Conference 7.286::digital

    Wanna hear something even more disturbing?  A company is now marketing
    a window-based system management tool for VMS systems.
    
    It runs on the Macintosh.  
    
    Following the formfeed is some information (cross posted from another
    conference).

             <<< ROUTES::$1$DIA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MACONLINE.NOTE;4 >>>
                    -< MAConline - Online Macintosh Files >-
================================================================================
Note 1568.0                  Central System Manager                   No replies
SCADMN::MERRELL "Dtn 521-3107/Santa Clara, CA"       37 lines   1-JAN-1991 16:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MAC$NETWORK:CSM021.A	     (For the VAX - requires MSA010 and a key)
    MAC$NETWORK:CSM_2_1_7.COMPACTOR  (For the Macintosh)
    
Central System Manager is a client-server application that lets you
manage VAX/VMS systems from a Macintosh. Multiple pull-down menus are
provided for various functions such as queue management, network
management, system shutdown, etc. They can be tailored to suit
individual needs.
    
The connection from the client Macintosh to the host VAX system(s) can
be over DECnet, AppleTalk, or other protocols. This product is
compatible with AppleTalk for VMS V2.0, 2.1, and 3.0, so it DOES work
with PATHWORKS for Macintosh V1.0. (Since I've not uploaded the
ATKVMS02x.A kits, you'll need to have our product to use this, in fact.)
    
We have been authorized to put the real kit online by the vendor. In order 
to run it, you will need to get a key from them to enable the server 
on the VAX end. The key you get will have an expiration date, although
I have found them very willing to provide long terms for suitable
environments like ACT's. They can be reached at:
    
    	Integrated Solutions Inc.
    	1020 Eighth Avenue
    	King of Prussia, PA 19406	USA
    	+1 215-337-2282
    	Attn: Steve Lipschutz
    	decwrl::"[email protected]"

If using Email, be sure to include your return address in the body of the
message as: "[email protected]@INTERNET#" where username and
nodename are from your nodename::username VAXmail address on Easynet.
    
I found the product to be pretty responsive and easy to use once installed.
It took a little playing around to get the MacWorkStation stuff to work 
properly on one system I tried it on, but the other system worked just fine.
    
Greg

    re .0......Aw, c'mon...don't you know they are in a "different"
    business than we are??  At least that's what our senior "management"
    believes.  You know, the same people that have cut back severely on our
    equipment useage.
    
    I wouldn't know a window if it fell on me, much less any of the new
    color and graphics stuff.  I use a terminal for mail and notes, period.
    
    I can't tell you how thrilled I am with my new VT220!!!  Actually, I
    preferred my VT100, but it was embarassing once in ZKO when a group
    of real customers walking by my cubicle and proceeded to have a good
    laugh over my VT100.
    
    Sad........

Re:                     <<< Note 1348.2 by COOKIE::LENNARD >>>

>    I can't tell you how thrilled I am with my new VT220!!!

Well, you can still claim you are a user of ancient stuff. The VT220
was obsoleted (ooops! strike that! 'became a mature product' is the correct
vernacular) a few years ago and was replaced by the VT320. The VT420 was
announced in Apr. 90 and a sales publication in Oct. 90 mentioned the VT320 as
being 'near end-of-life'.

If you continue your current equipment usage trend you can move up to an
(obsolete) VAXstation 2000 in 2 years or so.

Lee

    ...BE STILL, MY HEART!!!  GAD, I CAN HARDLY WAIT.
    
    But then, of course, there are our highly competitive disks, which to
    a large extent have become the laughing stick of the industry.
    
    I know "we have it now".  I just hope it isn't catching.

    DEC's use of computers and software is like the Soviet economy.  We
    have a captive audience.  What we build is good enough for the majority
    of this audience.  Conversely we are motivated to buy DEC because it
    only costs funny money instead of real dollars, and in the case of
    software, we can afford our products because our licenses are free.
    
    --Simon
    

    Using internal systems is fine to a point.
    
    We've blinded ourselves to the reality of the marketplace and fail to
    see it as customers see it.
    
    Our instincts regarding what works, how much it costs, and how hard it
    is to create are just plain wrong when it comes to PC's.
    
    Once upon a time, in the heyday of time-sharing, Digital's internal
    systems approximated either existing customer systems or some ideal the
    customer could visualize.
    
    The gap between what and how we use computers and networks is now a
    chasm.  The current ideal of integration of PC's and MAC's and other
    heterogenous systems with VAX or ULTRIX is not realized in most Digital
    offices which are somewhere between terminals and timesharing and
    homogeneous VAXstations and servers.
    
    We no longer share common knowledge or experience with customers.  We
    lack affinity with them.
    
    The outlook is grim: field offices (except perhaps the ACT's) lack the
    IBM PC's and Mac's to do much.

    implementing technology change in any organization is not as easy as
    plopping a piece of equipment on a desk and walking away.  And PC's are
    good for people that have a lot of time to invest in them or have a
    base level knowledge to build on, but to the bulk of people in an 
    organization their job is not to learn about computers and how to modify
    applications so they can be installed on their system and work with
    their printers and network.
    
    #2 rule of marketing: everyone is not like you.

