Is Unix dying--or even dead?
From Edupage, 18 December 1997:
<----------> TACTICAL SHIFT BY WORKSTATION COMPANIES Silicon Graphics Inc.'s plan to allow SGI graphics software to run on Microsoft's Windows NT operating system provides new evidence that a growing number of companies are giving up on Unix and instead standardizing on Windows NT. SGI hopes to be able to use its experience in developing high-end graphics software without having to spend a great deal of time building the underlying technology represented by an operating system. (Washington Post 17 Dec 97) <---------->
On 19 Dec 1997 05:59:43 -0600, "S. M. Halloran" <mitch@duzen.com.tr> wrote:
From Edupage, 18 December 1997:
<----------> TACTICAL SHIFT BY WORKSTATION COMPANIES Silicon Graphics Inc.'s plan to allow SGI graphics software to run on Microsoft's Windows NT operating system provides new evidence that a growing number of companies are giving up on Unix and instead standardizing on Windows NT. SGI hopes to be able to use its experience in developing high-end graphics software without having to spend a great deal of time building the underlying technology represented by an operating system. (Washington Post 17 Dec 97) <---------->
Does this mean that Unix is dying? No, it means that graphics professionals are buying Wintel boxes instead of SGI's expensive workstations. ( a shame really, SGI make some damn nice workstations, but that pesky price/performance ratio is pushing people into high end Wintel boxes) -- Phelix
At 12:08 PM 12/19/1997 GMT, phelix@vallnet.com wrote:
Silicon Graphics Inc.'s plan .... Windows NT
Does this mean that Unix is dying? No, it means that graphics professionals are buying Wintel boxes instead of SGI's expensive workstations. ( a shame really, SGI make some damn nice workstations, but that pesky price/performance ratio is pushing people into high end Wintel boxes)
It's not just price/performance ratio - it's affordable price for adequate performance. Now that Wintel boxes can crunch integers as well as a Cray-1, a $2K box has enough horsepower for all but really cutting-edge graphics, and you're going to buy the same monitor regardless of CPU. Sure, a $10K SGI probably has far more than 5x the performance, but not many people need it, especially if they're developing applications for other people to use on cheaper boxes (games...) as opposed to producing TV shows, music videos, or running scientific visualization. That's been a problem for the accounting and office-work for years - while Microsoft can bloat away any CPU you've got, an 8086 or 286 box could run spreadsheets, simple chart graphics, WordStar, a database, BASIC, and Flight Simulator as fast as a PDP-11 for a lot less money, letting the business bootstrap itself in spite of the ugly excuse for a program loader MS sold for it, because any developer could afford the $5K (1982) or $2K (1997) box it takes to develop cool commercially viable applications (and, yes, you can use a $500 box today, but you wouldn't.) My 1983 VAX 11/780 cost $400K for a machine with enough horsepower to support 40-60 users ( A MILLION instructions/sec! 4MB RAM, 1 GB of removable disk, 2 6250bpi tape drives, and a big line printer.) You might get by spending $250K to support 40 users, including VT100s, but that's still as much money per seat as a fancy PC, for a faster but non-graphical environment. MSDOS was blazingly stupid and harder to use than Unix, but running on a PC instead of a terminal makes some things much easier. If you must run MSware, NT is at least an operating system. And it's easier to get graphics board manufacturers to write their drivers for Windows than Linux. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
phelix＠vallnet.com -
S. M. Halloran