Conference 7.286::digital

    re: .0  "licensing"
    
    You fall into a common trap with this reasoning by suggesting a blanket
    policy that would penalize almost everyone just to address a localized
    management problem.
    
    Probably very few cost center managers ever figure in the hidden costs
    of using complex tools like workstations, in terms of support manpower
    and lost productivity.  But it's not the managers' fault, it's ours.
    
    Have you or anyone you know ever formally made this an issue with your
    management?  I know that no one in my area ever has.  Often we are so
    intent on getting new equipment of any sort that we sort of "forget"
    to analyse the real cost versus the benefits.  Managers don't always
    intuitively know these things and may assume that, "Gee, the more it
    costs, the better it must be, so go for the most expensive item!"
    
    So if this is really an issue, then I suggest going to your management
    with a statement about how the current situation impedes productivity,
    and some suggestions on how they can revise their capital equipment
    procurement models to correct the situation.
    
    If, on the other hand, this is really just an expression of envy at the
    amounts and allocations of capital funds to other groups, then you have
    my sympathy (I am also envious), but my advise is to grin and bear it.
    
    Geoff
    

    To look at this issue from a different angle, one of the managers in my
    general area needed to have a lot of overheads and other pictures made. 
    So he got his secretary a workstation, sent her to class for training on
    SIGHT, and now expects real output.  While the secretary had been using
    VMS for reading mail and general work, she had no real knowledge of the
    operating system.  So now she has a workstation but has no knowledge about
    how to care and feed it.  Every time a problem comes up, one of the
    technical people in that manager's group has to spend the time to fix the
    problem.

    From what I have seen, this is not an atypical situation.  Because
    secretaries must be there to answer phones, they can not use a machine that
    is set up in a common area (What! you want MY secretary to be away from her
    desk :-).  Even if the machine is in a common area, it does not stay there
    very long because if it is not being used then the manager feels that the
    machine is being wasted.  While I agree that workstations help SOME people
    become more productive, the workstations do not help ALL people to be more
    productive especially if they are not trained.

    I came from an environment where there were 7 graphics terminals for about
    30 developers.  While every developer would argue that they needed their
    own graphics terminal, in fact those 7 terminals only had waiting lines at
    one time (just before a product release) and most of the time were standing
    idle.

    What's my point?  Glad you asked.  Because we are a hardware company, there
    is less need to justify getting new equipment (except in the field offices
    where they can't seem to get any).  I have heard that Digital has one of
    the highest ratios of capital vs. people.  Perhaps we need to look at how
    we allocate the equipment to get better use of our resources.

    Any other thoughts??

    Lee G.

	The system management problem is a snap to fix. The answer is
	to cluster workstations. This solves almost all of the system
	management trouble because now the person using the workstation
	doesn't have to manage it. The incremental cost in time and
	effort to manage each additional workstation, for the regular
	system manager, is very very small. And getting smaller all the
	time. No one should have to have system management training to
	use a workstation. Never. If you believe they do please send
	VMS a QAR and get them to fix it.

	In my opinion, a workstation used by a non-technical person should
	almost always be part of a cluster unless there is a sound business
	reason not too. In fact, even for a technical person most workstations
	should be clustered. If not for the system management reasons than
	for the resource availability reasons. I've been a VAX system manager
	and I much prefer that my workstation be part of a cluster.

	As for getting the most use out of workstations I don't believe that
	technical or non-technical is the determining factor. I've seen a
	lot of technical people who just use DECterm windows on their 
	workstations. In general though I believe that the answer to getting
	more productive use out of workstations is not training but better
	tools. In fact as more tools become available for non-engineering
	people I would not be surprised if non-engineering people made 
	better use of their workstations.

	The big "message" of workstations with their graphical interfaces
	and on-line help is supposed to be that training is not needed.
	These tools are supposed to be easy, dare I say intuitive, to
	use. If we tell people that workstation usage must be licensed
	and that special training is required (more so than dump terminal
	usage) we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. The answer is
	to fix the tools to match the message.

			Alfred

    Alfred made the basic case in .2. Workstations in managed clusters
    provide capabilities to anyone who needs them. Not everyone has the
    need to learn how to install or manage one.
    
    The example in .3 of the secretary represents an extreme. He or she
    probably doesn't need a workstation; if that's the only platform on
    which the appropriate software runs, then some training is obviously in
    order.
    
    How can we tell our customers with a straight face that they should buy
    workstations and make their people more productive when we talk about
    _licensing_ our own people?!
    
    I'm "semi-technical", which means that I learn what I need to know to
    do the job at hand. If I had to learn how to install/maintain/trouble-
    shoot a workstation, I would. If I don't, I'll take advantage of the
    available useful software to get my work down efficiently and
    effectively.
    
    Hopefully, management allocates workstations based on their
    contributions towards the business. If that means techies first to
    prepare them to deal with customers, so be it. If that means knowledge
    workers to take advantage of windows, fine. If a secretary can provide
    more people a wider range of services, why not?
    
    - Richard

       
       	I've been and am a system manager now for a number of years. I
       	encountered this problem 3 years ago and decided that clusters
       	was the way to deal with it. I still believe that. If you haven't
       	a clue as to what is going on on your workstation, then having it
       	in a cluster is the thing to do. You DON'T need privs or anything
       	equally dangerous.  The main thing, in alot of sites, is
        education. Education of the users of the system and sometimes more
       	importantly, education of management.
       