    	Interesting. I was able to "cash-in" on some overtime recently by
    researching and formulating a flowchart for a work cell. My supervisor
    and put me in for a Recognition and Awards Program award and my manager
    seemed also pleased with the work (I'm sworn to secrecy on the nature
    of his tacit expression of thanks).
    
    	While there were other objective reasons for all this, nonetheless,
    I thank my Mac Plus (used $600.00), Imagewriter II (used $200.00), and
    a $50.00 paint program (SuperPaint; discounted) for the fairly involved
    and completely editable flow-chart which hangs in their offices.
    
    	Once or twice I tried to use DECGraph (I think that's the name). I
    must agree with .0 . . . a 5lb hammer, a chisel and a slab of granite
    would have produced quicker results.
    
    --John
    

    reply to 1348.7 :
    
    	I have worked with a number of computer systems, from minis, to 
    workstations, to mainframes. How easy a computer to use is based on how
    well ther operating system is set up (aka user-friendly). In regards to
    your comments, you can place a Macintosh on someones desk, and have
    them up and running in less than 1 hour. I have set up a company
    network, consisting of PC and MAC systems, for people totally
    unfamiliar with personnel computers.
    So you don't need a lot of time to learn how to use a PC. Even IBM
    clones can be set up to perform the basic functions such as printing a 
    file in a few minutes.
    
    
    	DEC's problem has always been with their peripheral software
    (i.e.Compilers, DECCALC, DECGRAPH.) They have never learned how to 
    write software for the common person. DEC's strongpoint is in VMS which
    I and several of my computer literate friends agree is the best
    operating system around. It is not as user friendly as the windows
    system on the MAc, but for a serious system programmer, it is much
    easier to access than the Macintosh system ( which is the weakness with
    the MAC).
    
    
    Brian

    re .5

>                 ...  Conversely we are motivated to buy DEC because it
>   only costs funny money instead of real dollars, ...

    Well, sad as it may seem, I buy my diskettes on the street because it
    _costs_ our cost center less. DECDIRECT 10 2.0mb RX23 floppies = $75 MLP =
    $75/2=$37.50 internal; $20-$25 out on the street for name-brand, 
    $15 or less in bulk for generic.

    Funny money is not funny -- an expense is an expense whether the dollars
    stay inside DEC or go outside. Charging to make "profits" internally
    or at some rate above manufacturing cost makes money _leave_ DEC.

    So, does anyone know the *real* manufacturing cost of RX23s?

    /Petes

    
    
    ...well, why worry at all?! After having been furious long enough
    about upper managment's ignorance and sleepiness, I at least
    recognized having the choice of staying with this company or leave
    it for one tempting customers to be interested in buying products
    they even didn't know they have a need for(ideally).
    
    The problem is we often do not only offer not-up-to-date products
    to the market, but also don't recognize major trends, that will
    make up future markets(i.g. neural net applications or virtual reality
    products). There are few heroic guys or groups working on those
    issues but do they stand chance a with managment's 'strategies'??
    
    
    	helmut
    

re: 1348.10             We are uncompetitive-Case Study                10 of 10

>
>    _costs_ our cost center less. DECDIRECT 10 2.0mb RX23 floppies = $75 MLP =
>    $75/2=$37.50 internal; $20-$25 out on the street for name-brand, 
>    $15 or less in bulk for generic.

I think this is erroneous math. It is my understanding that INTERNAL cost
centers buy at 10% of MLP, even if it means being lower than Transfer Cost.

The problem is 'how' the goods are purchased from DECdirect. Yes, if
you pick up a phone, and cal dirctly to them, you are charged a premium
for the goods.

But if you use and Internal Order Purchase Form, and go through purchasing
the cost is 10% MLP for cost centers (its sort of like buying through IEG).

As a "technical matter", the 2.0 MB floppies are really 1.4 Mb floppies
after formatting. There have been several discussions recently in both
notes conferences and PC trade journals about "packing more" data onto floppies
using proprietary and unique data compression.

-BobE

    Orders from DECdirect are 50% of MLP for internal orders. Has been for
    years. Floppies or supplies in general can not be ordered from the
    Internal Equipment Group, only options from IEG. So the aprox 70%
    discount there is not relivent.
    
    Regards
    AL ROOT
    

    I feel I must comment on the "funny money" issue.  I've noted an
    attitude here (and in other notes) that it isn't real, particularly
    if used to acquire DEC equipment.  This is dangerous
    oversimplification.  I don't claim to be a financial wizard, but all
    money in CC budgets is "real".
    
    Look at it this way.  If you buy a piece of DEC gear through EIG, the
    group that built it has to pay real wages, real bennies, real
    facilities costs, and real materials costs.  What's funny about that?
    Those are real green dollars.  Can someone perhaps explain this better?

   re .12 and .13
   
   I think the point at question is our competitiveness on the open market.
   Internal prices for our own equipment has nothing to do with that. 
   
