Altos 5000

[Dermot Tynan]

In article <15812 at bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff at bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
> 
> Still, paying twice or three times as much for the comfort of knowing my
> box was developed as a dedicated UNIX super-micro is not worth it to me.

That depends.  Where do you get this figure from?  It may be an AT&T practice
to charge 2x to 3x, but it certainly doesn't apply to Altos.
The Altos 5000 is priced in and around what HP and Compaq charge.  If I
remember correctly, it is cheaper (marginally) than either of them, when
they are configured identically.  For example, the 5000 comes standard with
Ethernet, SCSI, minimum of eight serial ports, etc.  However, I definitely
cannot quote the real price, because I don't know it.  And I certainly wouldn't
like it if the sales team started editing source... :)
There is a certain rule-of-thumb, that says that even with the decline of
memory and cpu prices, machines reach a minimum retail price.  For the 8088,
this seems to be in the neighborhood of $400 - $600 (excuse the inaccuracy,
I don't follow that market too closely anymore).  For a '286 machine, the
price is somewhat higher.  For an EISA machine, the minimum memory width is
32 bits.  Personally, I can't see EISA machines ever dropping below about
$4,000 (prove me wrong, someone...  please!!).  When you add disk controllers,
serial controllers, graphics cards, disk drives, ethernet, etc.  This cost
hits an average.  On top of that, you have the OS included, and Technical
Support.  In pieces, you could probably get a cheaper machine, but it wouldn't
have the same kind of performance, because we'll always have an edge when we
can tune the OS, and the hardware.  At the same time, the figure would be
lucky to be 20% more expensive (lots of hand-waving here, I only have vague
recollections of pricing charts).  Is the performance worth that??  Don't
forget, we're all paying Intel through the nose right now, for their magic.
When the i486 drops in price (which it undoubtably will), this will be
reflected in the end price.

> Of course, I don't fall in whatever specialized vertical niche it is
> where you need to support 200 terminals on a single CPU.  My guess is
> that anyone in that niche should shop around for a system that meets
> those special needs, pay what it costs even it's more than a PS/2 costs,
> and count himself lucky -- the heck with what the rest of us think.

Well, I guess we all quickly forget our educational background.  I *still*
log on to University machines, and am amazed that I was able to tolerate the
poor performance, given the number of users.  Especially when I see systems
today (the 5000 included), which sell for MUCH less, and deliver a lot more
performance.  Altos machines are used by a lot of airlines, for their ticket
desks (no, its not *our* fault the airlines are late :), throughout the
country.  They are also used for ATMs.  These are the unusual installations.
A lot of the installations are more "mainstream", and believe me, there is
nothing "niche" about supporting 200 users.  Ask Brandon Allbery.  He has
a much better idea of what the "typical" Altos user looks like.  But don't
kid yourself.  Most of us on this net seem to assume that the overwhelming
use for computers today, is compiling C programs, and reading news.  This
is far from true.  It's a major reality break to find that most users of
computers don't know UNIX from OS/2, and couldn't care less.  They have
some particular task or function they want to do.  If the computer can help
them and make them more productive, that's all they want to know.
SERMON MODE ON:
In this day and age we are all running around claiming MIPS this, RAM that,
when the *real* customers couldn't care whether the machine ran DOS, CP/M
or awk, as long as they can do their work better and/or faster.  We would
all be better off focusing on what the end-user is trying to do, instead of
hitting him/her over the head with so much useless trivia.
SERMON MODE OFF:
As far as Altos is concerned, if you can support 200 users on one machine,
as well has you could with 200 smaller and cheaper machines, then the
economies of scale are in favor of the 200-user machine.  Whatever about the
PC revolution, as long as that is the case, the 200-user machine will prevail.
As soon as that isn't the case, we need to re-evaluate.  Given that the entry
price of an equivalent PC would be $400, that means that the cost of putting
200 machines out there would be $80,000, not including network costs.  We can
beat that figure by a considerable margin.  That is no "niche market"!
						- Der
-- 
	Dermot Tynan,  Altos Computer Systems,  San Jose, CA   95134
	dtynan at altos86.Altos.COM		(408) 432-6200 x4237

	"Five to one, baby, one in five.  No-one here gets out alive."