       	BTW, I personally believe that a secretary should be given and 
       	taught how to use effectively, a workstation LONG before 
       	management types.  Workstations are best for people who tend to
       	try and do 20 things at once. Secretaries could really exploit
       	the hell out of workstations. Especially with some of the products
       	coming up and here today. (DECwrite, DECdecision, DECplan, etc...)
       
       	Another BTW, I hear DECvoice is the answer to answering phones.
       	We're looking into it up here in VMS.
       
       							mike

    Why leave it up to management to properly allocate workstation when
    there are some that use them as "expensive terminals"?
    
    The ones that need them most (i.e., field people, sales) don't have
    them.  I've heard some real horror stories lately about some sales
    people losing a bid to Sun because they didn't know we made Unix 
    workstations (this isn't a problem specific to this area either).  Maybe 
    if more of them had a DECstation or VAXstation to demo, we wouldn't be 
    concerned about U.S. sales.
    
    Mike

       
       	Just because a sales person has a DECstation doesn't mean they are
       going to know how to sell a DEC Unix hotbox. Just giving them boxes
       to power on is a waste.. What we need is a better way of communication 
       to the Sales folks. We have to help them know better what's out
       there. Handing them hardware and saying "Look, we got these too!"
       doesn't cut it..
       
       	BTW, I'm not against in any way, shape, or form seeing
       workstations on anyones desk. But if all they are going to do is
       read their ALL-IN-1 mail from a DECterm window, then get them a 
       VT320 and give the workstation to the poor sales SUPPORT shmuck
       stuck with the VT52 and having to support DECwindows.. (sheesh!)
       
       						mike

    RE:.7

    I agree with you, Mike.  My earlier point was not that the secretary should
    not have the workstation, but that the only reason she needed it was to do
    one task that could have been done on a common workstation if one was
    available.  My concern is that BETTER planning is what is needed not the
    "throw enough hardware at the problem and it will be solved" way of doing
    business.

    FWIW,
    Lee G.

    Excuse the rathole but...
    
    I'm not in sales either, I'm at a manufacturing site.  My eyes were
    really opened a few weeks ago at a user's conference for a popular
    (in DEC) third party application.
    
    I had the chance to talk to many people that work for DEC customers
    (who also use this workstation application).  There is a major product
    awareness problem out there!  Needless to say that we did our share of
    marketing/pre-sales support to close the gap!
    
    Mike

    I think the replies to this topic miss an important point, instead
    echoing the sentiments of a certain well-known CEO who reportedly once
    said, "If they don't understand our products, they don't deserve to buy
    them."
    
    My reaction is this:  If our workstation is so complex that office
    workers are unable to manage them, then our workstations are too
    complex for the market we wish to sell them in.  For the sake of the
    internal budgets, I would advocate going out and buying workstations
    that are easy enough to use.  For the sake of the company's profits, I
    would advocate making our workstations easier to use.
    
    I am well aware of the relative power of DECstation hardware and
    software as compared to the Macintosh.  Even taking that into account,
    I'd say the Digital product is an order of magnitude too complex to
    manage for the things it can do.  Apple is selling a million units a
    year by making them simple to use AND simple to manage.
    
    The very fact that the idea of "licensing users" is broached is a
    danger sign.  But what you are doing is blaming the victim.  In a
    competitive market such as workstations, you cannot say, "Make the
    customers learn our products and they'll do fine."  No, if you make
    them learn our systems, they'll buy from someone else.
    
    This is a hot button of mine.  I hope that somewhere out there, a task
    force is looking into straightening out the system management mess. 
    But first must come the realization that the problem lies not with our
    customers but with ourselves.

    To amplify what I wrote in [.10], here's a more specific list of things
    that I think are overly complex in Digital workstations, lumping
    together hardware, software, and firmware into a systems gripe.  Let me
    make clear that my experience and bias comes from using a VAXstation 2000
    during the day and a Macintosh Plus at night.
    
    o	The self-test and diagnostics package is intrusive and primitive
    
    o	The start-up is exceedingly long; the startup dialog is
    	incomprehensible (even if you could read it, which you can't,
    	because it's splattered all over the screen in multiple fonts)
    
    o	The architected split between user as user and user as system
    	manager is difficult to use
    
    o	There are currently no sophisticated tools to help manage a
    	system
    
    o	Too many important tasks require the use of command procedures,
    	which is at best a primitive kludge
    
    o	There are a stunning number of logicals and symbols used;
    	much of system management seems to consist of manipulating
    	logicals and symbols (if this isn't complex, I don't know 
    	what is)
    
    o	Even the minimal VMS configuration includes several hundred files,
    	of mysterious function and bewildering hierarchy
    
    o	(Self-criticism) The documentation, when printed, weighs more than
    	the workstation does
    
    After all this, I can see why someone would get the urge to certify
    users.  It's probably easier to fly a Piper Cub than to pilot a Digital
    workstation.

    That's what you'll get if you compress a VAX-11/780 with 100 users into
    a pizza box.
    