   A Customer will look at a $75 box of DEC floppies and at a $15.00 box of
   Sony or Maxell or some other reputable floppy manufacturer (who probably
   make ours for us...) and they will keep $60 in their pocket... 
   
   q
   

    re: .14
    
    While what you say is true, money is still considered "funny" if you
    are allowed to use it to buy from DEC but not to buy from outside the
    company.  For example, if you can use it to buy a DECstation-whatever
    but cannot use a smaller number of the same dollars to buy the same
    PC from the local Radio Shack computer store.
        John Sauter 

    Oh!! I see.  Guess you're right.

    "Funny Money"
    
    The transfer of financial resources from one group to another within
    the same legal entity without producing additional opportunities for
    profit or gain.
    
    As stated in .16, when you restrict or mandate that I expend funds to
    support another groups objectives (e.g. product marketing or manufac-
    turing) without really trying to meet my objectives or compute power
    or disk capacity etc...  The money is not managed the same as real
    dollars.
    
    If the results would not change if the recipient group budgeted for the
    funds and gave away the services, you have a pretty good candidate for
    "funny money".  We use the budgeting procedure to attempt to rationalize
    purchasing and service use decisions, but when was the last time a
    service group was eliminated because it charged its customers too much!
    
    The internal monopoly sets the price, and justifies the costs based on
    its current expenditures.  Given the inability to go elsewhere, the
    budget gets rolled up and cost passed along to groups which finally
    pass the costs onto customers.  At every step we require financial
    reconciliation and journal vouchering to move the funds around the
    circle, more overhead and more policy making to constrain the costs.
    The larger overhead and larger policy making justify the higher costs
    of internal groups increasing their current expenditures and the circle
    perpetuates...
    
    We mandate internal spending to sustain the personnel we have in the
    positions we have them.  After all if cost center managers are allowed
    to go outside, we will spend dollars externally at the same time as we
    spend them internally to re-skill, re-deploy, or otherwise keep those
    people busy doing work we do not need.  We would also raise the cost
    of our products to external customers since the product costs would not
    be spread across internal sales as well as external sales.  Its also
    pretty hard to sell something that you wouldn't buy yourself.
    
    For a great many cost center managers, the money is not truly "funny".
    They are measured on adherance to budget and they can not distinguish
    between blowing the "funny money" portion of their budget versus the
    "real money" portion.  They can't spend the "funny money" outside
    the corporation to correct for errors, inflation, etc... on the "real
    money" side of the budget, but they can get burned for blowing the
    "funny money" side of the equation.
    
    The competitiveness of our solutions is a major concern in the field.
    
    The access to competitive equipment, software, and solution sets to
    specialists trying to sell into mixed environments is lagging behind
    the customer expectation in the field.  As good as our people are on
    VMS and ULTRIX etc..., we are competing with software professionals
    who have broader experience on a range of hardware and software plat-
    forms to offer our mixed environment customers.
    
    Would elimination of "funny money" help.  I doubt it.  We would then
    be faced with the same problem as our customers.  In an ever changing,
    technology advancing world when do you make the purchase decision and
    for what lenght of time will it be the correct decision.
    
    Digital must understand where the market is going and deliver software
    and hardware that is both functionally rich and user friendly.  We do
    not define the market and we can not ignore what others are doing to
    affect market expectations.  We won't mind buying Digital when it makes
    the best products at the lowest costs.  Lets strive toward that goal
    and leave the other issues to sort themselves out...  I have read in
    several notes files that the NOTES product has not sold as well as it
    could because it doesn't meet the market need.  I haven't read what
    market need it doesn't meet.  The same could be said for E-Mail and
    other productivity tools.  It takes a very long time for things to
    come out of central engineering and we have schedule slips which hurt
    market timing and sales potential, but the products are getting better
    and one hopes we deliver more functionality because of the slips.
    
    Its time to focus on what I want and what the customers need, and on
    getting that delivered as quickly as possible with as high quality as
    possible so that we can be more competitive.
    
    		Paul N.

    I really don't see how we sell any of the PC products we have on the
    market, with the 60% discount they were giving us over Christmas you
    could still buy a clone with the same cptions at a lower price.
    Some examples: Intel math coprocessor for the decstation 325c
    is $1075 , the same math coprocessor at my neighborhood computer store
    is $499 FOR THE SAME CHIP. A 40 MB hard drive $735 A Seagate 40 MB
    drive is $299

re: 1348.19             We are uncompetitive-Case Study                19 of 19
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                 -< get real >-
>
>    is $1075 , the same math coprocessor at my neighborhood computer store
>    is $499 FOR THE SAME CHIP. A 40 MB hard drive $735 A Seagate 40 MB
>    drive is $299

NOTE: I read over what I wrote here, and want to
	prefix it with this: This  is not a criticism of
	your view. It is an opinion based on personal 
	knowledge where DECs strengths are, and what our
	customers expect  of us. I may not be an expert
	in Customer Support, but I have dealt  with many
	customers ready and willing to dump us .. and
	changed their  minds after we helped them. (where the "we"
	is DEC Employees doing what they know how to do..)

Several issues come into play here, and if DEC plans to enter the
Consumer Electronics Market, it is one that we'll need to learn to
deal with. 

The first issue is this: How many of the clones (or other products)
offer significant Warranties, which may be exended for as long as you
want to own the product ?? 

How many of the clones (several cheaper clones .. under $1200 for
similar configurations) are only Class A FCC Approved (a leading
chain store got into a lot problems with the FCC a couple of years
ago). 

