On 11/07/2023 19:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>>> what you do with it.
>>>
>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>>> is a non starter.
>>>
>>
>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>> a reasonable choice,
>
> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
> compared with SMB.
>

Yes, unless the clients were Windows machines - which was the case for
virtually all workplace computers at the time.

Technical superiority is rarely the major deciding factor in such matters.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 11/07/2023 19:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>>>> what you do with it.
>>>>
>>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>>>> is a non starter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>>> a reasonable choice,
>>
>> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
>> compared with SMB.

There were third party NFS clients available for windows. Many
were using netware until it became nonviable on windows. Services
for Unix (SFU) also included an NFS client IIRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 11/07/2023 19:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>>>>> what you do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>>>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>>>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>>>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>>>>> is a non starter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>>>> a reasonable choice,
>>>
>>> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
>>> compared with SMB.
>
> There were third party NFS clients available for windows. Many
> were using netware until it became nonviable on windows. Services
> for Unix (SFU) also included an NFS client IIRC.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

I know you are very experienced in some areas, but I suspect you are
quite unfamiliar with how IT was (and is) handled in most companies
where people don't need high-end workstations, top-notch security,
compute farms, five nine's uptimes, etc. Good enough is good enough -
anything beyond that is a waste of money. Why would a small company (we
were perhaps a dozen people at that time) want to spend significantly
more money than their entire collection of client PCs in order to buy a
Unix system as a server, then buy third-party add-ons (which would
mostly not have worked on the diverse range of PC's and systems we had),
just because NFS is "far superior" ? The NT file server worked
flawlessly, did the job without needing to change client PCs or
software, and cost little. /Nothing/ is better than working flawlessly
- the best a Unix monster could hope to achieve would have been "just as
good".

And that logic applied to almost all small and medium businesses.

Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
outside a small proportion of niche uses. Those use-cases have always
been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.

On 7/11/2023 12:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 11/07/2023 19:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable
>>>>>>>> until W2K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid.  Once the
>>>>>>> Win9x
>>>>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all
>>>>>>> depends on
>>>>>>> what you do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what
>>>>>> you do with
>>>>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application
>>>>>> at a time.
>>>>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you
>>>>>> wanted to
>>>>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a
>>>>>> file server
>>>>>> is a non starter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4
>>>>> server was
>>>>> a reasonable choice,
>>>>
>>>> So was unix and later Linux with NFS.   A far superior protocol
>>>> compared with SMB.
>>
>> There were third party NFS clients available for windows.   Many
>> were using netware until it became nonviable on windows.  Services
>> for Unix (SFU) also included an NFS client IIRC.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
>
> I know you are very experienced in some areas, but I suspect you are
> quite unfamiliar with how IT was (and is) handled in most companies
> where people don't need high-end workstations, top-notch security,
> compute farms, five nine's uptimes, etc.  Good enough is good enough -
> anything beyond that is a waste of money.  Why would a small company (we
> were perhaps a dozen people at that time) want to spend significantly
> more money than their entire collection of client PCs in order to buy a
> Unix system as a server, then buy third-party add-ons (which would
> mostly not have worked on the diverse range of PC's and systems we had),
> just because NFS is "far superior" ?  The NT file server worked
> flawlessly, did the job without needing to change client PCs or
> software, and cost little.  /Nothing/ is better than working flawlessly
> - the best a Unix monster could hope to achieve would have been "just as
> good".
>
> And that logic applied to almost all small and medium businesses.
>
> Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
> became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
> outside a small proportion of niche uses.  Those use-cases have always
> been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.
>
>
>

Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some silicon
graphics workstations to create the game Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was
tens of thousands per machine.

Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some
> silicon graphics workstations to create the game
> Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was tens of thousands per machine.

Commercial UNIX workstations were not cheap, that is
quite true.

A friend of mine, a real UNIX freak once told me that some
company wanted to get rid of their big SGI machine. It
had become obsolete, but was in full working order. They
said he could have it for free, but it was his responsibility
to move it away. I was asked to help with the moving operation.

I am pretty sure that the computer was SGI Onyx2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_Onyx2

This thing is absolutely huge and must have cost a
fortune back in the day!

The machine we saw was fully loaded with all
the goods. We worked our asses off for many hours,
but the machine was simply too big. We could not get
it out, no matter how hard we tried. We got it
moving all right, but it was too tall.

I suppose he got it out later with more friends.

