From: xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) Subject: Does Apple need a new OS or a better and faster web server ?? Date: 1996/04/14 Message-ID: <xsvarshney-1404961114120001@newshub.csu.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147434935 organization: CSUF newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy Hello before anyone jumps on my case, I'm a mac user, with a preference for macs. Of late though, I've come to believe that Apple's concept of Opendoc is not catching on. Java is creaping in, Netscape plugin architectures offer tremoundous expandibility. WWW (Internet ie) is where most major companies are allocating their resources. My point is, that with NT server becoming a real hot server for WWW purposes (it's catching on real fast, and with over a million Visual Basic users, Microsoft cannot be expected to support Java very soon), does Apple really need a complete rewrite of the OS? That is, Apple is going to take atleast a year to come out with Copland. Till then, I think that Windows NT 4.0 will become the standard for medium sized web servers, and many corporate computers. NT is not a bad OS. Within this time, NT would have the momentum with the software available for WWW development. Keep in mind that major companies like MS, Borland, Delphi are coming out with Visual Java. There is no doubt that the first versions are going to be for either Win95 or NT. That is NT/Win95 is going to be the favored development platform for Java very soon, much like small business database apps are made solely and most often on PCs. Therefore, by the time Apple comes out with Copland (which is not going to have Opendoc completely anyways), the momentum is going to be lost to MS as always, and people while see no reason to use Macs for Web servers or Java development. Again then, Apple will lose the Web business amongst big corporations and mid sized business, something that it did earlier thanks to lack of development of RAD toolkits (hypercard was Apple's triumphcard forever). In my opinion, the current web server solutions that Apple provides are expensive, lack good scripting software, lack pre emptive multitasking, and get killed by multiple hits using Image Maps or CGI scripts. Therefore in my opinion, Apple should come out with a new web server with new file management techniques, preferably on UNIX, but MUCH cheaper than what it offers now (AIX servers are highly expensive). The other solution would be to bring out a highly efficient Linux box by this summer so that Macs can be used as web servers. Ignoring Linux is probably another of Apple's huge blunder. Apple users have had to wait for Copland forever. Apple has to do a patch job or else it's going to be extremely tough for Apple the next year, when the Internet hype would mature and the picture becomes much clearer. -Suvrit xsvar...@fullerton.edu
From: jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) Subject: Re: Does Apple need a new OS or a better and faster web server ?? Date: 1996/04/15 Message-ID: <jragosta-1504961311580001@ppp-1011.dca.net> X-Deja-AN: 147625251 references: <xsvarshney-1404961114120001@newshub.csu.net> organization: Graver Chemical newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy In article <xsvarshney-14...@newshub.csu.net>, xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote: > Of late though, I've come to believe that Apple's concept of Opendoc is > not catching on. Java is creaping in, Netscape plugin architectures offer > tremoundous expandibility. WWW (Internet ie) is where most major companies > are allocating their resources. What makes you think OpenDoc isn't catching on? The CORBA spec uses OpenDoc. Even most Java compilers are either OpenDoc compliant or will be in the next generation. > > My point is, that with NT server becoming a real hot server for WWW > purposes (it's catching on real fast, and with over a million Visual Basic > users, Microsoft cannot be expected to support Java very soon), does Apple > really need a complete rewrite of the OS? NT isn't anywhere near taking over the Internet. In fact, no one except Microsoft seems to see rapid growth in NT. > > That is, Apple is going to take atleast a year to come out with > Copland. Till then, I think that Windows NT 4.0 will become the standard > for medium sized web servers, and many corporate computers. NT is not a > bad OS. Within this time, NT would have the momentum with the software > available for WWW development. If NT hasn't become the standard in 10 years, why should 1996 be any different? Besides, Microsoft claims that NT 4.0 will be ready this summer (we've seen how good they are with their projections). Apple says that Copland will be ready by year end. What's the difference? 6 months? Big deal. > > Keep in mind that major companies like MS, Borland, Delphi are coming > out with Visual Java. There is no doubt that the first versions are going > to be for either Win95 or NT. That is NT/Win95 is going to be the favored > development platform for Java very soon, much like small business database > apps are made solely and most often on PCs. It's unlikely that Java will be used for business database apps. It's just too darned slow. OpenDoc has potential, though. BTW, have you seen all the reports that most vendors are _finally_ realizing that Java was overhyped and won't be anywhere near what some advocates have argued? > > Therefore, by the time Apple comes out with Copland (which is not going > to have Opendoc completely anyways), the momentum is going to be lost to > MS as always, and people while see no reason to use Macs for Web servers > or Java development. Why won't Copland have OpenDoc? Heck, System 7.5 has OpenDoc. Granted, it's a bit slow, but it's still faster than OLE. It will be even faster by the time Copland rolls around. > > Again then, Apple will lose the Web business amongst big corporations > and mid sized business, something that it did earlier thanks to lack of > development of RAD toolkits (hypercard was Apple's triumphcard forever). Apple never had a position in web-serving for large corporations. 