The issue is this: If you buy a Class A type Approved device, and
install it into your home, AND IF it causes intereference to your
neighbors radio/tv receiveing equipment, it is you who are liable to
correct it, or shut it down. 

In comparing the 1988 PC Mag (go do it) and 1990 PC magazine for
their "PC Choice 386s'", only 5 of the ten appeared ANYWHERE in the
November 1990 Computer Shoppers Guide. 

Many are cheaper, and many go out of business, also. Not everyone,
especially .. lets say .. a bank .. can or wants to be a 'expert' on
every possible type of device found in a system. 

In many ways, DEC products may seem to be expensive when we compare
base prices to base prices .. but how many vendors will provide
service (at a price) for everything they install ?? (or sell you ?) 

I have ben observing this phenomena for several years, as has many
others. I have used Regis, VT52, PDT150, VT125, DECs manuals, DEC
modems ... RSTS, RT-11, LA210, LA34, LA30, LA120 ... I  Know by
personal frustration where some of our customers are coming from ...
I know by personal ownership (Rainbow, PDT. LA50) where many of us
are coming from ... 

If I were a large business, and my long term survival relied on folks
like we have in our  CSCs and Product Support Groups, I'd buy DEC
hands down in a flash ...initial price is only paart of the total
picture .. we in other notes files a FS Engineer put in a request to
find a critical partat for an RP06 .. and got it within days .. try
that with any I*M Product more than 5 years old ... 

been there and back .. and still here ... 

-BobE 

    Re: .20
    
    Remember:  "Added Value" is only worth what the customer THINKS it's
    worth!  Adding a $2000 frumblewhotz to a machine does absolutely no
    good if people aren't using frumblewhotzes; all it does is kite the
    cost of the machine by $2k.  As far as the user is concerned, there
    is no added value for the added cost.
    
>> The first issue is this: How many of the clones (or other products)
>> offer significant Warranties, which may be exended for as long as you
>> want to own the product ?? 
    
    Most Computer Shopper clones offer one-year warranties.  This is
    quite sufficient to shake out infant mortality and latent
    manufacturing problems.  Remember, too, that long warranties
    aren't all that important in the PC marketplace; most people
    upgrade and/or replace PC-class equipment after about 5 years.
    In addition, with a commodity market like PCs, there's always
    going to be SOME third-party around who will support the old
    ones (you can STILL get plenty of 8-bit PC option cards these
    days, and a number of 16-bit cards will work in 8-bit mode).
    
>> How many of the clones (several cheaper clones .. under $1200 for
>> similar configurations) are only Class A FCC Approved (a leading
>> chain store got into a lot problems with the FCC a couple of years
>> ago). 
    
    True, some really cheep clones are only Class A or not approved
    at all (especially if you "buy a clone" by buying mail-order parts
    and assembling it yourself).  On the other hand, there are plenty
    of Class B clones in Computer Shopper that cost less than half the
    cost of a DECstation 2xx/3xx...
    
    Besides; if the customer is a company who wants to buy a truckload
    of PCs for the office, all they need is Class A anyway... and
    saving $1000 a copy on an order of 1000 PCs can add up to real money.
    
>> In many ways, DEC products may seem to be expensive when we compare
>> base prices to base prices .. but how many vendors will provide
>> service (at a price) for everything they install ?? (or sell you ?) 
    
    True; but in the PC marketplace (unlike the mini/mainframe marketplace)
    self-maintenance is REALLY easy to do.  Consider the hypothetical
    company above that saves $1M on a PC order by buying clones.  It
    will cost only a fraction of that million to train a tech to
    troubleshoot and repair them.
    
    The point I'm making here is that when we consider rolling out a
    new category of machine, we have to consider the dynamics of the
    ENTIRE marketplace for that kind of machine in order to come up
    with a pricing strategy.  "Added value" at premium prices means
    nothing if either (a) the customer does not need the added value,
    or (b) the customer can obtain the added value elsewhere at lower
    cost.
    

Gettng back to the fascinating topic of money, I wonder whether
one of the resident economists could explain away this funny
feeling I have about funny-money internal purchases vs. buying
the same widget cheaper at the local five-and-dime.

This feels a lot like the prototypical East-Block economy, where the
local currency could not be exchanged for "hard currency" and had a
"buying power" (internally) that was at variance with its worth outside
the economy.

Perhaps if Dec Direct quoted prices in "dollars" for external customers
and "Ken's" for internal customers (and every cost center was given
an allocation of "Ken's" and a separate allocation of "dollars") we
could simplify matters.

Of course, a black-market would soon appear, but that might actually
be a good idea.

Martin.

    
    I'm in the field, working hand-in-hand with customers, and see  where
    return on Investment drives alot of decisions (especially now!), so the
    ability to buy a "package" from (DEC/IBM/APPLE) depends on total
    revenue expended to achieve the "goal". The "package" I refer to
    *should* cover hardware, software, maintenance, setup, training, and
    (I'm sure) a few others I've forgotten.
    