    Face it, that's the difference between a PC and a host/mini/whatever.
    The design goals for the OS is completely different! However, its very
    complexity is the source of its flexibility too.
    
    And oh, a VAXstation was *never* meant to be switched off.

    VMS DECwindows is a lot harder to use and less convenient than the far
    more featureful Symbolics window system.

I would agree with .13 about the lesser convenience of VMS DECwindows versus the
more featureful Symbolics window system.

    Re: [.12]:
    
    Thanks for your reply.  I certainly agree VMS was designed with a
    different audience in mind.  But I disagree that just because VMS was
    designed for, shall we say, sophisticated users, it follows that it
    must be or should be hard to manage.  That is a fallacy.  It was not
    designed to be easy to manage.  There are some very senior software
    engineers where I work who are tearing their hair out over system
    management problems on a regular basis.  I can vouch for their
    experience and intelligence, but system management is more trouble for
    them than it's worth.
    
    People are having trouble to this day, on small VMS platforms and
    large.  I think the interface could stand serious overhaul.
    
    And by the way, I had to smile when I saw your statement that a
    VAXstation was never meant to be turned off.  I assume your reasoning
    is, "If you never turn it off, you never have to reboot, and thus you
    never encounter startup problems."  Well, I don't know what facility
    you work in, or what work you do, but where I work the power goes off
    sometimes, and I crash my workstation sometimes.  The perfect world is
    not meant to be mine. 8^)
    

    I notice that no one has mentioned DESKTOP-VMS at all, as long as we're
    hammering on ease-of-use issues.. or maybe, like me, you've never SEEN
    it up and running..
    
    karl moeller SWS TUO (way, WAY out in the field)

    Particularly for Karl  (.16)
    
    I use Desktop-VMS as it is for customers, on a little CD, in a VS3100.
    I would recommend it to any customer.  I have asked, though the
    notes file, for expansion of the facility to include all machines,
    because it is nice, simple and relatively efficient.
    
    There are some problems in being 'removed' from regular VMS-style
    control of your environment, I can't hack fixes really quickly and
    so on, some products won't install because the sysgen parameters
    are still set to 256K 11/750, but all in all, it's a good product.
    The very nicest thing about it is it can be run without a manual
    by those (like myself) who haven't actually managed a system in
    a few years.  So we don't have to remember all the words.
    
    

    Steve [Jong]:
    
    When I said not to switch off you VAXstation, I meant that being so it
    will reduce the amount of time you actually have to wait for system
    startup. It is routine (in my experience) to go to a PC and switch it
    on, which you expect to get to a VAXstation to *logon*. Of course it
    will get powered down sometimes but it can't be that often, can it? :)
    Maybe that's why VMS editors come standard with journaling, for sites
    like yours! (ok, ok, just kidding...)
    
    
    re .-1
    
    An interesting note about Desktop-VMS. We recently installed a 15-node
    VAXcluster of which 13 are VS3100 and 2 VAXserver 3300s. It was
    originally intended to run Desktop-VMS, but due to various constrains
    (already highlighted by Don) it was decided to put in VMS until we can
    get the products stabilized (these are 3rd party AI/KE applications).
    Now this is the first time we have encountered Desktop-VMS (or a
    CD-ROM) for that matter and we weren't adept at casting spells at
    Desktop like we can at VMS. The real surprise was, after a couple weeks
    of use, the user decided that they like VMS so much (for its
    flexibility, blah...) that they don't want the Desktop back!
    
    If there are any VMS developers around, please note, the field need an
    internal doc detailing the differences between Desktop and VMS and the
    various constraints. Right now, we are still unsure of what was the
    real change in Desktop. Or is that info already available, sorry but
    down here we usually get only the dreg.
    
    Heng-Wah

    a recent observation was made:
    
    	If a train station is where the train stops, and
    
    	a bus station is where the bus stops...
    
    
    		what is a work station?
    
    
    -Barry_with_credit_to_Aaron_Hoelzer-
    

    Barry,
    
    Is the word "stops" the significant one in your reply? - To be
    concatinated with "work"?
    
    I have not used one yet, but I hope you are joking. 
    
    Fred

    As has already been pointed out workstations are not a pain if they are
    put into a LAVC and the bootnode is managed properly.
    
    In our group, IBM Interconnect Engineering, we have set up a LAVC
    (bootnode microvax 2 with an RA81, RA60, TK50 and CDREADER). The
    workstations themselves require no management. I wrote a simple
    document that told people how to run AUTOGEN and how to configure their
    workstations. Other than that it is plug and play. We deliberately
    ordered the workstations without TK50s to discourage people from using
    them standalone.
    
    Yes I agree the LAVC does require somebody familiar with VMS to manage
    it. What annoys me is groups that dump a workstation on peoples desks
    and expect them to become VMS gurus, even more they have to install
    software etc. In this case I believe they are a big drain on peoples
    time.
    
