RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit -- MIDRANGE-L

Hi Chris!  I couldn't agree more with your arguments!
I've been watching this debate for years now with great
interest.  Recently, I bought a new computer for home
that came pre-installed with WNT.  I thought, okay, it
can't be as bad as some people say, so why not give it
a try.  So, in the weeks before delivery, I read what I could
about it.  The result of that reading was that WNT only
stayed on for a day before being replaced by OS/2!  (It
would have been sooner, but the computer came the
same day as my bowling night!)

My question for Windows users is this:  When your
Windows system goes down, what severity do you
put on the APAR report to Microsoft?

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Hans Boldt/Toronto/IBM on 98-02-18 08:04
---------------------------


owner-midrange-l@midrange.com on 98-02-18 04:17:20
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com @ internet
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com @ internet
cc:
Subject: RE: Win95 - CA/400 session limit


** Reply to note from Bob Crothers <bcrothers@netdirect.net> Mon, 16 Feb 1998
12:34:20 -0000

Bob, I have stong disagreements with you. I don't wish to flame, so please
try and be patient with me if I seem to go to far, I will try very hard
not to.

> However, when an application crash's the operating system, is it
> the OS's fault or the applications?  True, the OS shouldn't
> crash, but it is still the application that should get the
> majority of the blame.

No, it shouldn't. The application should be blamed for when it crashes.
The OS should deal with that, close the app down, and go on. Of course,
this is a "perfect world" and all OSs have different levels of performance
here.

> BTW, if I write a program that first does a CHGJOB RUNPTY(1) and
> then goes into a tight closed loop with no I/O, you would think
> the "machine crashed" when I ran it.  Technically, OS/400 has
> not crashed, but it is no longer available either.  The other
> users would sure think it crashed.  And the quickest way to make
> the machine available would probably be to "pull the plug".
>  IBM's fault?  I hardly think so.  But this is what you are
> accusing Microsoft of.

This example is completely out of line with the topic. Here, you have
written a program to specifically take control of the system and down it.
The first time this happens, the user would no doubt look to the solution
of having you not tell the system to crash. In the mean time, they could
restrict the run priority of the job so that it would fail to get the
priority which caused the problem.

In the case of Windows being crashed by CA, we are talking about an
application that works fine as long as you don't run too many copies. At
four, the operating system is crashing out from under it.

> Windows is no where near the quality of OS/400.  But you did not
> pay thousands of dollars for it either.

Completely false. In my office we have approx. 120 users. Each of them has
a machine that came with Win 3.1 installed, and was later changed to Win
95. The cost of Win 3.1 (although bundled, I would be naive to believe
that the cost of the OS was not passed on to me) I estimate at $100 and
the cost of Win 95 about the same. In addition, since the change to Win95
was forced on us as companies could no longer support 16 bit versions of
their software, we were forced also to upgrade hardware as well as spend
many, many hours in the upgrade process. At a base cost of $24,000 (est.)
plus (being kind) 120 man hours, I would call our investment in this
product significant.

What is the cost for OS/400 version 4.1 for the same number of users?

While all vendors will drop support for older versions of their product,
Microsoft also used legal and market pressures to force vendors to quit
supporting older versions of their product. This is the tactic I refer to
when I say we were "forced to upgrade".

> Do I want to see Windows improve?  You bet.  But, is it the
> "root of all evil" that some on this list say?  No.

Windows is a disappointing product. It isn't the "root of all evil" and I
don't recall anyone saying so. I can only feel that the reason people seem
to enjoy Windows 95 so much is that they come from Windows 3.1. If I grew
up in Beirut, I would probably enjoy the quiet life of East L.A.

Windows only improves because of competition. During the last year or so
before Win 95 was released, many, many features were announced as a result
of the pressure from OS/2 (which was already delivering those same
features). Since IBM dropped marketing against the consumer market, what
has Win 95 seen?