    Currently, I see alot of these "package" decisions focus only on the
    hardware (or an isolated piece of software) since that is what you can
    put your hands on, and most the corporate buyers, frankly, have a PC at
    home, and think in those terms. For example, go into a computer store,
    and tell yourself "I'm gonna get that word processor (spreadsheet..
    whatever)". What's your thoughts?  I'll bet they go like this: 
    	"hmmm, how much is ACB.... ummm, too much.... wait. QRSWIPS is a
    little cheaper.... but does not have the feature I need.... Oh heck, I
    guess I can afford the $50 for the ACB for that feature I'll really
    use."
       My point? No thought to warrantee, training, maintenance -- you
    assumed they would be "user friendly", since they run on a PC!!
    
      I really think this is where DEC has lost direction in the workstaton
    area: plug-and-play just does not happen, on either Unix or VAX
    stations (they are all *expert* friendly!)
      Yes, we have windows.... so does Microsoft (DOS) and Apple (MACs), so
    while we try to do the traditional DEC decision process (3 yrs long)
    these "upstarts" are carving market share from us. 
       Perhaps its time for DEC to form Claris style spin-offs... when they
    become successful, they re-integrate. In that manner, market share can
    be both defined and captured in timely manner, yet corporate revenue
    can also be captured. Novel thought for a novel company!

    At the risk of committing a major notes faux pas, I'd like to turn the
    topic back to the base note.
    
    re .0:
    
    I understand what you're saying, very, very well. But I think that
    you're both right and wrong. I'll explain why in what's likely to be a
    long note below.
    
    For 6� years, I worked in VMS development. I worked on a wide variety
    of things, including workstations, 'modern' HUIs, VMS memory
    management, etc. (This is to show you how wide it was.) Today I work in
    the Apple / Digital joint development group, where I'm project leader
    of PATHWORKS for Macintosh V2, and I'm at work on a nifty new file
    server.
    
    I've had a Macintosh for about five years now. I bought a brand new Mac
    (not MAC) plus with my own money because I was at that time working on
    a new workstation human interface, and I knew that like it or loathe
    it, a Mac was (and likely is) the state of the art in human interfaces,
    and one should know its features and flaws if one is to do better.
    
    I'd rather not bore you with the details of that poor deceased project,
    because it's only partially relevant, and there are enough digressions
    here as it is.
    
    I recently -- last summer -- upgraded my Mac Plus into a Mac IIci with
    two monitors A/UX (Apple's unix), more disks and stuff. 
    
    When you compare Apples to Digitals, it's hard to make a fair
    comparison. For example, that Mac Plus I had has approximately the same
    raw CPU speed as a MicroVAX I. The IIci has about the same speed as a
    VS3100.
    
    So why is the Mac so much faster than the VAX? Simple -- they put a lot
    of effort into the graphics system. They've got slick little ROMs that
    have memory-mapped graphics painstakingly coded into them. We tried
    this once, ourselves. It failed. We went to X-windows. If you run MacX
    (which by the way, is part of our product) on your Mac, you'll find
    that your IIci runs graphics at about the same speed as your
    VAXstation. While I'm at it, I should mention that MacX takes about 5MB
    of disk space.
    
    Addtionally, the Mac has the advantage of having a very simple
    operating system specifically designed to be the sort of system it is.
    Should you run A/UX on your Mac, you'll find that it actually has less
    speed than your VAX. A 4MB Mac running A/UX is almost as much fun as a
    6MB VS2000 running VMS. If you want to have your Mac run A/UX as well
    as your VS3100 runs VMS, you need about as much memory. Like 16 or 20
    MB. You also need at least 200MB of disk if you're serious about it.
    A/UX hogs disks like any other unix, and unix hogs disks as badly as
    VMS does. While I'm at it, I should mention that the manuals for A/UX
    cost about $800, and fill over two shelves of a bookcase. You know
    yourself what the base Mac manuals are like.
    
    Now then, one of the reasons I have a Mac is that it's fun. But so is a
    VMS machine (to me, anyway). I'd love to have a VMS machine, but
    Digital isn't really interested in employees owning their equipment. If
    they were, they'd sell them to us as cheaply as say, Apple sells gear
    to their employees. I know what transfer cost is of a VAX, and if
    Digital wanted to sell me a VAX at transfer cost, I'd buy one and
    happily hack on it at home, and make VAXen nicer to work on. But they
    don't, so I have a Mac. This is part of Digital's problem.
    
    I know about a dozen VMS developers who have Macintoshes, including at
    least one senior consulting engineers. We've all said that if we could
    have bought a VAX for the same price, we'd have gotten one. The irony
    is painful.
    
    You're right about many things. DECwrite was a good V1 product. The
    problem is that Microsoft Word is a good V4 product, and good V1
    products rarely compare with good V1 products. It's a pity that funding
    was cut from it, and there's no V2 product.
    
    It's also a pity that we've been mind-bogglingly stupid about not
    putting sound chips in our workstations. Ditto for the reluctance with
    which we adopted SCSI. Ditto for the way that various groups have
    prevented us from having a decent mail system (the argument was, "if
    you give it away, we can't sell ours"). It's also abysmal that we're
    not working on making PICT and encapsulated postscript work on
    VAXstations. We could then share all this clip art.
    