    We have our LAVC set up so that there is a central control file
    (SYS$MANAGER:CLUSTER_MEMBERS.COM) that defines symbols relating to
    each workstation (hardware address, DECnet address etc). The permanent
    database on the boot node is a complete one that is updated once a week
    by NETUPDATE2 and then propagated to the workstations by a batch
    job on each node. The volatile database on the bootnode ONLY has the
    satellite nodes set plus 1 or 2 nodes needed for running NETUPDATE2
    (2.9 and the local hub). This ensures that SERVICE can be enabled on
    the boot and that it doesn't get hung up searching the volatile
    database. Before we did this it was a real dog, satellites wouldn't
    boot etc. Now they boot immediately. We load the complete network
    volatile database on all the satellites. Yes that does take1/2 to 1
    hour to do but we think it is worth it. We run all the DQS queues and
    NMAIL queues on one of the satellites (actually on our group manager's
    workstation, since he only uses it as a multi-window terminal). We
    don't run the queues on the bootnode because it doesn't have a full
    node database.
    
    Now that the LAVC is up it requires very little care and attention, I
    manage it jointly with another member of our engineering group. We
    also encourage people who want a new layered product to install
    it themselves. In this way 1 installation satisfies everybody. Whereas
    with standalone workstations you'd need to do it 20+ times.
    At present we have 20 satellites and the microvax II shows no sign of
    running out of resources yet.
    
    By the way our workstations are 6 Meg VS2000s (some colour and some
    B/W). Performance is acceptable to good. Obviously a lot of CPU
    intensive DECwindows applications are run off the main SMAUG cluster
    where the big cannons are stored.
    
    So what I'm saying is that workstations are a big win if you cluster
    them and have 1 VMS knowledgable person to manage the LAVC. But
    if you insist on drooping a standalone workstation on VMS neophyes
    desk then expect a lot of pain and expect that user's productivity
    to go down.
    
    Dave

    Desktop VMS is a CD-ROM based VMS system, with DECwindows interface to
    system management functions.  It is intended to eliminate much of the
    traditional VMS system management activity by defaulting, etc., which
    means booting originally from a preconfigured system (on the VS3100).  
    The remaining essentials - adding satellites, managing users,
    configuring printers, etc. - are simplified, and accessed through the 
    DECwindows based system management modules.  The system is a complete
    VMS operating system, which MAY be managed in the traditional way once
    booted should you wish to do so.
    
    Gary

    In the field, I believe that sales/sales support should use what
    they sell. If their customers are buying character cells terminals,
    they should use those and become familiar  with that product. If
    a workstation, use a workstation. Of course, when I see the MAC's
    and Amigas with their  "Out of the Box Computing" style, I wonder
    if our approach is the correct one. If our sales  folks can't get
    a workstation on the air, how do we expect our customers?

    re: .-1
    
    What! Give workstations to specialist!?
    No way! That will impact my bottom line!
    Howwwwwwwwwwllllllllllllllllll!!
    
    HW_in_bean_counter_mode
    
    ps: of course I am *not* a bean counter, just a trained monkey :)

    
    re .24
    
    A workstation is not designed for a sales person. It was designed for
    someone who actually took a computer science course, and for that
    matter, someone who has a 4 year degree in computer science!
    
    Flame off.
    
    /prc

    
    re. 0 - come on paul, this is just like the old "do we really need
    FA&T" argument. The answer is of course that vms on workstation is
    complex a beast to manage. heck, vms period is too complex to manage.
    We eliminated FA&T by improving the quality in our hardware. We
    eliminate your job (support) and expert system managers by making
    our software - VMS and all the layered products, much more improved
    and much easier to deal with. 
    
    We'd better do it fast before everyone else has - some have started.
    Maybe there should be licenses issued to the makers of workstations ;-)
    
    	bs

>    If there are any VMS developers around, please note, the field need an

There are, but it would be a lot better to enter your request in a
product-oriented conference than here.

- greg

(PS: haven't read all the intervening replies yet ... forgive if dup)

    re  Note 932.26 by VCSESU::COOK "Escher roolz!"
    
    �  It [a workstation] was designed for someone who actually took
    �  a computer science course, and for that matter, someone who has
    �  a 4 year degree in computer science! 
                             
    
    You've got to be kidding!  
    =========================

    re: .26 /prc
    
    So, Mr. New-personal-name-every-few-hours, mind telling us how you
    managed to get one?
    
    Al
    

    
    re .30
    
    I have a 4 year degree in Computer Science and I am currently a
    Software Engineer. Give them to people who utilize them right,
    else capital is wasted. Let us hear from the engineers out there
    who are reading this right now on a VT100 or VT200 series terminal.
    
    How many non-technical types who have a workstation have taken
    a VMS System Management course?
    
    /prc

    
    re . -1  Although i hear your frustration Pete at internal resources,
    the point still is that more and more non-technical people are using
    workstations. If we don't make them easier to deal with, they are
    all going to be running on Intel platforms using OS/2 for an operating
    system. And, they most likely will run using OS/2 based servers because
    they get what they need, and get it in a much more simpler fashion!
    
    	To further emphasize my point, I listened the other evening to
    a fireman describing his frustrations with a DEC supplied app running
    on some breed of vaxen. He doesn't know what it is, he knows it's
    slow and from Digital.  They have something like 8 folks with DEC
    supplied training. Great - but it does not grant them access to
    all the online help we can get gratis... 
    
