Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!vector!attctc!phil
From: phil@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Phil Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Message-ID: <9605@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 7 Oct 89 01:24:39 GMT
References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7971@microsoft.UUCP> <6441@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: phil@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Phil Meyer)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 80


Aside from the flame war brewing here, there are several good points being
made.

>In article <7971@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes:
>> There are something like 40M machines that can run DOS apps.
>
In article <6441@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Yes, and this (to get back to the subject) is responsible for a huge loss
>of productivity among knowledge workers in this country. You're proud of it?

I have been a proponent of 'personal computing' vs. departmental or
organizational computing.  No more.  In 1983 several articles were published
concerning the M.I.S. losing control of computing resources.  At that time
I lost a very large bid to Honeywell because I would not consider that
departmental systems with their limited applications could *possibly* have
anything to offer to a group of computer literate engineers.  I personally
lost a possible $100,000.00 in profits.  Enough to make me re-think my
position.  I was bidding a DOD based LAN connected by Novell star LAN servers.
This was the top of the line in personal computing environments (and still
may be).  What did they prefer?  A centralized, controlled, and structured
environment that supported ONLY the specific tools that they needed to get
the job done.  It is a myth that DOS has a great wealth of applications.
Wealth implies value.  Value to whom?  If I don't need it, why am I worried
about availibility?  It has been shown by several studies, (the most recent I
have seen is one produced by the American Bar association) that basically
there are only four applications in use on Pee Cees.
	1.	Word Processing
	2.	Spread Sheats
	3.	Database Products
	4.	Desk-top publishing (which I consider an evolution of W.P.)
I admit a great number of specialized applications exist, and this is an old
topic.  I simply wish to demonstrate that 'Personal Computing' may in fact
be counter productive.  The experiences that I have had would bear this out.
The most intellegent systems managers out there are interested in functionality
and not personal preference.  Give your users the right tools.  Don't let
them choose their own, and bicker over the merits of each.  Most good managers
listen to the needs of the whole, and then dictate policy.  A network of
Pee Cees does not contribute to the standardization, conformance, and
productivity of knowledge workers in and of itself.  Only carefull planning,
organization, and even distribution of the work load can make the system
successfull.
>
>> do they support mice well?
>
>Yes.
>
>> windows apps?  graphical apps?
>
>Yes (not on a remote terminal, of course).

What about the rise of Xterminals?  They will be the future.
>
>But there were offices doing email and file sharing on UNIX minicomputers
>as long ago as 1976. DOS equivalents really only got rolling in the last
>couple of years. I would say that 6-8 years of holding back progress is
>quite enough.
>
>> I grant that Unix is far more elegant in most ways but elegance
>> isn't everything.  You may have disgust for the majority but people do vote
>> with their $$$.
>
>Yes, and they vote for the folks who campaign. Now then, who's got the
>deepest pockets? The biggest campaign chests?

This is, of course, alt.politics right?  The public is only aware of what
is shown to it.  Color, music, and slogans sell products to the 'general
public'.  If enough of the right things happen to any product, it can be
successfull.  Don't kid yourself.  The Next box has shown us all this same
principal again.  What is Job's *real* contribution?  The software, of
course.  What did IBM buy?  The software, of course.  What do the commercial
vendors push?  The 'box'.  A box that is mediocre at best, but we love it!

As Arsineo would say, hmmm...

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Honesty is in the eye of      |  Phil Meyer                               |
|   the creditor.               |  Usenet: <backbone>!attctc!lodestar!phil  |
|                               |  VoiceNet: (214) 991-0897                 |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+