    Now then, in our defense, we're not building Macs. In fact, my group is
    helping kill off VAX workstations as part of the Apple / Digital
    alliance. The January issue of MacUser recommends buying a Mac IIsi
    like yours and our product instead of a VT1000 X-terminal. But not
    because it's cheaper; in fact they recommend it in spite of it being
    more expensive.
    
    "More expensive?" I hear you ask. Yes, more expensive. You're wrong,
    we're not in the stone age, we're only a little behind the times. If
    you were to put an equivalent monitor to the nasty fuzzy one you have
    on your VAXstation will cost you about $3K on the street. If you get
    one like the wonderful new 19" Sonys that we're putting on the new
    lines of workstations, it'll cost you about as much as your whole Mac
    cost you, from $3K to $5K. Big color monitors are expensive. Sharp
    color monitors are expensive. Big, sharp, color monitors are very
    expensive. This is why on my Mac IIci at home I have a single page,
    4-plane greyscale monitor and a 13" color. Large color monitors are
    expensive. For what it's worth, at work, my IIci has *only* a 13" color
    monitor. I do about 80% of my work on my B&W VAXstation because 13" a
    13" screen is far to small to do serious work on.
    
    Also, the stuff that we put on our workstations is expensive. The
    equivalent disk to an RZ24 (I have an RZ24 on my Mac at work) costs
    about $2K. Lesser models can be had for as low $1500, but most run in
    the $1700-$2500 range. A video board like what you mentioned runs about
    $1000. Put a lot of this together and it starts adding up *fast*.
    
    I don't know what sort of system you have, but if its transfer cost was
    $25K, then it's not *anything* like a Mac IIsi. I know that when the
    VS3100 first came out, it had a transfer cost of around $1800. We
    debated in my cost center whether it was better to upgrade our VS2000's
    to 14MB of memory for $1600 transfer or buy whole new workstations with
    8MB for $200 more.
    
    Your outrage is justified. We're doing a lot of stupid things. Recently
    (like a year or two ago) we killed a workstation project that had as
    its flaw that it was more competitive than our current line, and would
    have killed sales. We've done lots more. But we *are* doing some things
    right. I think PATHWORKS is one of them. Wait 'til you try backing up
    your Mac. Heh heh heh. Our product is selling at about 200 - 400% of
    projections, but it can't carry the company.
    
    	Jon

The topic note author posted the note in (at least) two places, here, and
in the MARKETING conference.  Over in MARKETING, I would expect the
discussion to focus on how "uncompetitive" our products are in the
marketplace.  (That is of course a subjective assessment; but let's accept
the author's premise for the sake of argument.)  In this conference, I see
that there is also a discussion critical of our product offering.

But note that in the final paragraph, the topic author said: "Drop around
any time you like [Jack Smith], I'd be glad to tour you around the wasted
money in my cube and take you home to have a look at what I can do with an
alternative, while saving the company a fortune."

I think what's also interesting to discuss in DIGITAL is the issue of
whether we are using the wrong or expensive tools because we are buying DEC
products.  I think it makes sense to use the best tool (measured by
price/performance, capability, return on employee effectiveness, etc.)
without regard to whether DEC makes a competing product.  If a Mac does the
job for you, then get a Mac.  It is when it is chiseled in stone that you
must buy a DEC workstation, then DEC is in trouble.

Personally I don't get too upset if we don't make the snazziest workstation
in the world, as long as the company stays profitable making stodgy
products.  Now I realize that a school of thought says (and they may be
right) that if we don't make competitive products for the desktop, and make
the best programmer tools, then we go out of business.  That's the kind of
debate I expect to see in MARKETING.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with
discussing it here too, because survival is every employee's concern.

But, not everyone needs the same tools to do her or his job.  For a goodly
number of employees, a VT220 running ALL-IN-1 is what they need.  DEC makes
that; fine, let's buy DEC in that case.  In other cases, DEC's products
aren't the most suitable; fine, let's buy somebody else's product.  What's
wrong with that?

--Simon

P.S. I've been at DEC 15 years and I'm not actually naive.

    I pretty much agree with Jon in all but one respect:
    
    	Given a Mac and a VAX at equal cost, I'd still buy the Mac.
    
    [I have two Mac's at home].
    
    Here's why (in a rather roundabout way).   I'm not the only Mac user in
    the house.  Two of them are children (ages 8 and 10) and another is my
    wife (if I put her age here, she'd divorce me or kill me or both).
    
    I'm the only one who could be considered a "programmer" in the house.
    
    I'm outnumbered by non-programmer's three to one.  Also, the
    non-system-managers outnumber me three to one.  My wife saw a VAX
    workstation once.  It literally frightened her.
    
    The Mac is a wonderful user's machine (software is cheap, but it's all
    single user).
    
    The VAX is a wonderful "programmer's" machine. Software that exists for
    real cheap on the Mac is either unavailable or overly expensive for "us
    real folks" without business tax advantages.
    
    I could have a VAX at home.  There'd still be a Mac in the house.

    Simon, you've given me an opportunity to make the same point over
    again.  The apparently cost-effective VT220 running ALL-IN-1 into a
    glass room monster computer make "work" for DEC.  I really don't think
    it does work, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it does.