    	The world is changing fast. PC's are driving that change - heck
    even using DOS. If we don't pay attention, all our flexibility and
    accompanying complexity will leave us high and dry as the user base
    migrates to what's cheap, and get's the job done!
    
    	bs_whose_an_ex_tops10_ex_vms_now_pc_based_bigot
    

    So, you have to have a CS degree to use/have a workstation ...
    sheesh ! I have one because I do online graphics and the only internal
    applications that exist for me are on a workstation. I am only a
    humble tech writer with an English Degree ;-)
    
    Although I do as much sys. mgmt. tasks as I can (mostly self-taught),
    time permitting, I'm in the ideal situation where there is a computer 
    center group that will provide all the sys. mgmt. support I need.
    I'm not sure if other buidlings have this setup, but I think it's
    an excellent alternative to LAVcs...which seem to need a heck of
    a lot of attention (either that, or no one around here knows how
    to manage one !)
    
    Joan G.  

    Peter,
    	  utter rubbish. Sorry, but here you are right out of line. As an
    ex-developer of 8 years, plus 6 years in Field Service in DEC, I have
    no degree, but defy you to find a more devoted WS user, promoting their
    use throughout my departments in the last 3 years.
    
    	Workstations are the way of the future, character-cell terminals
    are merely relics.
    
    	Finally, sales folk *MUST* have access to the goods that they sell.
    Or we might as well pack up and go home.
    
    - ���

    >> Workstations are the way of the future,
    
    I'd say: standards-based graphical display stations are the way of
    the future. Score 1 vote for X terminals.

    re: .34
    
    I didn't really think Peter was serious at first, but since it appears
    he is, what he wrote is worse than rubbish.  There is a far too commonly
    held view in our Engineering that computers are an end unto themselves;
    that they are designed by computer science professionals to be used
    by computer science professionals to solve computer science problems.
    
    We hawk products and services to solve *customer business problems*.
    Very few of our customers businesses are based solely on information
    technologies; rather, they rely on these technologies to provide
    them with support or a competetive edge in their business.
    
    If Sales, Marketing, Manufacturing, Distribution, Research, Finance,
    Administration or Management people are undeserving of using a product
    which is supposed to help them do their job because they lack a
    C.S. degree, then let's pack up and get out of this business today.
    
    Al
    

    re : .35
    
    YES, I VOTE FOR X-TERMINALS!
    
    But I'd like to bring up an issue that has been overlooked. Given the
    widespread popularity (vision :) of the Xterminals, we will soon have
    workstation application running on timeshared hosts and servers.
    *However*, some application developer has been working on the premise
    that the workstation is a single user machine and thus the application
    do not need to pinch on CPU usage. I have seen applications doing tight
    loops waiting for user input! A couple of such applications will quickly
    bring a hosts (of any size) to its knees.
    
    Am I just paranoid?
    
    
    re: .34
    
    Andy,
    
    �	Finally, sales folk *MUST* have access to the goods that they sell.
    � Or we might as well pack up and go home.
    
    Right! I'll start packing right away!

    A few thoughts from a non-degreed person who was director of computer
    services prior to becoming a digit...       
    
    1] I have no personal knowledge of what our engineers think when
    they build these things, but I doubt they design machines & software
    for the exclusive use of computer science types.  Digital's product
    line has been too "bang on" for too long for it to be dumb luck.
    
    2] Yes, our products must be made easier to use, and as the physical
    technology makes it possible, they are becoming so.  Cars aren't
    limited to use by mechanics, and I'm no carpenter, but I think I
    use my house pretty well.  Sure, the Unix people are trying to re-cult
    computers but it's too late for that.  (When I first brought a
    VAXstation to the house my then seven-year-old said: "You finally
    got one with a mouse.  Let me show you how to work it.")
    
    3] Should our field people have them...  Of course not!  Why would
    we want them to produce professional-looking proposals?  Why would
    we want to do our expenses via DECdecision/DECwrite and mail them
    around when we could use up tons of paper and be inefficient as
    hell?  Why would we want them to talk with conviction when describing
    themselves?
    
    As to the presmise that you shouldn't have one without a test...
    How's this for a final exam for the prospective customer...
    
         Can you sign your name on this purchase order, please?"
                                                    
    
    Don
    

    The last line in 3] should end: "... talk with conviction when
    describing what they use themselves?"
               -------------
    
    EVERYONE talks with conviction in the other circumstance.

re: .32

(ok, ch�, i'll pick on your reply for my reply! ;-))

