Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!maytag!focsys!pocus!larry
From: larry@pocus.uucp (Larry Williamson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: How to justify X terminals to upper management??
Message-ID: <LARRY.90Mar8212600@pocus.uucp>
Date: 9 Mar 90 02:26:00 GMT
Sender: larry@pocus.uucp (Larry Williamson)
Organization: Focus Automation Systems Inc. Waterloo, Ontario.
Lines: 46


We run a number of Unix machines on a network. We've been
using a variety of devices for terminals. Some Wyse 60s,
some ms-dos machines with ethernet cards. Some of the unix
machines have X display hardware built in (Sony News, Mips,
etc).

I manage this motley mess, and I would like to replace some
of the character terminals with X terminals.

But I need some quantitative analysis of their benefits.
What measurable value do they provide *you* with.

I know the users would love to see this change. The few who
use the X displays, love them. Those who don't, envy them.
We've seen some value in the X displays, but it is difficult
to justify them (given their cost!) when the old character
based displays have done us so well.

Arguing that with X one gets more than one window to work in
does not cut it. We use a variety of multi-windowing
packages already (Screen on BSD, Facet/Term on SYS-V). With
these, users can hot key to any one of a number of active
login sessions.

The big advantage with X is that you can have all these
sessions visible at once (or parts of them, as you wish).
But what's that worth?

Cost issues are (amoung others I'm sure) (prices are CDN):
   . X terminal >$3K
   . Wyse 60 terminal ~1200
       . terminal ~$900
       . transerver line ~$300 (10 line transerver ~3K)
   . X will impose a heavier load
      . more memory ($??K)
      . more cpus ($??K)
      . more disk space (for swap?)
   . what else?

I think it pretty obvious that X is expensive. But is the
cost justifiable?

-Larry