    The problem is that it certainly doesn't work for customers for whom
    the personal computer revolution is several years old.

    Customer contact employees (ie sales, sales support, etc) don't have a
    clue regarding the technical and non-technical issues around personal
    computing if their exposure to computing of any kind is limited to
    captive ALL-IN-1 accounts: print all unread mail and give my
    hand-written replies to my secretary to be entered.

    The transformation of the ordinary computing environments in Digital to
    begin to approach what customers had five years ago is _expensive_ but
    we've been paying a price for years in inability to give the sales reps
    and sales support people insights into the non-VT220's and non-glass
    room monster computers they are using.
    
    Most employees of course have substantial personal money tied up in
    personal computers like IBM PC's and compatibles and MAC's.
                                                               

    Thank you .0 and others.  I've been saying things like that for a long
    time, but then I'm a PC integration specialist, so naturally I'm
    bigotted, right?
    
    Of course, I've been prepared to actually _write_ some of the tools I'd
    like to have, but Digital to date has refused to give me any equipment
    (over 2� years).  I'm a bit confused as to how Digital expects me to do
    these things for the customer, since a lot of my skills are pretty
    rusty now, but that's another matter.
    
    Digital really isn't keeping pace with the market, and since I spend my
    time working with VMS, DOS, OS/2, and Mac OS (shortly to resume my
    aquaintance with Unix/Ultrix) I see this all the time.  Even when we do
    recognise a need we take so damned long to get anywhere it's often too 
    late.  People, we are in an industry where products can have half-lives of
    months.
    
    David
    
    PS: Shame about DECwrite.  I liked it.  I thought, too, it was a
    top-notch V1 product.  Had potential.

    re .27: Pat, I don't think we are disagreeing, but just in case it
    looks that way, let me expand on that thought a little bit.
    
    I think that there are some number of employees for whom a VT220 on
    ALL-IN-1 is what they need to do their job.  Pat has made a case where
    customer contact employees need to experience the current state of
    computing in order to stay relevant.  In that case, for this class of
    employees, what DEC is forcing them to use is the wrong tool for their
    job.  I said that we should use the right tool for the job, even if the
    tool isn't made by DEC.
    
    One such as I could make a similar case for engineers to be current on
    the state of the art of computing.  Others could make a case for
    Marketing folks to be up-to-date.
    
    Regardless of whether we are in the business of making state-of-the-art
    computers (a whole debate in itself, concurrently going on in this
    topic) employees need access to the right tools.  I think we've said
    that just about from Day 1 of this conference.  Sad, isn't it?
    
    --Simon
    

    <<FLAME ON>>
    
    DECWRITE HAS NOT BEEN CANCELED.  IN FACT DECWRITE V2 IS ABOUT TO GO OUT
    TO BETA SITES FOR TESTING.
    
    DECWRITE V1.1 IS CURRENTLY SHIPPING TO VMS, ULTRIX AND OS/2 END USERS.
    
    MARKET AND PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS FOR DECWRITE V3 ARE CURRENTLY BEING
    GATHERED.
    
    GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE MAKING CLAIMS.  THIS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
    BEHAVIOR AND CAN BE VERY DAMAGING TO DIGITALS PRODUCTS.
    
    JILL BROWNE (SARAH::JBROWNE) IS THE DECWRITE PRODUCT MANAGER.
    
    BOB LEHMENKULER (NUTMEG::LEHMENKULER) IS THE DECWRITE PRODUCT MARKETING
    MANAGER.
    
    EITHER OF US WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION.  WE'D ALSO
    BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR REQUESTS FOR FUTURE DECWRITE ENHANCEMENTS.
    
    BOB LEHMENKULER
    
    <<FLAME OFF>>

re Note 1348.30 by MRKTNG::LEHMENKULER:

>     EITHER OF US WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION.  WE'D ALSO
>     BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR REQUESTS FOR FUTURE DECWRITE ENHANCEMENTS.
  
        Does DECwrite support lower-case text?

        Bob

    
    Thanx Bob, I needed a laugh to close my day. All-in-1 users don't
    know that upper case is notes shouting so I guess the DECwriters didn't
    know either?!.                              
    
    Heck! why am I laughing?. I never mastered ther smiley!. >)$#@

    
    Bob, has a point, lets get our facts correct first please, he had a 
    right to be angry.
    Unfortunately you are probably going to be the whipping boy for
    everything people see wrong with our "approach" (this is probably not the
    right word) to the low-end product market.
    
    >DECWRITE HAS NOT BEEN CANCELED.  IN FACT DECWRITE V2 IS ABOUT TO GO
    >OUT TO BETA SITES FOR TESTING.
     
    
    That's good to hear Bob, I like it a lot. In fact a lot of people would
    probably find the OS/2 version pretty good if they knew about it. They
    may even select it over some of the other WP/DTP/GRAPHICS packages on the
    market, if they knew about it. I looked up a review on WP stuff the
    other day in a PC mag, you know, I dont think I saw DECwrite in that
    review. I went to my PC retailer the other day, do you know something, 
    he'd never heard of it. Pity really, I like it a lot. I bet we think
    that PC retailer was pretty ignorant, eh? Maybe he missed our
    announcement, or perhaps he wasnt invited to one of those demos we give
    to the top 20 decision makers. And I suppose we think we are doing
    pretty well.
    