there are several different issues here:
	1. the system management issue - as several other people have
	   mentioned, i don't think this is that serious when you're
	   running in clustered mode - but there are still "holes" (that
	   mostly relate to lack of management understanding - "hey, you
	   wanna boot these 17 new workstations into the cluster by this
	   afternoon?") - as for the question "should we build a stand-
	   alone workstation product that's as easy to manage as a PC?",
	   sure (in our voluminous spare time), but see 2., 3. and 4. below
	2. the general ease-of-use issue - if DECwindows is too hard to
	   learn vs. Macintosh windows, then people in marketing and
	   engineering need to be made aware of this (so it can be fixed
	   - hopefully) - but is it really the computer and its user
	   interface that is difficult to use, or the applications layered
	   on top of it?
	3. the unrealistic expectation issue - sure, some people can take
	   their PCs out of the box, fire 'em up and be running fancy
	   applications in no time flat - but others probably get just as
	   frustrated with OS/2 as they would with VMS...there are not
	   insignificant numbers of people out there who simply can't just
	   pick things up by "playing around" and/or reading the manuals
	   (and the general rule is: the more functionally grandiose the
	   product is, the more easily people get frustrated trying to
	   learn it) - we're not the only company that frustrates people
	   who have forked over cold cash for computer solutions
	4. the resource deployment issue - so why shouldn't we allocate
	   workstations to the people who will get the most productivity
	   out of them?  why are we letting engineers, salespeople and
	   software specialists do without, when we're prepared to give
	   workstations to managers, "consultants" and secretaries who
	   don't have even the foggiest notion of what a VAXcluster is,
	   what DECnet is, or what any number of other basic DEC product
	   concepts mean?  and if that's the trend, why are we relying
	   on local support people to do hand-holding and inferior (given
	   that it's not their job) training, when training is supposedly
	   the official province of the Bedford establishment?

>    	bs_whose_an_ex_tops10_ex_vms_now_pc_based_bigot
    
	aw, next you'll be hopping on the un*x bandwagon, bs! ;-)
								paul

    Re: .26
    
    While I'm just a EE with 27 years of CS experience, it's always
    been my impression that computers (including workstations, Xterms,
    PCs, etc) are to make tasks easier for mortal humans to perform.
    Granted, not ALL people need workstations but our customers are
    not convinced of that and they continue to purchase more workstations.
    
    My point is that, if the customer is purchasing terminals and time
    sharing computers, I feel that the sales person should be working
    in that environment. If they are moving into workstations, why do
    we require that the sales person rely upon a selected number of
    support people familiar with workstations to answer all the customers
    questions (even the simplest ones)? Seems to me that this puts us
    in a position where, if we really get succesful in selling our
    workstations, we'll run short of support people. Hmmm, seems to
    me that increases our cost of sales and decreases our margins.
    
    Basically, I'm suggesting that our sales people be familiar with
    our computing environment not necessarily each and every model.
    In some cases, Xterm might be sufficient. Doing this might have
    some negative (maybe positive) impacts as we realize increased system
    administrator support. We might even realize that our distributed
    compting environment requires too much management by too many people.
    Funny thing how easily Mac and Amiga users are able to use their
    systems as they come out of the box ("Out of the box computing").
    The facilities are there (even for CS graduates) to customize the
    user's environment *if* he wants. Most users, customers, sales people,
    etc. simply want to do their job in the most efficient way possible
    with the least pain. If we are telling our customers that DECwindows
    in a Digital environment best meets their needs, then I truly believe
    that our sales people should work in that environment and know that
    environment.
    
    Would you really buy a Porsche from a person that drives a Chevette?
    
      Al

    
    	I was kind of joking.
    
    	But I'll stand by this statement. If sales wants Workstations, give
    	them color monitors, but give the engineers at LEAST a workstation
    	with a monochrome monitor.
    
    	NO Software Engineer should be without a workstation.
    
    	That's my point.
    
    	/prc

    
    re: .40
    
    	My response is we need to get better at all of it. Yes,
    applications are sometimes very complex and confusing (i've helped
    produce a few).  But my OS/2 machine has no SYSGEN and it's
    accompanying myriad of dangerous variables that i can whale my
    vax with.  System management consists at most of editing ascii
    files, and generally, only 1 or 2.
    
    	PC hardware is another issue, but there are signs that is getting
    better, and cheaper! 
    
    	Using LAVC with uVaxen or PCSA with pc's you should still only need
    1 responsible individual per work group.  The job becomes very
    manageable - you get to control your configuration, single source
    many of your resources, and your users get power and performance
    they deserve.  It can be done without defensive minded MIS fortresses
    of the type you and i both remember.   
    
    	The ideal is to give the end user as much freedom and power as
    neccesary to get as much done as possible with minimal intrusion
    do to policy etc.  That means we need simpler, consistent remote
    management abilities, consistent, simple user interfaces at the
    application level, and a good security architecture to provide
    the necessary safeguards on computing resources. Seems to me that
    most of this is becoming accepted faith.  I think we need to
    develop and use all this good stuff rather than create more computer
    police!
    
    	Besides Paul, you couldn't live without staying up all night
    drinking that badf coffee ^8^8^8
    
    	bs

       RE: .26
       
       	Having a 4 year Comp Sci degree doesn't mean diddly Peter and
       you know it. We both know of plenty of people without a degree of any
       kind that are better off with a workstation than some people with
       PhD's!  Let's not equate level of formal education with the ability
       to operate something. Congrats on the hard work you went thru to
       get your degree, but let's cool the blowing of your own horn and get
       to the point.
       
       	People who need workstations are the people who should have them.
       Period.  System management support? If they can't be in a LAVC or
       MIVC, then they should be running Desktop-VMS if at all possible.
       
       						mike

    We just received a DS3100 for our office to use and learn on.  there's
    another here that we recently finished loading.  I don't have the
    requisite 4 hours plus to dink with it, so I'm reading up on how to
    mount the new system's RZ55 on the first system's SCSI, and then how to
    'dump' from one RZ55 to the other - all to eliminate having to go thru
    a long and tedious system load process.
    
