rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) (12/14/89)
I was reading ab book on Smalltalk today (Smalltalk-80, Bits of History, Words of Advice by Glenn Krasner) and I was struck by the similarity of what I read about the NeXT system's interface. I've read elsewhere (Sorry, no reference) that the major innovation in the Mac system was the ability to easily generate and distribute new applications as separate entities from the system, and having a relatively cheap laser printer didn't hurt either. The cost was the loss of the object oriented system that allowed the user to modify nearly all aspects of his system. (Side Note: it seems to me Apple has been trying to regain this loss ever since--thus the proliferation of things like init's and cdev's.) In many ways the NeXT was a return to several of the things that Apple's Mac gave up--the object oriented system, etc., with a few updates to support things that the original Mac had but lost (ie., the ability to carry your system around on a single disk). Thus it seems to me that the major advances for the NeXT are in the MACH operating system with it's potential for parallel computing. I'm continuously amazed by what the folks at Xerox did, but I can't understand why they didn't build amazing computers and make a bundle while everyone else was floundering with DOS. Any comments on 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. 2: What the Major improvements added by the NeXT folks are. 3: Other Major improvements added by Apple in developing the Mac (or LISA). would be appreciated. That'll teach you to read phillosophy questions. -Rob
rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) (12/14/89)
I was reading ab book on Smalltalk today (Smalltalk-80, Bits of History, Words of Advice by Glenn Krasner) and I was struck by the similarity of what I read about the NeXT system's interface. I've read elsewhere (Sorry, no reference) that the major innovation in the Mac system was the ability to easily generate and distribute new applications as separate entities from the system, and having a relatively cheap laser printer didn't hurt either. The cost was the loss of the object oriented system that allowed the user to modify nearly all aspects of his system. (Side Note: it seems to me Apple has been trying to regain this loss ever since--thus the proliferation of things like init's and cdev's.) In many ways the NeXT was a return to several of the things that Apple's Mac gave up--the object oriented system, etc., with a few updates to support things that the original Mac had but lost (ie., the ability to carry your system around on a single disk). Thus it seems to me that the major advances for the NeXT are in the MACH operating system with it's potential for parallel computing. I'm continuously amazed by what the folks at Xerox did, but I can't understand why they didn't build amazing computers and make a bundle while everyone else was floundering with DOS. Any comments on 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. 2: What the Major improvements added by the NeXT folks are. 3: Other Major improvements added by Apple in developing the Mac (or LISA). would be appreciated. That'll teach you to read phillosophic questions. -Rob
pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (12/15/89)
In article <1634@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) writes: >[I'm amazed ... NeXT like Smalltalk, vs. Mac.] >[Why didn't Xerox make a killing?] Read ``Fumbling the Future''. It's a must read. ;-D on ( A bookish answer ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
sjs@spectral.ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer) (12/15/89)
In RE: > I'm continuously amazed by what the folks at Xerox did, but I can't > understand why they didn't build amazing computers and make a bundle while > everyone else was floundering with DOS. > Any comments on > 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. About a year ago a book came out addressing this very question. The title was something like "Fumbling the Future: The invention of the personal computer at Xerox." Since as a matter of policy I never pay hardcover prices for a book, I only had a chance to skim it in the bookstore, but it seemed pretty good. By now it should be out in paperback. Check it out. Stan Switzer sjs@bellcore.com
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (12/15/89)
In article <1634@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) writes: > > Any comments on > 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. Read the book "Fumbling the future. How Xerox invented, then ignored, the first personal computer", by Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander. It's an excellent book that explains a lot of what was going on at Xerox during the early PARC days. Remember, great technology does not a successful computer make! Thank goodness Jobs et al visited PARC and brought some of their great ideas to the masses. Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce -------------+-------------------------------------- | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 | Box 58168 | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 | (408) 987-7319 | AppleLink: peirce1 | Internet: peirce@claris.com | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
ncjuul@freja.diku.dk (Niels Christian Juul) (12/15/89)
In article <1634@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) writes: > 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. And peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) responded: >Read the book "Fumbling the future. How Xerox invented, then ignored, the >first personal computer", by Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander. >It's an excellent book that explains a lot of what was going on at Xerox >during the early PARC days. May I also drive Your attentions towards a short overview of the Xerox development history: "The Xerox Star: A Retrospective" by Jeff Johnson et al. in IEEE, Computer, september 1989, Vol22(9), p. 11-29 --Niels Christian Juul DIKU (aka Dept.Comp.Sci., Univ. of Copenhagen) Universitetsparken 1 DK 2100 Copenhagen DENMARK --ncjuul@diku.dk .
kevin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Kevin Harris) (12/15/89)
In article <1634@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc) writes: > ... [ text deleted for brevity's sake] > I'm continuously amazed by what the folks at Xerox did, but I can't >understand why they didn't build amazing computers and make a bundle while >everyone else was floundering with DOS. > Any comments on > 1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing. Funny you should mention that. As some of you may know, Xerox filed suit against Apple in Federal Court at San Fransisco yesterday, 14Dec89. The full details of the suit can be found in today's "Wall Street Journal," but in short, it charges that Apple misappropriated software to which Xerox holds the copyright and that this software may have been insturmental in the user interface of the Macintosh. An interesting side affect of this suit is that if the court finds for Xerox, Apple's claims against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard will be severly damaged if not moot. > 2: What the Major improvements added by the NeXT folks are. > 3: Other Major improvements added by Apple in developing the Mac (or LISA). > would be appreciated. > > That'll teach you to read phillosophy questions. > -Rob I realize that this is comp.sys.next and not an apple forum, but I believe that it is pertanent (sic?) to Rob's original post. |Kevin A. Harris - or - kevin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | |119th & Broadway; Rm. 212 | |New York, N.Y. 10027 | |Kevin A. Harris - or - kevin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | |119th & Broadway; Rm. 212 "A type of acid and a type of unix both came | |New York, N.Y. 10027 from Berkley.CA. Coincidence? I think not." |
Armadillo@cup.portal.com (Russ Armadillo Coffman) (12/16/89)
Rob -
Maybe Xerox will make some money off{ the graphical user interface and
the personal computer yet. They just sued Apple. Film at 11. -Russ