99% use UNIX. > > In my opinion, the current web server solutions that Apple provides are > expensive, lack good scripting software, lack pre emptive multitasking, > and get killed by multiple hits using Image Maps or CGI scripts. PMT, you're right, but who cares? Mac web servers work fine even without the buzzwords. If you could argue that there was some kind of performance hit, you might win the argument, but you can't. For a web server, CMT works OK. Good scripting? Have you ever seen AppleScript? Gets killed with multiple hits? Maybe if you're talking a few million an hour. For most web sites, an Apple server is sufficient. Expensive? You can get an entry level 6100 for $1,000. What do you want--free hardware? > > Therefore in my opinion, Apple should come out with a new web server > with new file management techniques, preferably on UNIX, but MUCH cheaper > than what it offers now (AIX servers are highly expensive). Look. The competitive situation is clear. For low end servers, Macs are competitive. For the high end UNIX servers, the new Apple AIX servers are competitive. Sure, we'd all like less expensive hardware. But Apple's prices are in line with what their competition charges. That's all you can reasonably ask. > > The other solution would be to bring out a highly efficient Linux box > by this summer so that Macs can be used as web servers. Ignoring Linux is > probably another of Apple's huge blunder. Apple users have had to wait for > Copland forever. You'll be able to get a Linux box this summer. Or, you can buy an AUX or AIX box right now. Or, there's MachTen. What's your beef? -- Regards, Joe Ragosta Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.
From: Anal...@temple.com (Analog Kid) Subject: Re: Does Apple need a new OS or a better and faster web server ?? Date: 1996/04/16 Message-ID: <AnalogKid-1604961503410001@treasure-d33.sierra.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147855365 references: <xsvarshney-1404961114120001@newshub.csu.net> organization: Syrinx newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy In article <xsvarshney-14...@newshub.csu.net>, xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) wrote: > Hello before anyone jumps on my case, I'm a mac user, with a preference > for macs. > > Of late though, I've come to believe that Apple's concept of Opendoc is > not catching on. Java is creaping in, Netscape plugin architectures offer > tremoundous expandibility. WWW (Internet ie) is where most major companies > are allocating their resources. > > My point is, that with NT server becoming a real hot server for WWW > purposes (it's catching on real fast, and with over a million Visual Basic > users, Microsoft cannot be expected to support Java very soon), does Apple > really need a complete rewrite of the OS? > > That is, Apple is going to take atleast a year to come out with > Copland. Till then, I think that Windows NT 4.0 will become the standard > for medium sized web servers, and many corporate computers. NT is not a > bad OS. Within this time, NT would have the momentum with the software > available for WWW development. > > Keep in mind that major companies like MS, Borland, Delphi are coming > out with Visual Java. There is no doubt that the first versions are going > to be for either Win95 or NT. That is NT/Win95 is going to be the favored > development platform for Java very soon, much like small business database > apps are made solely and most often on PCs. > > Therefore, by the time Apple comes out with Copland (which is not going > to have Opendoc completely anyways), the momentum is going to be lost to > MS as always, and people while see no reason to use Macs for Web servers > or Java development. > > Again then, Apple will lose the Web business amongst big corporations > and mid sized business, something that it did earlier thanks to lack of > development of RAD toolkits (hypercard was Apple's triumphcard forever). > > In my opinion, the current web server solutions that Apple provides are > expensive, lack good scripting software, lack pre emptive multitasking, > and get killed by multiple hits using Image Maps or CGI scripts. > > Therefore in my opinion, Apple should come out with a new web server > with new file management techniques, preferably on UNIX, but MUCH cheaper > than what it offers now (AIX servers are highly expensive). > > The other solution would be to bring out a highly efficient Linux box > by this summer so that Macs can be used as web servers. Ignoring Linux is > probably another of Apple's huge blunder. Apple users have had to wait for > Copland forever. > > Apple has to do a patch job or else it's going to be extremely tough > for Apple the next year, when the Internet hype would mature and the > picture becomes much clearer. > > > -Suvrit > xsvar...@fullerton.edu No doubt, NT is the choice for web servers! However more and more people are using apple web servers for their ease of use and set-up! With a chrp machine due from apple and others this fall and ports of NT and Solaris and Linux on the way all this could change. BTW most of the delay of copland is due to the chrp platform specs. of course 200mhz to 400mhz ppc chips won't hurt either! Ak
From: jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) Subject: Re: Does Apple need a new OS or a better and faster web server ?? Date: 1996/04/18 Message-ID: <jragosta-1804960803440001@ppp-1021.dca.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 148166243 references: <xsvarshney-1404961114120001@newshub.csu.net> <AnalogKid-1604961503410001@treasure-d33.sierra.net> organization: Graver Chemical newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy In article <AnalogKid-160...@treasure-d33.sierra.net>, Anal...@temple.com (Analog Kid) wrote: > > No doubt, NT is the choice for web servers! Sounds like Microsoft hype to me. The latest figures say that UNIX is _still_ #1, MacOS is #2 for Web servers. I don't believe NT is even #3 (but it could be). -- Regards, Joe Ragosta Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.