SGI Onyx2 runs IRIX.

br,
KK

Op 11.jul..2023 om 19:04 schreef Scott Lurndal:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>>> what you do with it.
>>>
>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>>> is a non starter.
>>>
>>
>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>> a reasonable choice,
>
> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
> compared with SMB.
>

Superior in terms of performance, but in terms of authentication SMB was
far superior. Kerberos authentication was added to NFS much later.

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/11/2023 12:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:

<valid points from David, pointing out that my experiences have
generally been more towards the data center than SMB>

>>
>> Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
>> became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
>> outside a small proportion of niche uses.  Those use-cases have always
>> been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some silicon
>graphics workstations to create the game Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was
>tens of thousands per machine.

There wasn't anything else at the time. It wasn't until later when
PC graphics became competitive (circa 2000). I had a dual R10k Octane
on (well, under) my desk at SGI - sweet box, to be sure, but not cheap.

"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
>Op 11.jul..2023 om 19:04 schreef Scott Lurndal:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>>>> what you do with it.
>>>>
>>>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>>>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>>>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>>>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>>>> is a non starter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>>> a reasonable choice,
>>
>> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
>> compared with SMB.
>>
>
>Superior in terms of performance, but in terms of authentication SMB was
>far superior.

Seriously? It was one of the most insecure protocols around.

>Kerberos authentication was added to NFS much later.

YP (later NIS after AT&T sued), was perfectly suitable and far easier
to manage centrally than what became AD.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 8:04:49 PM UTC+3, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >On 11/07/2023 17:43, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> >>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
> >>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
> >>> what you do with it.
> >>
> >> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
> >> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
> >> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
> >> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
> >> is a non starter.
> >>
> >
> >Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
> >a reasonable choice,
> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol
> compared with SMB.

I never looked into details of NFS, but I heard sort of horror stories about it
that SMB user can't dream of in his worst nightmares.
Like mistake in the server or, may be, even particularly unfortunate combination
of mistakes on the network brings client to a halt state and the only escape
is reboot of the client.

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 8:04:49=E2=80=AFPM UTC+3, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:=20
>> >On 11/07/2023 17:43, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:=20
>> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200=20
>> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:=20
>> >>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:=20
>> >>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable unt=
>il W2K.=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9=
>x=20
>> >>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends=
> on=20
>> >>> what you do with it.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do=
> with=20
>> >> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a=
> time.=20
>> >> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you want=
>ed to=20
>> >> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file se=
>rver=20
>> >> is a non starter.=20
>> >>=20
>> >=20
>> >Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was=
>=20
>> >a reasonable choice,
>> So was unix and later Linux with NFS. A far superior protocol=20
>> compared with SMB.
>
>I never looked into details of NFS, but I heard sort of horror stories abo=
>ut it

"heard". 'nuf said.

EDA environments almost exclusively use NIS and NFS, even today. Netapp
provides very reliable NFS servers.

> the only escape is reboot of the client.

There were some poor implementations of NFS clients (many designed to
run on Windows) which may have required rebooting clients. I've never
had that experience since RFS (the AT&T Unix remote file system later
replaced with Sun's NFS). Diskless workstations, of course, will hang
if the server stops servicing NFS requests. That's true for any network
filesystem serving a diskless client.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 18:28:47 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am 11.07.2023 um 17:50 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:52:39 +0200
>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
>>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>>>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>>>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>>>>
>>>> And again in english?
>>>
>>> You say things you don't know but that you feel.
>>>
>>
>> Why is it you think anyone whose experiences in IT don't match your own is
>> either lying or an idiot?
>
>I bet my right hand that you never had any experience with VMS.

A small amount. Are you claiming NT4 was as reliable as VMS because if you
are you're full of shit. As usual.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 18:29:59 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 11/07/2023 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:52:09 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2023 17:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Hardly a recommendation. Windows didn't become close to reliable until W2K.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> W2K was also good, but I did find NT4.0sp3 quite solid. Once the Win9x
>>> line died out, Windows stability became a lot better - it all depends on
>>> what you do with it.
>>
>> A server OS marketed to business shouldn't crash no matter what you do with
>> it, end of. It should also cope with much more than 1 application at a time.
>> Back in the 90s proper server hardware cost 5 or 6 figures so you wanted to
>> get your moneys worth from it which means just running it as a file server
>> is a non starter.
>>
>
>Alternatively, if all you needed was a file server, then NT 4 server was
>a reasonable choice, at a hundredth of the cost of what you term "proper
>server hardware". Our NT 4 file server did not crash. I don't actually

If you needed a file server you'd just use the ftp server on one of your
unix boxes unless you really needed SMB before Samba came along. Ftp was
a system service that was just something than ran in the background, it was
almost never the raison d'etre of the entire system unlike a windows machine.

