Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: moran@ai.sri.com (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: HM monitor to be discontinued
Keywords: Hardware
Message-ID: <8905011806.AA05219@muir.ai.sri.com>
Date: 8 May 89 14:27:54 GMT
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 138
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Original-Date: Mon, 1 May 89 11:06:22 PDT
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 274, message 12 of 12

Sun-Spots:

In trying to find out when the HM, hi-resolution (1600x1280) monochrome,
monitor would be available on the 4/60 (SPARCstation-1), I have been
informed that Sun will be discontinuing the HM and plans to not offer it
on new products (whether or not it will be available on the 4/60 was
ambiguous).

I was told that the reason for discontinuing the HM monitor is that it
accounts for such a tiny fraction of the monitors that Suns sells, and
therefore Sun cannot continue to justify supporting it.  Sun also believes
that customers actively dislike it, but I believe that a large part of the
problem is that Sun has not effectively promoted and supported it.

If you don't see the need for a 2Mpixel monitor: fine, please don't flame
me.  If you like the HM, please let Sun know (through your sales rep) and
maybe we can get the decision reversed.  If you want an approx 2Mpixel
monitor, but didn't like the HM, please let Sun know why (so we don't lose
this functionality altogether).

Below I have included comments derived from those I sent to Sun (through
my sales rep).  If you are sending a message to Sun, please feel free to
use any excerpts.

__________

Advantages of the HM monitor over the M:

One obvious advantage is that you can have two 80-column windows that
either don't overlap or that barely overlap (depending on your choice
of fonts).

Another is that you have enough window height to display a full page
of text in a readable, accurate representation of the fonts used (we
use dvitool from the UCB Vortex package).  On an M monitor, displaying
the full page is just beyond the ragged edge of the monitor's
capabilities.  Note that this is not a problem for text previewers
that use only a rough approximation to the font that will appear on
the printed page (eg Interleaf).  This ability  (to accurately and
legibly render a full page) alone endears the HM to my users who do
a lot of text formatting and it would seem to be a big seller for Sun
if it promoted it in this market.

As a programmer and system administrator, my experience with the HM
monitor is that I actively move between 2-3 window and also make use
of 2-4 additional windows.  With an M monitor, I work primarily in a
single window, occasionally moving to 1-2 other windows.

My primary programming project is a decision-support tool that makes
use of multiple windows.  On the M monitor, I typically have 3-4 windows
open at a time (with significant overlaps); on the HM, I can have
the same windows open with no overlap or more windows open with only
minor overlap.  The additional screen space permits me to fly through
scenarios that feel awkward on a 1Mpixel monitor (I frequently wind up
using a (1Mpixel) color monitor for demos so that I can use a projector
or so that I can daisy-chain monitors together).  Other users whose Suns
have HM monitor have commented about feelings of "claustrophobia" when
working with people who have only an M.

I have used SunWrite, SunPaint and SunDraw on both the M and the HM and
the difference in the method of operation was like night and day.  On
the HM, I just took the primary "control panels" and "pinned" them to
the screen, while on the M monitor, I was constantly shuffling and
opening control panels.  The difference in ease-of-use made them feel
like different programs.  I suspect that this is typical of a large
family of such programs.

With the availability of 12-16 MIPS workstations, I expect that an
increasing number of people will be using increasingly sophisticated
productivity tools, and I expect the available screen space will have
an increasingly noticeable effect on the effectiveness with which those
tools can be used.

In my opinion, it is not much of an exaggeration to say that, when
dealing with text-based programs, the difference between a 1Mpixel and
2Mpixel monitor is almost as great as the difference between a "glass
tty" and a 1Mpixel monitor (remember, a very primitive form of
"windowing" is supported on glass ttys by EMACS and other programs).

In my group, the HM monitor is preferred over the M monitor by 80-90%
of the current users and those who anticipate moving to Suns in the
near future.


Suspected Reasons for Poor Sales of HM monitor:

1. Lack of public exposure:  I do not remember ever having seen an HM
   at a trade show (most monitors at trade shows are color monitors).
   Many (most?) sales offices don't have one to demo to customers--mine
   didn't, but arranged for me to see one at a neighboring office.

2. Inappropriate default font.  The standard system font is effectively
   unreadable on the HM monitor.  That you can use a font other than
   the default one is not something many users realize, and none of my
   "normal" users were able to find the information in the manuals on
   how to change it.  I suspect that many users who have been able to
   try an HM monitor didn't like it because they were looking at the
   default font.  [For those who don't know how to set the fonts: it
   can be done either with "Font" item in the "SunView" category of
   "defaultsedit" or by setting the environment variable DEFAULT_FONT.
   The fonts are in /usr/lib/fonts/fixedwidthfonts. -- DBM]

3. Suitable fonts: Of my users with HM monitors, 2/3's use the screen.b.14
   font and 1/3 use screen.b.16.  Many customers may not be aware of
   the latter option because it first appeared on the SunOS 4.0 tape,
   which many customers have not yet installed and many of those who
   did may not have notice this minor addition. In my experience, users
   with SunOS 3.x systems who found the screen.b.14 font too small did
   not like the cour.* fonts and thus were forced to choose gallant.r.19,
   which is so large that it negates the advantage of having the HM.
   The screen.b.14 font is a little small for many users, and screen.b.16
   is a little large (two 80-column windows overlap by 1.5 characters.
   If a screen.b.15 font were available, I estimate that 2/3's of my
   users would choose it and 1/3 would use screen.b.14.

4. Packaging:  The HM monitor is offered as an alternative to the M
   monitor on both the 3/60 and the 4/110, but is listed as a package
   only on the 3/60.  My experience advising colleagues on configuring
   systems indicates that many customers don't realize that the HM can
   be used with the 4/110 (you order a 4/110S with option 252D).

5. Pricing: a system with the HM monitor is priced $1000 more than a
   comparable one with an M monitor.  However, if you look in the
   Spare Part price list (mine is dated 1March88), the HM monitor is
   listed for only $400 more than the M ($2200 vs $1800).  A $1000
   difference raises questions about whether or not the HM is worth it
   (my group came very close in several instance to not ordering it --
   I had to argue long and hard for it.  However, the users are very
   glad to have gotten them and don't want to have to go back to an M);
   at $400, we would choose it almost automatically.  I presume that
   similar situations exist in many other groups.
   The absence of an HM package for the 4/110 means that you pay 20%
   more for maintenance on the basic system than you would if you had
   been able to buy it in a package (based on the price for the 4/110M
   and the fact that the 3/60M and 3/60HM have the same maintenance
   prices).

-- Doug Moran, AI Center, SRI International