cease to support them. No sane businessperson > will build their business on hardware that can't be repaired, quickly > and relatively cheaply. See the part of the article you missed for one point of view on the number of upgrades a company might purchase. > 2) Software marches on, and the old hardware is too small and slow to > run the new software. Try running OS/2, or Windows, or Microport > System V with DOS Merge, on an 8088-based machine. This is a kinda gray area. Does a secretary really need to multi-task and search for all occurences of the word 'the' in 58uSec? If I was paying out of my budget I'd probably say no. The attitude a manager has on this question may largely determine the number of upgrades that are purchased. >Now, it's true that we probably have seen the end of the boom years of the PC >industry, and it's a good thing, too. The dizzying growth and pell-mell >embracing of PC technology has permitted far too many shabby products and Wasn't this what he was trying to say all along? That the PC industry is headed for bad times? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick_Kitts@cup.portal.com I don't have a cute saying down here. ...ihnp4!ptsfa!well!rkitts
fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov) (02/09/88)
In article <2197@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >In article <1177@polyslo.UUCP> jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) writes: >>The problem statement is basicly this: > >> We have sold in the US something between 15 and 20 million PC's >> in the last few years. > >> Based on some off-the-cuff population estimates I guess the >> US PC market installed base will stop about 20 million units. > >You have still failed to back up your "off-the-cuff estimates. Given that >your original posting assumed 200 million Americans when in fact the figure, >as I pointed out before, is 240 million, I am hardly willing to believe your >back-of-the-envelope numbers unless you explain what they are -- in *detail*. > >>Another way to view the problem is: > >> The replacement market equilibrium level for PC's is the >> market size divided by the useful life of the product. > >> If we assume the US market size is about 20 million units for >> PC's, then the US market equilibium level is about 5 million units >> per year with a 4 year useful life. > >> If we accept this market size of 20 million units, then shipments >> MUST fall from the current level of 10 million to 15 million >> PC's per year (50% decrease or more in unit volume, much larger >> decrease in $$$ volume). > >Ok, let's make some small changes in your numbers (within the error range >for your numbers? I dunno, don't know anything about your numbers!) > >So assume a 25 million unit market, 3 year useful life, and current >shipment of .8 million units/month current shipping, then we are talking about >a drop from (.8 M/mon * 12 mon) 9.6 million units/year now to a replacement >market alone of (25M/3) 8.3 million, a decline of only 13.5%. Surely there >will be SOME market for first time buyers. I seriously doubt that the >roughly 110 million households in the US all have computers; some will not >want them, but who's to say? My personal experiences indicate even lower >income households purchase VCRs for example. What's to say PCs won't suddenly >interest them this way? The more powerful the machines become the more >markets they open up. Who'd of thought of the publishing market for PCs >when Apple II's and TRS-80 model I's were the state of the art in micros, >for example? And this clearly ignores the business markets -- new businesses >start, old businesses find new uses for PCs. I see the computer industry as being somewhat analogous to the the automobile industry. A low end-car goes for about as much as a high-end PC (like the Mac II or IBM PS/2 Model 80). Here is a market whose products are much more expensive than what a PC goes for, yet continues to sell very well. Why? Well one reason seems to be that our lives and lifestyles depend heavily on the use of a car. How many cars/trucks/busses are out there in the US? 200 million? 300? More? And what's the typical lifespan of a car? 5 years? 6 years? More? The computer industry is starting to become like the auto industry. Our lives are becoming more and more dependant upon those little slabs of silicon. We use them to get money out of a machine, make flight reservations, generate payroll, control your car's ignition/fuel-injection/etc, keep your house warm/cold, write a paper for a class, do your calculus homework and so and so on. The auto industry does not have just one consumer market, it has many of them. It sells not only to your average american (like me and you and the family next door) but also to corporations (bussiness), universities (education), moving companies, etc. Similarly, the computer industry does not just cater to the bussiness end of the market. There is a huge amount of money to made by selling to universities, both in terms of PC's and higher-end system. The home market is still out there. And as computers become more and more prevalent in society the market will continue to expand. If you look at the number of people who are entering college with a computer (or graduating with one in hand) you'll see that the educational market is a rather huge and potentially lucrative one. Just as most of us can't live without the car, others are discovering just what the computer can do for them and are becoming dependant upon it to do those tasks. I don't buy the line that the useful market for PC's is only 20 or so million. Which market? Bussiness? Technical? Home? Educational? Which one? I find it quite hard to believe that the total market for PC's is only 20 million units. There is more than just the bussiness market out there. PC's are inching their way into some very interesting areas, like the television industry. There are some products out for the Mac II that allow you to do some very intersting stuff. I tend to agree with John up there. The market is out there and there is more to the PC industry than just the bussiness market. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | David Vangerov | | Just your average Theater Arts major with a weird thing for computers | | fiatlux@ucscc.BITNET || fiatlux@ucscc.ucsc.EDU || ...!ucbvax!ucscc!fiatlux | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov) (02/09/88)