>care if it might have crashed had we tried to run a database on it at
>the same time - because we didn't run a database on it at the same time.

Not really the point. MS marketed NT as a server OS but it wasn't close to
being reliable enough for that except for mickey mouse operations. To be fair
neither was Linux at the time either.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:27:36 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 7/11/2023 12:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> <valid points from David, pointing out that my experiences have
> generally been more towards the data center than SMB>
>
>>>
>>> Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
>>> became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
>>> outside a small proportion of niche uses.  Those use-cases have always
>>> been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some silicon
>>graphics workstations to create the game Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was
>>tens of thousands per machine.
>
>There wasn't anything else at the time. It wasn't until later when
>PC graphics became competitive (circa 2000). I had a dual R10k Octane
>on (well, under) my desk at SGI - sweet box, to be sure, but not cheap.

As an aside, SGI had a roadshow at my uni back in 93 where they demonstrated
their systems. It wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that I saw graphics of a
similar level on a PC or console.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> If you needed a file server you'd just use the ftp server on one of your
> unix boxes unless you really needed SMB before Samba came along. Ftp was
> a system service that was just something than ran in the background, it was
> almost never the raison d'etre of the entire system unlike a windows machine.

I am not sure whether I am right, but according my to understanding, the
common accepted meaning of "file server" does not include FTP. A file
server makes its filesystem visible and usable to its clients. The client
can then access the remote filesystem almost like it were local to the
client. This definition fits with the model of NFS, AFS, Samba, etc.

I said "almost like it would be local" because I think that at least
NFS has had some kind of limitations with locking. Cyrus IMAP did
not support storing mailspools on NFS.

br,
KK

On 13/07/2023 11:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:27:36 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 7/11/2023 12:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> <valid points from David, pointing out that my experiences have
>> generally been more towards the data center than SMB>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
>>>> became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
>>>> outside a small proportion of niche uses.  Those use-cases have always
>>>> been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some silicon
>>> graphics workstations to create the game Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was
>>> tens of thousands per machine.
>>
>> There wasn't anything else at the time. It wasn't until later when
>> PC graphics became competitive (circa 2000). I had a dual R10k Octane
>> on (well, under) my desk at SGI - sweet box, to be sure, but not cheap.
>
> As an aside, SGI had a roadshow at my uni back in 93 where they demonstrated
> their systems. It wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that I saw graphics of a
> similar level on a PC or console.
>

PC's were far behind others in those days. I had access to an Acorn
Archimedes in 1988 (IIRC), with an early ARM processor. It had high
quality graphics and a multi-tasking GUI - things like anti-aliased
scalable variable width fonts while the PC was almost only text-based
DOS. (The Archimedes had a PC + DOS emulator that ran as fast as most
PC's.) The Amiga was another example, as was the Atari ST - these were
nearly a decade ahead of the PC world in capabilities, yet did not cost
more.

Of course *nix workstations were vastly superior to PC's, but they also
cost vastly more. It was a shock going from Sun 4 workstations with
Solaris to PC's with Windows 3.1 in the transition from university to
working life!

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:01:42 PM UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 11:26, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:27:36 GMT
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On 7/11/2023 12:48 PM, David Brown wrote:
> >>>> On 11/07/2023 20:49, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>
> >> <valid points from David, pointing out that my experiences have
> >> generally been more towards the data center than SMB>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Once the IBM PC with MSDOS entered the scene, it was not until Linux
> >>>> became mainstream on commodity hardware that any kind of *nix made sense
> >>>> outside a small proportion of niche uses. Those use-cases have always
> >>>> been vital, of course, but are numerically insignificant.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Fwiw, Ken Williams had to blow some serious coin on some silicon
> >>> graphics workstations to create the game Phantasmagoria. Iirc, it was
> >>> tens of thousands per machine.
> >>
> >> There wasn't anything else at the time. It wasn't until later when
> >> PC graphics became competitive (circa 2000). I had a dual R10k Octane
> >> on (well, under) my desk at SGI - sweet box, to be sure, but not cheap..
> >
> > As an aside, SGI had a roadshow at my uni back in 93 where they demonstrated
> > their systems. It wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that I saw graphics of a
> > similar level on a PC or console.
> >
> PC's were far behind others in those days. I had access to an Acorn
> Archimedes in 1988 (IIRC), with an early ARM processor. It had high
> quality graphics and a multi-tasking GUI - things like anti-aliased
> scalable variable width fonts while the PC was almost only text-based
> DOS. (The Archimedes had a PC + DOS emulator that ran as fast as most
> PC's.) The Amiga was another example, as was the Atari ST - these were
> nearly a decade ahead of the PC world in capabilities, yet did not cost
> more.
>
> Of course *nix workstations were vastly superior to PC's, but they also
> cost vastly more. It was a shock going from Sun 4 workstations with
> Solaris to PC's with Windows 3.1 in the transition from university to
> working life!