> And on the subject of Microsoft's "marketing tactics", lets not
> forget that IBM is not exactly an angel either.  Remember their
> problems with the DOJ and Anti-Trust laws in the 60's, 70's &
> 80's.  IBM is the one who invented "guerilla marketing".
>  Microsoft just refined and took it to a new level.

An ever amusing tactic. So, what you are stating here is that it is fine
that Microsoft is ripping off you and me because IBM got in trouble for
the same thing twenty years ago. This thread had nothing to do with IBM.
Read over what you have written, please. Doesn't it look like you are
somehow trying to state that Microsoft is better than IBM because they are
a better criminal? Why would you think that one company should be stopped
from destroying fair trade, but another company should be allowed to
continue looting us?

I don't think IBM invented monopolistic practices. I think that the
consent decrees that IBM was forced into were probably valid requirements
to keep the market

> The main difference between MS and IBM is that MS is currently
> in a position to dictate to the market.  The key word is
> "currently".  IBM fell, so can Microsoft...and they probably
> will.  The question being when and how hard.

So you are saying that IBM should not have been forced into their consent
decree? Or are you saying that you agree that Microsoft should also be
forced to compete on a more level playing field? Because it seems like you
are saying that Microsoft shouldn't be forced to stop their practices.

By the way IBM and Microsoft really play in very different markets. IBM
only does about 11 or 12 billion a year in software. They do most of their
revenue in hardware with a growing services market. Microsoft I believe
gains most of their total income (which I think is up to about $12 billion
right? is it higher now?) from software sales. So comparing their market
positions makes as little sense as trying to justify the shoddy
workmanship of Windows 95 by saying IBM got in trouble in the '60s.

> I think the lesson to be learned is that is NOT the DOJ who will
> dethrone Billy G but the market.  And more likely, it will be a
> missed paradigm shift.  IBM missed the PC.  What will MS miss?
>  It could be Java that dethrones them.  It might be something
> else.  But it will happen.

Microsoft misses every paradigm shift. OO programming, the internet, Java.
All of these are concepts that Microsoft discarded until reality forced
them to pay attention. However, the vast majority of Microsoft's customers
do not bother to look beyond MS. If you only buy from MS, you don't know
that other platforms have had better features, better reliability, better
service, for years.

Microsoft has demonstrated that unless forced by competition, they will
not bother improving any products. Unfortunately, they now are in a
position where it isn't possible to compete. That leaves a bleak future
for the user who simply wants their desktop operating system to work as
well as the ones provided by companies driven out of the market.

> Regards,
> Bob Crothers

Bob, all of this seems as if you are eager to find some way to defend
Microsoft. Perhaps you have advocated Microsoft products of operating
systems to others in the past and criticism about the product strike
against the advise you have given.

No amount of arguing about Microsoft and IBM is going to make the OS any
better. If I buy a pear and it tastes bad, I can bitch about how grapes
spoil all I want, the pear still tastes bad.

In this case, I know that Microsoft provides a product with less
capabilities and less dependability than those products it competes with.
I would like to see Microsoft forced to compete on a technical level so
that the products that other vendors (like IBM and OS/400) will have
opportunity to shine. There is no amount of discussion that will convince
me it is a good thing for Microsoft to play monopoly with the market I
work in. I hope I would feel that way even if their products were better
than the others.

I feel that Windows 95 and Windows NT are second rate products. I am an
OS/2 user, and I am reluctant to have to give up the platform I have been
using. More so, because I feel that I will be moving to a less stable OS,
and that my moving to that OS will simply support a company that has
demonstrated over and over that they intend to force the market to provide
me with the least amount of choices.

Okay, I sure rambled on there!

Bottom line is, If Win95 is crashing the MS needs to improve it! If CA is
crashing, IBM needs to improve it! If IBM doesn't make a 5250 client I
like, I'll toss theirs out and buy someone elses! If Microsoft won't make
an operating system I like... I'll shut and send them my money like
everyone else.


Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/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
+---
uucp



+---
| 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
+---