In article <1902@saturn.ucsc.edu> I wrote: >In article <2197@isis.UUCP> aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) writes: >>In article <1177@polyslo.UUCP> jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) writes: [...] >I tend to agree with John up there. The market is out there and >there is more to the PC industry than just the bussiness market. I meant to say that I agree with Andrew who is saying that the market for PC's (Mac's, IBM's, whatnots...) is a lot more 20 million or so units. I might point out that a lot of bussinesses are realizing that you can turn a 286 or 386 box into a very nice mini system with little cost in relation to what a mini system from DEC or Sun might cost. Just slap in some more memory, add a large disk, get a few ports for terminal lines and get Xenix for it and you're off and running for a lot less than what DEC or Sun charges. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | David Vangerov | | Just your average Theater Arts major with a weird thing for computers | | fiatlux@ucscc.BITNET || fiatlux@ucscc.ucsc.EDU || ...!ucbvax!ucscc!fiatlux | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jinfu@cup.portal.com (02/09/88)
Since you are so confident on your computer industry crash, why don't you do the same with say, TV set, dishwasher, refrigerator, and other home appliances? Jinfu Chen jinfu@cup.portal.com
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (02/12/88)
=Since you are so confident on your computer industry crash, why =don't you do the same with say, TV set, dishwasher, refrigerator, =and other home appliances? You're right. List your five favorite American companies making TV's, and making dishwashers continues to push Maytag to record profits. Just because making TV sets dishwashers and refrigerators aren't huge growth industries doesn't mean computers won't be. Huge numbers of people buy their PC's for one reason to run 1-2-3. Lots of peoples computers are used less than thirty minutes a day and are on some executives desk. These people are not going to by a more expensive machine simply to upgrade to new operating systems or faster chips.
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (02/13/88)
From article <1903@saturn.ucsc.edu>, by fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov): + ... + I might point out that a lot of bussinesses are realizing that + you can turn a 286 or 386 box into a very nice mini system with + little cost in relation to what a mini system from DEC or Sun + might cost. Just slap in some more memory, add a large disk, get + a few ports for terminal lines and get Xenix for it and you're + off and running for a lot less than what DEC or Sun charges. A "lot less"? It would be interesting if you would post the details of the cost comparison you made. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (02/13/88)
In article <3050@cup.portal.com> Rick_R_Kitts@cup.portal.com writes: >In <1052@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) says: >> 2) Software marches on, and the old hardware is too small and slow to >> run the new software. Try running OS/2, or Windows, or Microport >> System V with DOS Merge, on an 8088-based machine. > > This is a kinda gray area. Does a secretary really need to multi-task and > search for all occurences of the word 'the' in 58uSec? If I was paying out > of my budget I'd probably say no. The attitude a manager has on this question > may largely determine the number of upgrades that are purchased. There's an incredible amount of *customer* excitement being focused on being able to do DOS multitasking (Microport w/DOSmerge or 386/IX w/VPIX). Most offices started out small where sharing data wasn't particularly important, so they "grew into" a couple of disconnected PC's. Networked by floppy disk if at all. These applications are becoming BIG. And the offices are often stuck with a particular set of programs. And, they want to add a few more secretaries, data entry, and the manager is starting to want integrated statistics .... So, all of these sites are realizing that not only do they have to expand their total computing power, but they have to get their current systems to talk to each other and add more "users" to the whole shebang. Well, you could add PC's, AT's etc. at 3-5K per user with difficult to administer and occasionally flakey LANS, or expand by UNIX + DOS emulation multi-user systems at $500 to $1000 per "seat". Performance and functionality expectations continue to grow. No matter what. So, there will continue to be new generations of software and hardware. It wasn't so long ago that "universal wisdom" suggested that only one computer (with roughly 386 or 68020 performance if I recall) would be needed to provide all of the compute requirements of North America. We all know how wrong that prediction was... (sorry, no reference) My grandfather used to contract CPU time off a machine in New York at $100-$200 per CPU minute, (around 20 minutes of CPU per year) and the performance of that machine was roughly one one-hundredth of a IBM PC.... Thing was made out of vacuum tubes and had a machine cycle of around 300-500 microseconds (2-3 KIPS!). -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (02/16/88)