    >DECWRITE V1.1 IS CURRENTLY SHIPPING TO VMS, ULTRIX AND OS/2 END USERS.
    >
    That's good too Bob, what percentage of thes users are:
    	a. People who chose DECwrite over PC based products
    	b. New Digital customers
    	c. Saw your ads, saw a demo in a local store, were captured by the
    		wonder of it all.
    >MARKET AND PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS FOR DECWRITE V3 ARE CURRENTLY BEING
    >GATHERED.
    
    That's great too. Could I suggest we add two small features to the
    next version of DECwrite, probably all its needs, cos it really is a
    great product:
    	1. The advertising feature - you click on this pushbutton, and an
    advertisement appears in your local mag. See, PC reviewers tend to
    review those products courteous enough to make there presence known
    to them.
    	2. The availability feature - pull down this menu and select item 3 
    - "Distribute" and it magically appears on the shelves of every PC
    dealer in the nation, in a form and style and price that suits the market.
    
    You know, this product could actually be a real success (DEC people,
    please note, success is not capturing 0.1% of a narrowly defined market
    - we cop out by saying we have ten percent of the market fortune 5K
    for WYSIWYG corporate editors running on DECwindows) The PC market is
    vast, its requirements are different, its style is different, lets work
    to that style. If you dont have the resources to compete on the terms
    of the market you have entered, why arnt you pushing and jumping up and
    down about it? This product has a lot to offer. In the OS/2 space,
    where a lot of the PC players are not yet there, it can make an impact
    now, so do it.
    
    John.
    
    John.

    And what makes you think he wasn't shouting?  I could hear him all the
    way over here... ;-)

    Re: DECwrite.
    
    Oh, so it runs on OS/2 eh?
    
    What are the plans to get it into every IBM retailer, and so that
    everyone who is thinking about PageMaker or MS-Word or equivalents can
    buy DECwrite instead?
    
    My opinion?
    
    If DECwrite V2.0 or 3.0 are anything like 1.0, forget it. The effort
    would be a complete waste of my shareholder's money, virtually no-one
    would buy it.
    
    And I resent any forthcoming charge of "irresponsibility" for making
    this claim; rather, I am doing Digital a service (if anyone is
    listening), in bringing the painful truth to bear.
    
    Ray

    Frankly, were I Bob, I'd have SHOUTED too.
    
    I'm glad that DWv2 is coming soon.
    
    	- andy

    Enough arguments, let's Benchmark and Compare instead and let the truth
    be known or we'll pretend and cheer ourself to Doomsday!
    
    Just The Facts Please! 
   
    Franc.

    Just revisiting this topic (Only have a years worth of notes to get
    caught up on :-) ).
    
    Re .37
    >Enough arguments, let's Benchmark and Compare instead and let the truth
    >be known or we'll pretend and cheer ourself to Doomsday!
    >
    >Just The Facts Please! 
    >
    >Franc.
    
    FACTS, WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN FACTS! :-)  :-)
    
    Seriously, do you really think the average buyer looks at the
    benchmarks?  I am sure some do, but I for one do not, and most people I
    know who have IBM clones don't.
    
    What I see people looking for is PRICE, COMPATIBILITY, RELIABILITY and
    the ability to run the applications they want.  For some strange reason
    we are stuck on some metrics that says "Mine is Faster, or Mines is
    Bigger".  Who cares?  People buy that which is the best DEAL.  I kind
    of find it nice to have a choice of 1000's of options most under $200. 
    It's nice to find 98% of the software under $200.  In fact 90% of my
    software was under $100 (and it is VERY USEFUL).
    
    I want to say more, but will refrain.
    
    
    Jim Morton

RE: .38

It depends on the market.  There are some markets (Unix RISC workstations for
scientific and engineering computing, for example) where raw speed and
benchmarks are the name of the game.

--PSW

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    And we  do  too many of them.  Usually we are asked to do them when the
    sale is almost lost.  And they want somebody to do two weeks coding for
    free  so  they can run it when you're not even on a shortlist.  This is
    very common and a waste of resources.

    I've seen  notes  where  people spend WEEKS benchmarking Oracle or some
    complex TP application to find it isn't fast enough on the VAX.  In the
    end  they switch to a DECsystem 5100, and make a sale.  One unit, about
    $20K, and everybody is pleased at the "success"

I've just completed a benchmark for a possible sale where the customer
specified this un-realistic benchmark.  They said IBM dis it in 29 minutes.
Well I was thrown into this with no resources except the kind folk in the
Colorado CSC (Thanks Guys!)  Well through a few late nights, and lot's of 
coffee, I got the benchmark rto run in 23 and 1/2 minutes.  After a few
tries that is.  The machine we were against was an AS400 D45, the machine I
ran on was a VAX 4000 - 300 VMS 5.5 and rdb 4.1. and all it cost me was about
39 hours of time, and some of the CSC's too.  Now hopefully we will get the
sale! Also are solution was about $50,000 cheaper!

- Mike

    Bravo!  It's talent and dedication like yours that has the greatest
    effect on our success.
    
    Bernie