My circa 1992 experience differs.
IBM RS/6000 model 220 was neither superior to contemporary well-built i486 PC
nor costed significantly more.

Sun's low end SPARC Stations of the era had great Sony Black Trinitron display, but
in most other aspects they felt slow relatively to low-end 386SX PC running DOS.

Couple of years later the same for mid-range SPARC Stations vs Pentium PC running
Matlab simulations - Sun had great display and more memory, but when memory
of PC was sufficient, PC was faster. I'd guess, zero-overhead not-really an OS like DOS
vs. much heavier Solaris was one factor, but not the only factor.

As to more heavy OSes on PC, l didn't use them until very late 90s. By that time P-II with
128 MB RAM and Ati Rage Pro was o.k. to carry NT4.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:01:24 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 13/07/2023 11:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> As an aside, SGI had a roadshow at my uni back in 93 where they demonstrated
>> their systems. It wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that I saw graphics of
>a
>> similar level on a PC or console.
>>
>
>PC's were far behind others in those days. I had access to an Acorn
>Archimedes in 1988 (IIRC), with an early ARM processor. It had high
>quality graphics and a multi-tasking GUI - things like anti-aliased
>scalable variable width fonts while the PC was almost only text-based
>DOS. (The Archimedes had a PC + DOS emulator that ran as fast as most
>PC's.) The Amiga was another example, as was the Atari ST - these were
>nearly a decade ahead of the PC world in capabilities, yet did not cost
>more.

The amiga could run an entire multitasking OS with GUI off a 1.44M floppy
disk. Pretty impressive.

The only reason the PC won was the old mantra of no one ever being fired for
buying IBM and by the time that ceased to be true the PC had so much traction
in the business world that it was a forgone conclusion.

>Of course *nix workstations were vastly superior to PC's, but they also
>cost vastly more. It was a shock going from Sun 4 workstations with
>Solaris to PC's with Windows 3.1 in the transition from university to
>working life!

If Sun had dropped their workstation prices to sane amounts instead of still
charging silly money for something that PCs were starting to equal they might
still be around instead of having been gobbled up by Oracle.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 04:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:01:42=E2=80=AFPM UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
>> Of course *nix workstations were vastly superior to PC's, but they also=
>=20
>> cost vastly more. It was a shock going from Sun 4 workstations with=20
>> Solaris to PC's with Windows 3.1 in the transition from university to=20
>> working life!
>
>My circa 1992 experience differs.
>IBM RS/6000 model 220 was neither superior to contemporary well-built i486 =
>PC
>nor costed significantly more.
>
>Sun's low end SPARC Stations of the era had great Sony Black Trinitron disp=
>lay, but
>in most other aspects they felt slow relatively to low-end 386SX PC running=
> DOS.

Suns had sluggish bitmapped displays with even for the time a fairly rubbish
GUI in Openwindows, but when it came to CPU horsepower the 386 didn't come
close to a Sparc.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> The amiga could run an entire multitasking OS with GUI off a 1.44M floppy
> disk. Pretty impressive.

Yes, it was. It was much more advanced than C64.

I have sometimes heard that Apple has the most fanatic followers,
but I don't think Amiga fans are that much behind. Some people
still use their expanded and upgraded Amigas.

I don't know about the more recent Amiga models, but with
Amiga 500 the biggest hardware related drawback was its
lack of memory protection. Your applications can crash the
entire AmigaOS.

> The only reason the PC won was the old mantra of no one ever being fired for
> buying IBM and by the time that ceased to be true the PC had so much traction
> in the business world that it was a forgone conclusion.

It was one reason, all right, but not the only one. Ever since Jack
Tramiel left Commodore to join Atari, the company was under a rather
bad spell. They made incredibly stupid business moves like creating
C65.

Those interested in Commodore's history might want to read
Brian Bagnall's book:

https://www.amazon.com/Commodore-Company-Edge-Brian-Bagnall/dp/0973864966

br,
KK

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:14:40 -0000 (UTC)
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> The only reason the PC won was the old mantra of no one ever being fired for
>> buying IBM and by the time that ceased to be true the PC had so much traction
>
>> in the business world that it was a forgone conclusion.
>
>It was one reason, all right, but not the only one. Ever since Jack
>Tramiel left Commodore to join Atari, the company was under a rather
>bad spell. They made incredibly stupid business moves like creating
>C65.

