Easy. That supporting 3K users with dumb terminals sure needs lot 
less people than supporting 3K Win95 users. You call it overhead, i 
call it a fact of life, due to the so called "sophistication" of 
what's involved. Now, a real problem concerning support and 
administration. NT vs OS/400? For a experienced sysadmin, running 
either brings more or less the same quantity of problems. The real 
problem here is that the average NT sysadmin is different from the 
average OS/400 sysadmin. Besides being prepared on "learn all in a 
week" (oops, here they call it fast to market degrees ;-) ) courses 
and believing all that Microsoft's tells them, in NT its easy to lose 
focus behind all that GUI cr*p that masks most of the time the real 
problems. That doesnt happen most of the time on OS/400. Oh well, 
what am i doing here, defending NT? I must be having a nightmare, let 
me out, please! ;-) 


>I'm not sure what you mean, Pedro. I think Dean was 
>simply pointing out that supporting NT requires much more overhead 
>than supporting OS/400.
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com

This thread ...

Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page