From: xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu (S. Varshney) Subject: Re: Does Apple need a new OS or a better and faster web server ?? Date: 1996/04/18 Message-ID: <xsvarshney-1804962223230001@fdlmighty.fullerton.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 148301609 references: <xsvarshney-1404961114120001@newshub.csu.net> <AnalogKid-1604961503410001@treasure-d33.sierra.net> <jragosta-1804960803440001@ppp-1021.dca.net> organization: CSUF newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy In article <jragosta-180...@ppp-1021.dca.net>, jrag...@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote: > In article <AnalogKid-160...@treasure-d33.sierra.net>, > Anal...@temple.com (Analog Kid) wrote: > > > > > > No doubt, NT is the choice for web servers! > > Sounds like Microsoft hype to me. The latest figures say that UNIX is > _still_ #1, MacOS is #2 for Web servers. I don't believe NT is even #3 > (but it could be). > > -- > Regards, Joe Ragosta > Joe I hope you remember that with a server comes the software that works with the server that makes it more useful and stable and marketable. In that regards, NT has lots of software going for it, which needs basic upgrading for Web purposes, mainly SQL Server 6.5, Visual C++ 4.1, Borland's software, and many other companies that are releasing many NT based software. These are solid, well tested products with countless books available already, and are not just your filemaker pro solutions. Personally, I don't see that kind of excitement level for Macintosh web servers, and new products need to be announced, not just modified. There's no figure that shows that Mac web solutions are on the increase... i only see figures for NT web solutions on the increase, and that also not from Microsoft sources. Ask any full service ISP whether they'd prefer macs over NT or a Linux box. It's not only the ease of use of setup, but the kind of loads these servers can manage, esp. with image maps and cgis. Educational sites use Macs as servers because it's usually the case that 1. they don't have many hits 2. they have simple html links. 3. Apple reps dump these macs for free. Therefore the number of mac serevers is higher because educational sites have macintosh based solutions. I'd love to see stats of a breakdown as to how many Macintoshes are used in commercial sites, vs. number of Macs used in Educational sites vs. other computers. One of the main reason and I've already listed that above is that Apple reps literally hand out (ie gift them for free) the macs to educational site managers. Also, if you see the difference in the kind of material MacWeek presents, and the kind of material PCWeek presents, you'd know what kind of level Macs are playing with, and what kind of software levels PCs are playing with. MacWeek just plain sucks... the real info is in PCWeek, and they know why, because Macs just don't support the wide variety of software and networking standards that NT already supports now. There's no doubt that the Macintosh interface is more productive.. but that's where it all ends everything else, MS beats Apple fair and square, including marketing, pricing strategies, releasing products, supporting network standards that corporate america uses, changing strategies, and vaporware. Apple's entire culture is one of arrogance and hype as far as recent software releases go. That doesn't mean MS doesn't indulge in such crap... but see MS can afford to do so, but Apple cannot, thanks to a tiny market share. Another thing that amuses me about diehard mac users (well i'm one of them, but I don't like everything that Apple has as solution) is the kind of praise that's showered upon all kinds of new technologies Apple releases, w/o looking at the hard realities that statistical figures represent. When eworld was released, it was hyped as the ultimate online solution in interface. Similarly, Powertalk, QD 3d, QD GX, and now Cyberdog and Opendoc. These software require atleast 32 megs of ram to work w/o crashing such is the case with RISC chips. Cyberdog is not the only solution to web browsing, and the real money is in Web hosting anyways. Hopefully Apple's strategy will be clearer this WWDC... -Suvrit xsvar...@fullerton.edu