To be fair, the C64 was never going to be used in a business enviroment. The
amiga and ST certainly had a chance though.

Am 13.07.2023 um 11:19 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 18:28:47 +0200
> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 11.07.2023 um 17:50 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:52:39 +0200
>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 17:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:10:26 +0200
>>>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 10.07.2023 um 12:47 schrieb David Brown:
>>>>>>> I doubt if anyone would compare NT 4.0 favourably with VMS for solidity
>>>>>>> or uptime, but it was not bad for Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His assumptions are felt competence.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again in english?
>>>>
>>>> You say things you don't know but that you feel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is it you think anyone whose experiences in IT don't match your own is
>>> either lying or an idiot?
>>
>> I bet my right hand that you never had any experience with VMS.
>
> A small amount. Are you claiming NT4 was as reliable as VMS because if you
> are you're full of shit. As usual.

No, there is no reason for you to be angry with me,
apparently justified.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:14:40 -0000 (UTC)
> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) wrote:
>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> The only reason the PC won was the old mantra of no one ever being fired for
>>> buying IBM and by the time that ceased to be true the PC had so much traction
>>
>>> in the business world that it was a forgone conclusion.
>>
>>It was one reason, all right, but not the only one. Ever since Jack
>>Tramiel left Commodore to join Atari, the company was under a rather
>>bad spell. They made incredibly stupid business moves like creating
>>C65.
>
> To be fair, the C64 was never going to be used in a business enviroment.

I said C65, not C64. Maybe you meant C65, too, but made a typo.

Anyway, this is the machine I was talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_65

Some Commodore collectors have paid amazings amounts
of money for the prototypes. I don't care about those
machines.

It is true that C65 was not meant for business, but for
entertainment. Its hardware was already pretty obsolete
when it was created. The era of 8-bit computers was over.

My main point is that crazy moves like that cause
monetary losses to the company, and they waste the time of
those who work with doomed-to-fail projects.

Commodore's efforts should have been to make Amiga
better and better, but they failed because of bad
management decisions.

br,
KK

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:09:52 -0000 (UTC)
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:14:40 -0000 (UTC)
>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) wrote:
>>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> The only reason the PC won was the old mantra of no one ever being fired
>for
>>>> buying IBM and by the time that ceased to be true the PC had so much
>traction
>>>
>>>> in the business world that it was a forgone conclusion.
>>>
>>>It was one reason, all right, but not the only one. Ever since Jack
>>>Tramiel left Commodore to join Atari, the company was under a rather
>>>bad spell. They made incredibly stupid business moves like creating
>>>C65.
>>
>> To be fair, the C64 was never going to be used in a business enviroment.
>
>I said C65, not C64. Maybe you meant C65, too, but made a typo.
>
>Anyway, this is the machine I was talking about:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_65

Interesting. Never heard of it but given they'd already had a high powered 16
bit machine in the Amiga for 5 years it seems utterly pointless and I can see
why it was canned.

>It is true that C65 was not meant for business, but for
>entertainment. Its hardware was already pretty obsolete
>when it was created. The era of 8-bit computers was over.

Well quite.

>My main point is that crazy moves like that cause
>monetary losses to the company, and they waste the time of
>those who work with doomed-to-fail projects.

Unfortunately a lot of tech companies have great engineers but bad management.
See Sun Microsystems for further examples.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:15:51 +0200
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am 13.07.2023 um 11:19 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> A small amount. Are you claiming NT4 was as reliable as VMS because if you
>> are you're full of shit. As usual.
>
>No, there is no reason for you to be angry with me,
>apparently justified.

More meaningless Bonita Babble.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> Interesting. Never heard of it but given they'd already had a high powered 16
> bit machine in the Amiga for 5 years it seems utterly pointless and I can see
> why it was canned.

Exactly. Commodore's shaky business moves also included
this weird device:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_CDTV

I guess it is basically Amiga hardware that is supposed
to be a gaming console. Again, some Commodore collectors
want to buy them, but I don't think CDTV was at all
successful when it was released.

> Unfortunately a lot of tech companies have great
> engineers but bad management. See Sun Microsystems
> for further examples.

Yes, I remember very well when Oracle acquired Sun. Some
notable UNIX innovations are Sun's achievements.
Everybody knows NFS and ZFS.

We used to have some SPARC Solaris servers, but in the
end Red Hat Enterprise Linux won. I suppose Solaris
is still being developed by Oracle, but some people
have said it is now much slower than Linux.

br,
KK