In article <1568@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <1903@saturn.ucsc.edu>, by fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov): >+ ... >+ I might point out that a lot of bussinesses are realizing that >+ you can turn a 286 or 386 box into a very nice mini system with >+ little cost in relation to what a mini system from DEC or Sun >+ might cost. >A "lot less"? It would be interesting if you would post the details >of the cost comparison you made. This brings up an interesting point that most people miss. The cost of an 80386 machine is very comparable to the cost of a similarly configured Sun 3/50. Performance wise they're pretty close, too, but in terms of software reliability the Sun UNIX is somewhat better than Xenix or Microport. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/16/88)
in article <1568@uhccux.UUCP>, lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) says: > From article <1903@saturn.ucsc.edu>, by fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov): > + I might point out that a lot of bussinesses are realizing that > + you can turn a 286 or 386 box into a very nice mini system with > + little cost in relation to what a mini system from DEC or Sun > + might cost. Just slap in some more memory, add a large disk, get > + a few ports for terminal lines and get Xenix for it and you're > + off and running for a lot less than what DEC or Sun charges. > A "lot less"? It would be interesting if you would post the details > of the cost comparison you made. Well, I did a similiar cost comparison some time ago. A decent Sun or DEC system, with Unix, came out at about $12,000 for a usable system. A 286 clone with 4 serial ports & Microport Sys V would have come out at about $3500 at the same time. Current 386 prices are running about $1500 more than 286 prices, so add it up... around $5,000 for a quite reasonable Unix system. Of course it doesn't have the graphics of a Sun, or the support of a MicroVAX. But for CPU-oriented stuff, it's about the same speed (i/o suffers because of the slow IBM i/o bus). Handles about the same number of users, too. Quite reasonable, for, say, a small business that needs 3 or 4 terminals right now but someday hopes to become a BIG business (in which case their software and databases can be moved to larger machines that run Unix). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (02/18/88)
In article <19908@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >In article <1568@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: >>From article <1903@saturn.ucsc.edu>, by fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov): >>+ ... >>+ I might point out that a lot of bussinesses are realizing that >>+ you can turn a 286 or 386 box into a very nice mini system with >>+ little cost in relation to what a mini system from DEC or Sun >>+ might cost. >>A "lot less"? It would be interesting if you would post the details >>of the cost comparison you made. >This brings up an interesting point that most people miss. The cost >of an 80386 machine is very comparable to the cost of a similarly >configured Sun 3/50. Performance wise they're pretty close, too, but >in terms of software reliability the Sun UNIX is somewhat better than >Xenix or Microport. Software reliability > Xenix/386? This would be difficult... Since receiving our copy of Xenix/386, I have not had a single crash or other anomoly that could not be directly traced to hardware (we had a bad memory board, that doesn't count). We've been running it full-bore now for about 3 months (Xenix V/386). As for compiler compatibility/reliability, well, I tell the software that I'm a VAX and that we run System V and 95% of the time it works first shot. All the useful utilities and tools from the net (ie: ELM 1.7, uemacs, Jove, pathalias, etc) worked right out of the kit. As to cost, we can sell a Tele-386 w/4M RAM, 72M (formatted) drive and Xenix (complete system) for under $7k (about $8100 if you want 8 ports of intelligent serial I/O with that). That system will easily accommodate 2-4 users, more if you spend for the intelligent I/O board. It also expands reasonably well, up to 200-300 M of disk and 16 users (although it's gonna be slow with 16 people on it!). What's a Sun 3/50 cost (at the end-user level, not through some dealer program or via a university)? ----- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
terry@wsccs.UUCP (terry) (02/28/88)
In article <735@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <19908@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: > >This brings up an interesting point that most people miss. The cost > >of an 80386 machine is very comparable to the cost of a similarly > >configured Sun 3/50. Performance wise they're pretty close, too, but > >in terms of software reliability the Sun UNIX is somewhat better than > >Xenix or Microport. > > Software reliability > Xenix/386? > > This would be difficult... Since receiving our copy of Xenix/386, I have not > had a single crash or other anomoly that could not be directly traced to > hardware (we had a bad memory board, that doesn't count). We've been > running it full-bore now for about 3 months (Xenix V/386). You have Xenix/386? While the tty drivers are better (the console driver is *MUCH* better) than comparable "standard" systems, do _not_ argue about software reliability in my presence. All systems have bugs. Try typing vi -x on an SCO system sometime. I've told a number of people in their tech support about it and they were very prompt in ignoring me. If you have a 386 system with a "smart" card, then you may have had some experience with their "provisional" 286 release for 386 users. If you updated from 2.1.3 to 2.2.x, you may have noticed that the size of the clist structs went from 32 to 24. You may also have noticed your "smart" board blowing chunks all over /dev/kmem as a result of nobody being told (DMA boards tend to do DMS in fixed sizes... one might even hazard to say sizeof(struct clist). > As for compiler compatibility/reliability, well, I tell the software that > I'm a VAX and that we run System V and 95% of the time it works first shot. > All the useful utilities and tools from the net (ie: ELM 1.7, uemacs, Jove, > pathalias, etc) worked right out of the kit. [ A commercial for 386 boxes from Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. deleted] And it doesn't do serial I/O the same and unless you dump you buffer to one char, it blocks normal raw I/O differently and it handles the init process "funny" when it comes to device permissions. As for Jove (Johnathan's Own Version of Emacs), if I'm not mistaken, it has a #define for Xenix. Bad example, guy, unless you are running old code, in which case it's a worse example. Xenix is based on System III, not V. Yes, Paul, I know we argued this at Uniform, but tell me, why then does it use /etc/ttys? It may meet SVID, but it isn't SysV.3 derived. I am not flaming SCO; the point is that all systems have problems. and that one is not intrinsicly better than another because of "less bugs" ...as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "less bugs". I think Jim's point was simply to point out that alternatives are available and to plug his favorite machine. I know I plug mine whenever I can, simply because it is easier to manage techinal support if everyone is running my machine :-). Lord knows that Jim's report came about as a result of someone plugging SCO... I personally plug SCO. | Terry Lambert UUCP: ...!decvax!utah-cs!century!terry | | @ Century Software or : ...utah-cs!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry | | SLC, Utah | | These opinions are not my companies, but if you find them | | useful, send a $20.00 donation to Brisbane Australia... | | 'There are monkey boys in the facility. Do not be alarmed; you are secure' |
greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (03/08/88)
In article <3052@cup.portal.com> Jinfu@cup.portal.com writes: >Since you [Mr. Bass] are so confident on your computer industry crash, why >don't you do the same with say, TV set, dishwasher, refrigerator, >and other home appliances? > > >Jinfu Chen >jinfu@cup.portal.com The market for TV's, dishwashers, etc is already saturated. A more applicable comparison is to VCR's. Five years ago (whenever) there were pratically no consumer VCR's. Today roughly 50% of all households have them (ref: some consumer article in our local news rag a few months ago). The market for VCR's is flattening out. Manufacturers have adapted by cutting the price in hopes of stimulating demand (how much has a VCR gone up in price in comparison to a Toyota?), or by giving up completely (i.e. Sony dropping Beta as a consumer tape deck). Sound familiar? There will always be *some* demand in a static market. It is left as an exercise for the marketing people to figure what that demand will be. (The one with the crystal ball is the one who will make a fortune!) -- Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8. (613) 725-5411. "Those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by trucks coming from both directions." Evelyn C. Leeper.
ronc@cerebus.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (03/23/88)
In article <491@xios.XIOS.UUCP> greg@sdn.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes: >The market for TV's, dishwashers, etc is already saturated. A more >applicable comparison is to VCR's. Five years ago (whenever) there were >pratically no consumer VCR's. Today roughly 50% of all households have >them (ref: some consumer article in our local news rag a few months >ago). The market for VCR's is flattening out. Manufacturers have >adapted by cutting the price in hopes of stimulating demand (how much >has a VCR gone up in price in comparison to a Toyota?), or by giving up >completely (i.e. Sony dropping Beta as a consumer tape deck). Sound >familiar? Indeed it does, but one small correction: Sony has not dropped Beta. See the latest issue of Video Review. Sony has just released a new Beta deck that beats the pants off anything else in consumer video. It appears that they are hedging their VCR bets by defining a new marketplace -- pro-sumer, the consumer that wants professional results. There's a new business opening up in video -- small shops that do small scale video productions, from taped want-ads to rock videos. These shops often can't afford the true professional equipment, (MII, U-Matic, Betacam) but must nevertheless produce close-to-professional quality. Hence the pro-sumer marketplace. Note that this marketplace is not concerned about renting movies at 7-11. :-) Perhaps the computer business could recover some sales by searching for new marketplaces, like IBM using their PS/2 as an intellegent SNA terminal. (With the proper adaptor board and software.) Putting a computer on people's desk isn't enough anymore. After they've played with the spreadsheet a few months, it becomes just another expensive paperweight. "What's it *for*?" The Mac, Amiga, IBM PC and Atari have all been tied in to the MIDI music interface. This is a good start. In my opinion, new things like the X-Windows standard will put more PC's to work on people's desks. (Too bad the graphics capability in most of them is so lousy.) The PC market *could* collapse, but it doesn't *have* to. Ron -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) amdahl!cerebus!ronc "Down, boy" "Woof"