    So : should one of our workstations require _____ (fill in favorite OS
    here) system management experience just to get it up and running ?
    
    karl

>             <<< Note 932.42 by VCSESU::COOK "Grimace musically" >>>
>    	But I'll stand by this statement. If sales wants Workstations, give
>    	them color monitors, but give the engineers at LEAST a workstation
>    	with a monochrome monitor.
>    
>    	NO Software Engineer should be without a workstation.
    
    	/prc, do you work for manufacturing?
    
    Mike

>          <<< Note 932.38 by CGOO01::DTHOMPSON "Don, of Don's ACT" >>>
>    computers but it's too late for that.  (When I first brought a
>    VAXstation to the house my then seven-year-old said: "You finally
>    got one with a mouse.  Let me show you how to work it.")
    
    Don, I had heard this before but thought it was overkill.  Do DECcies
    really have workstations at home as well as in their office?
    
    Mike

RE: .47

	Some do.. I know of one devo that had a cluster (NI based) in his
	house.. He had justification for it too. (God knows he works 
	enough hours!)

	I could have had one at home but I spend too much time around
	computers as it is.. I'd like to get RID of my VT320 at home
	and not have to log in! :-)

						mike

There are (at least) two separate points being confused here:
The first point is who SHOULD have a workstation.
The second point is who SHOULD NOT have a workstation.

I know, I know with limited resources, the two are linked, but they
ARE separate issues.

Who SHOULD have workstations?  Anyone who will be more productive (net
productivity after you take into account W/S housekeeping) with a workstation
should have one. Also, anyone who needs to learn workstation tools in order
to train/support customers should have access to a workstation. (I know
that sounds obvious but in truth it often is not the case).

Who SHOULD NOT have workstations? Anyone who does not fall into the above
category, and anyone with a standalone workstation who is not able/willing
to manage it so as to not be a hazard to the net as a whole.

Kevin

    In all our wisdom, why can't we offer a workstation that's useable
    right "out of the box"? The customer is not in the business of
    supporting system managers. He simply wants to do the job and get
    a return on his investment.
    
    Two trains of thought I think here. One is that DIgital is also
    a customer and user of our products in that our engineering
    organizations should be provided the BEST tools available. Our
    engineers, thru productivity, enhance our chances of being profitable.
    Our customers (I believe) want the same thing but the question remains
    "at what cost"?
    
    DEC generally looks good relative to the MAC environment once the
    user gets started. It's the getting started that's so tough (and
    expensive).

    Re:  .47   "...Do DECcies really have workstations at home..."
    
    Probably not too many have them at home as well as in their office.
         
    Workstations, like friendly people, do have a way of "passing through"
    from time to time.  Such as when the demo is Monday and it's now
    Friday afternoon...
    
    
    BTW...
    I do have a Rainbow at home as well as in my office, but the one
    at home I bought and the one at work I "inherited" from a departing
    fellow employee.
    
    

    re:.50 (FASDER::AHERB)
        < In all our wisdom, why can't we offer a workstation that's
        < useable right "out of the box"?
    
    We do!  Buy a VAXstation with a CD reader and Desktop VMS and you:
       1) Take it our of the box;
       2) Put it somewhere and plug it in;
       3) Put the monitor on top of it and plug it in (the cables are
          less complicated than a colour PC's;
       4) Put the keyboard and mouse on the table and plug them in
          (again, there's no mistaking the cables, and the book has
           nice, simple pictures);
       5) Turn it on;
       6) Insert the CD;
       7) [I think] Type in a boot command - explained right there in
          the book, in easy non-computerese;
       8) [Pick one]   Watch it install VMS, set itself up and reboot
                                        - OR -
                       Walk away for a while and come back later
    
    Some may say this needs intelligence and/or knowledge, BUT...
      ...you do NOT have to plug boards into slots;
      ...you do NOT have to set DIP switches;
      ...you do NOT have to know what kind of graphics you have;
      ...you do NOT have to know what printer port you're using
         (it's marked with a little picture);
      ...you do NOT have to know what COM port you're using
         (another symbol - two arrows on this one);
      ...you do NOT have to set up software applications to know if
         you have graphics and if so how much.  
         
    In other words, a non-computer literate type person could, IMHO,
    set up and run a VAXstation with, for example, DECwrite and DECdecision
    in a lot less time than he/she/it could a PC of any significance
    with similar applications.
    
    Don
    

	A view from another angle!

Since arriving at DEC only 1 year and 2 months ago, I feel I still
can relate to the outside world.  As for licensing a workstation user
thats totaly ridiculous.  As for licensing intelligent human beings,
somebody is going to buy the license. :-)

PC's in general will require any person who has never set one up a day
or two!  Now if I owned FOOBAR Associates INC, I would want my employees
working on the tasks at hand.  i.e.  Customer inquiry, inventory control,
payroll, accounting...  etc. etc. etc.  I would not want to see them
trying to set up any machine! (VAXSTATION, PC, or any other form of
equipment)  Given that VAX Stations are far more complex than the average
PC (Understatement :-) ). But they can also do more.  As for proposing OS2.. 
It's still in it's early development stages.

