rosen@tristar.samsung.com (MFHorn) (12/29/90)
In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: > In article <GHENNIGA.90Dec13005440@tesla.nmsu.edu> ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) writes: > >1. The number of applications available for DOS is overwhelming, a lot > >of which are Freeware and/or Shareware! > > Big deal. Most of them are primitive and not worth the disk space they take > up. They are mostly meant to work alone (rather than act as building blocks > for higher level tools, the way UNIX commands are used). GNU software is > free [...] > > >2. The ease with which a non-experienced user can learn DOS far > >outpaces the same user attempting to learn the sometimes cryptic UNIX. > > The ease of learning is not THAT much better (OK, DOS has TENS of commands, > rather than HUNDREDS, like UNIX. > > But then, when did anyone buy something simply because it was easier to learn > when they expected touse the thing every day of their lives? > > >3. And last but by no means least, from Computer Shopper (October): > > SCO Xenix 386 -- $469 > > MSDOS 4.01 ---- $109 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Just add the price of the C compiler ($328 in Computer Shopper) and SCO > looks more attractive ($469 vs. $438). Besides, with SCO Xenix I can > get X-Windows and a debugger for far less than C 6.00a and SDK. I think you're both forgetting the first question EVERY person that is considering buying a computer HAS to ask: What am I going to use it for? I don't any development on my PC. I play games, dial other computers and putz around with it (as a toy in it's own right). I know *I* haven't seen any Unix version of Railroad Tycoon, Leisure Suit Larry (1, 2 or 3), Pool of Radiance, SimCity, etc., etc. And Procomm Plus is far superior to any communications package I've seen for any version of Unix. And I know of at least 3 UUCP packages for DOS.. If all I had were Unix, I'd almost never use my PC. With DOS, I use it an average of 2 or 3 hours a day. I'm sure the reason most people still haven't upgraded to DOS 4.0{,1} is not JUST that 4.0 was buggy. [BTW, I've been using 4.01 for a year and haven't had a single problem.] > And > with X, I get the ability to use OTHER computers besides just my little 286 > based toy. How many people do you really know that have Ethernet LANs in their home?? Even for businesses, Novell is plenty sufficient for their purposes. Most people just don't _need_ the power and modularity of Unix on their P[ersonal] C[omputer]. Disclaimer: I hate DOS. I think it's as bad a joke as the Intel CPUs it runs on. But the games are great. -- Andy Rosen | rosen@samsung.com | "I got this guitar Samsung Software America | ...!uunet!samsung!rosen | and I learned how One Corporate Drive | (508) 685-7200 | to make it talk" Andover, MA 01810 | | -Thunder Road
craig@sa1.hgc.edu (craig chaiken) (12/31/90)
I have administered a number of Unix systems over the last several years. It is very clear that UNIX is a far more powerful operating system, but with power comes complexity. I am not referring to the more complex syntax, but to the more complex administration of UNIX. Consider the concept of a system shutdown, for example. A UNIX system cannot simply be shut off when not in use, it must be shutdown with a program; failure to do so will cause disk corruption. Consider the /dev directory. Accidentally deleting an important device file will result in an unrecoverable system. Consider the /etc/passwd file. Accidental corruption of this file will result in the inability to access the system. Consider file attributes. A small discrepancy in file attributes will result in subtle, hard to identify errors. My point is this: An operating system as powerful and complex as UNIX requires skilled administration. To put it simply, UNIX will never replace MSDOS as a general purpose operating system, because sophisticated users represent too small a percentage of the installed computer base. Craig Chaiken craig@mstr.hgc.edu
crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) (01/03/91)
In article <ROSEN.90Dec28144627@tristar.samsung.com>, rosen@tristar.samsung.com (MFHorn) writes: > In article <13523@milton.u.washington.edu> dittrich@milton.u.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich) writes: > > In article <GHENNIGA.90Dec13005440@tesla.nmsu.edu> ghenniga@nmsu.edu (Gary Hennigan) writes: > I think you're both forgetting the first question EVERY person that is > considering buying a computer HAS to ask: What am I going to use it > for? > > I don't any development on my PC. I play games, dial other computers > and putz around with it (as a toy in it's own right). I know *I* > haven't seen any Unix version of Railroad Tycoon, Leisure Suit Larry > (1, 2 or 3), Pool of Radiance, SimCity, etc., etc. And Procomm Plus > is far superior to any communications package I've seen for any > version of Unix. And I know of at least 3 UUCP packages for DOS.. [In the following, ?? is either PC or MS. There are other DOS's.] But I don't believe that this has anything to do with whether the PC runs ??-DOS or Unix. It has to do with the fact that there are so *many* PC's that people have written these program and marketed them to make a buck. I believe that if there were the same number of PC's but that they all used Unix rather than ??-DOS, the situation would be exactly the same. It is, of course, arguable that if they used Unix, there wouldn't be that many PC's but I don't necessarily believe that. As I said in a previous post, I believe that it is as easy or easier to learn a subset of Unix that will do everything you can do with ??-DOS as it is to learn ??-DOS. If that is true, there is no reason why (in a parallel universe? :) the situation could not have occurred that someone had marketed a PC running Unix and that it became as ubiquitous as the present PC's. > If all I had were Unix, I'd almost never use my PC. With DOS, I use > it an average of 2 or 3 hours a day. Is that because you dislike Unix or because you like the games and other software that you are able to buy for your PC? Those are really two separate issues. I agree with you that the availability of so much "shrink-wrap" software for PC's is what gives them their value for most users. Where I disagree is that ??-DOS has anything to do with it. ??-DOS, in this context, is a coincidence. Best, Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" crs@lanl.gov sorsby@pprg.unm.edu
crs@lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) (01/03/91)
In article <1990Dec30.205621.145@mstr.hgc.edu=>, craig@sa1.hgc.edu (craig chaiken) writes:
=> I have administered a number of Unix systems over the last several years.
=> It is very clear that UNIX is a far more powerful operating system, but
=> with power comes complexity. I am not referring to the more complex syntax,
=> but to the more complex administration of UNIX.
=>
=> [Deleted examples]
=>
=> My point is this: An operating system as powerful and complex as UNIX
=> requires
=> skilled administration. To put it simply, UNIX will never replace MSDOS as
=> a general purpose operating system, because sophisticated users represent
=> too small a percentage of the installed computer base.
=>
=> Craig Chaiken
=> craig@mstr.hgc.edu
Now these are reasons that make sense. To say that most people can
remember the meaning of, say, "dir" but not "ls" is an insult to
their intelligence. But, to say that administration of a
full-blown Unix system is beyond the capabilities of the average PC
user is easy to believe.
As a user, I'd never thought of that. Thanks, Craig. I do wish
that they'd made the user interface a lot more Unix-like, though.
Sigh...
Best,
Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
crs@lanl.gov
sorsby@pprg.unm.eduusenet@nlm.nih.gov (usenet news poster) (01/07/91)
Back when the IBM-PC came out, there were multiple operating systems for it. PC-DOS sold for $79. CP/M-86(and one other) sold for $395. The rest is history. I have know doubt in my mind that if SCO decided to sell SysV with DOS/Merge (or do they use VP/ix) for $99, that it would sell as well as Windows 3.0 (what is it, about 2 million and counting). Similarly, OS/2 for $99 would outsell DOS 5.0, but I'll never get the chance to see this predicion testedif I know IBM.
tth@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Terry Hudgins (NCNB -- sfw)) (03/23/91)
Thanks! Terry Hudgins tth@cs.unc.edu ueptth@unc.bitnet