Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!altos!altos86!dtynan From: dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (Dermot Tynan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Altos 5000 Message-ID: <3894@altos86.Altos.COM> Date: 31 Aug 90 01:40:37 GMT References: <3864@altos86.Altos.COM> <1990Aug28.064145.26246@fiver> <15812@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA Lines: 74 In article <15812@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > > Still, paying twice or three times as much for the comfort of knowing my > box was developed as a dedicated UNIX super-micro is not worth it to me. That depends. Where do you get this figure from? It may be an AT&T practice to charge 2x to 3x, but it certainly doesn't apply to Altos. The Altos 5000 is priced in and around what HP and Compaq charge. If I remember correctly, it is cheaper (marginally) than either of them, when they are configured identically. For example, the 5000 comes standard with Ethernet, SCSI, minimum of eight serial ports, etc. However, I definitely cannot quote the real price, because I don't know it. And I certainly wouldn't like it if the sales team started editing source... :) There is a certain rule-of-thumb, that says that even with the decline of memory and cpu prices, machines reach a minimum retail price. For the 8088, this seems to be in the neighborhood of $400 - $600 (excuse the inaccuracy, I don't follow that market too closely anymore). For a '286 machine, the price is somewhat higher. For an EISA machine, the minimum memory width is 32 bits. Personally, I can't see EISA machines ever dropping below about $4,000 (prove me wrong, someone... please!!). When you add disk controllers, serial controllers, graphics cards, disk drives, ethernet, etc. This cost hits an average. On top of that, you have the OS included, and Technical Support. In pieces, you could probably get a cheaper machine, but it wouldn't have the same kind of performance, because we'll always have an edge when we can tune the OS, and the hardware. At the same time, the figure would be lucky to be 20% more expensive (lots of hand-waving here, I only have vague recollections of pricing charts). Is the performance worth that?? Don't forget, we're all paying Intel through the nose right now, for their magic. When the i486 drops in price (which it undoubtably will), this will be reflected in the end price. > Of course, I don't fall in whatever specialized vertical niche it is > where you need to support 200 terminals on a single CPU. My guess is > that anyone in that niche should shop around for a system that meets > those special needs, pay what it costs even it's more than a PS/2 costs, > and count himself lucky -- the heck with what the rest of us think. Well, I guess we all quickly forget our educational background. I *still* log on to University machines, and am amazed that I was able to tolerate the poor performance, given the number of users. Especially when I see systems today (the 5000 included), which sell for MUCH less, and deliver a lot more performance. Altos machines are used by a lot of airlines, for their ticket desks (no, its not *our* fault the airlines are late :), throughout the country. They are also used for ATMs. These are the unusual installations. A lot of the installations are more "mainstream", and believe me, there is nothing "niche" about supporting 200 users. Ask Brandon Allbery. He has a much better idea of what the "typical" Altos user looks like. But don't kid yourself. Most of us on this net seem to assume that the overwhelming use for computers today, is compiling C programs, and reading news. This is far from true. It's a major reality break to find that most users of computers don't know UNIX from OS/2, and couldn't care less. They have some particular task or function they want to do. If the computer can help them and make them more productive, that's all they want to know. SERMON MODE ON: In this day and age we are all running around claiming MIPS this, RAM that, when the *real* customers couldn't care whether the machine ran DOS, CP/M or awk, as long as they can do their work better and/or faster. We would all be better off focusing on what the end-user is trying to do, instead of hitting him/her over the head with so much useless trivia. SERMON MODE OFF: As far as Altos is concerned, if you can support 200 users on one machine, as well has you could with 200 smaller and cheaper machines, then the economies of scale are in favor of the 200-user machine. Whatever about the PC revolution, as long as that is the case, the 200-user machine will prevail. As soon as that isn't the case, we need to re-evaluate. Given that the entry price of an equivalent PC would be $400, that means that the cost of putting 200 machines out there would be $80,000, not including network costs. We can beat that figure by a considerable margin. That is no "niche market"! - Der -- Dermot Tynan, Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA 95134 dtynan@altos86.Altos.COM (408) 432-6200 x4237 "Five to one, baby, one in five. No-one here gets out alive."