I have seen PC come into a company, and the person who the PC is for
spends more time fidgeting with the new gadget than doing real work!
I understand that diversion is needed from the job once in a while,
but I want my people working not playing around!  I don't want my
accountant knowing FDISK, FORMAT, or for that matter VMSINSTAL. 
I want them to know how much it costs to make 20 widgets.   Yes I
want them to learn a spreadsheet, and I want them to be able to get
the information they need into that spead sheet.  BUT I WANT IT DONE
AUTOMATICALLY!  User intervention not required.  Is that not what computers
were designed for!  "AUTOMATION"

This is where I see an information specialist required.  The person who
knows how to manage the hardware, knows the software, and knows how the
information gets from point A to point B.  I don't want my office people
changing sysgen parameters, just as much as I don't want them writing
DOS BATCH Files.  I want them to do real work for FOOBAR INC. 

Working for other companies has really showed me how much time people
waste on things they just should not be doing and hence being non productive.
Isn't that why computers are being bought!  To print those 250 payroll checks,
to find out if customer X's order was shipped!   I want it fast, reliably,
and with no overhead!  I want MARGIN!


Enough of foobar INC.

VAXes are complex machines.  True multitasking operating system that has a
10 year proven track record!  Our sophisticated customers like it.  The
non sophisticated customers well  they really don't know any better.
But when you consider today that I could start with a small MV2000, and
migrate on up to a larger machine i.e. MV 3900 to a total company wide
computing NETWORK environment, and not a disarray of totally different
machines with different operating systems, diferent individual setups,
different hardware, and no net except sneaker net to speak of! And of
course god forbid that person or owner of the machine should leave.

In ending.....

A user should have a turnkey solution to there problem.  No hardware
or software to worry about.  A seemless integration of a company wide
solution, and not a partial departmental solution with total
dis--integration. (because thats what happens to any company,
there money $$$ disintegrates)

Just my self righteuos 2 cents worth..

- Mike         ;-)

    
    
    re .46
    
    No, I do not work for Manufacturing. 
    
    /prc

    Maybe IBM-clone PCs with MSDOS operating systems are as hard to set up
    out of the box as is described here, but an Apple Macintosh sure isn't.
    Like the DesktopVMS example, you match the cables to the icons, turn it
    on, and put the disk in.  (You don't even have to type a boot command.)
    
    A big difference though is that you don't have to wait while VMS
    installs itself.  If you turn your back on it, it will be up and
    running when you look again.

    
    Speaking as one of those MIS folks who always seem to be identified as
    a major stumbling block in the deployment of anything I'd LOVE to see
    workstations on most desks in this company. Before I came over to MIS I
    was the workstation (or Worksystems as we tried to call them at that
    point!) consultant for MAA Software Services. I have one on my desk and
    have been pushing my group into them so that we are prepared to support
    them when our customers begin to get them.
    
    The problem is one of scale. When you have 10 people to provide for
    it's pretty easy to move into new technology but what about 3000? And
    what if those 3000 are spread across 30 different facilities in 5
    different states? And what if you have experienced a headcount
    reduction of over 8 people in 6 months and are just barely running your
    datacenter of 120 VUPs? You give me a body per large facility and I'll
    support just about any number of work groups; one per group is overkill
    unless you want a tremendous amount of handholding which this company
    can't afford these days.  Putting these systems out there implies an
    infrastructure to support them, one that will probably cost more than
    the actual workstations. Bootnodes, disks and people to do backups all
    cost one hell of a lot of money and expensive floorspace - you can't
    look at any think without considering the support costs.
    
    There's also the problem of applications for these boxes. What *REAL*
    good does putting a workstation on a sales rep's desk if there aren't
    any applications for him to use? And you can't say DECwrite for
    proposal since that requires boilerplates and image libraries that need
    to be maintained which isn't the rep's job! Just getting into a
    DECwindows application and playing around is a fine idea but it isn't
    worth a $10K investment of capital. There's no doubt that over the next
    few years our applications will begin to support a truly distributed
    enviornment (as compared to decentralized) but today they require a
    massive amount of reference data which stops them from running on small
    systems. All of these reduce the usefulness of a workstation on the
    average employees desk TODAY. The potential is IMMENSE but until the
    infrastructure and applications are inplace is it worth the money?
    
    I do feel that software engineers and SOME software specialists do
    need workstations today. However, do you have the bodies and money to
    do the backups? And who's gonna do the O/S (see how careful I was to
    avoid saying VMS??) installs and upgrades? I mean, what purpose does it
    serve on your desk? Is it there to help you develop software, in which
    case why do you need to manage it?
    
    -Ray
    
    ps sorry for the rambling nature of this note - it's been a long day of
    worm tracing and BASIC (yuk!) debugging...
    
    
    

    Ray,
    
    Please say ALL software specialists should have them.  They should
    be responsible for everything concerning it except access to the
    network, which should be controlled in an organized fashion.
    "Everything" includes the trunk of the DECmobile if that is what
    makes sense to the specialist at the momemnt!

    I've been around here for 10 years and for the life of me cannot
    understand why I do not have one.  I'd even trade vacation time
    to pay for one (only at Internal Transfer rates).  See my note in
    EMPPURPRO.
    
    FRED