jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (12/09/89)
This probably comes too late to do any good, but since Apple is revamping the Mac operating system I thought I'd put in my two cents. Please take it with a grain of salt since I may be ignorant of some capabilities already available. What does THIS user want to see in a new Macintosh operating system? o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? o Simplify calls to the toolbox. I hate having to call functions with a bazillion arguments. I also dislike sending in "mystery" parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. o Speed up the interface. I can't stand having to wait for all of those windows to redraw themselves. If necessary, install hardware blitter hardware to do a lot of the work for you. When the Mac was a small inexpensive box, then it was correct to do lots of stuff in software. Now that Mac CPUs cost upwards of $3,000-$4,000, Apple can afford a little specialized hardware. o Virtual memory and memory management. Apple IIs use the 68030 chip which also includes memory management and process protection/mode switching. USE that capability. Give us multitasking and virutal memory. o Update the interface. Let's face it... the Mac interface was inovative 5 years ago, but compared to Motif on X windows or the NeXT computer interface, its a dog. This is actually a very complex issue: The look and feel of Macintosh windows is very sparten. I would like to see an interfacethat looks more elegant even if it is no more functional. Consider the Motif interface in X Windows... very nice textured panels with 3-D buttons and shadowing. Beautiful. Now look at Mac windows and dialog boxes... a couple of lines and the samey old radio buttons and click buttons. Boring. To rid ourselves of this sameyness, there should be a tool on the Mac very similar to the NeXT computer's interface builder. Such a tool would let you prototype windows and dialog boxes but froma larger pallette of "panels" and textures. Various buttons and effects (shadowing, highlighting, blinking) should be available. Different types of window panes, controls and menuing paradigms should be available. This hypothetical tool would allow the user to prototype windows by draggin each item from a menu and simply placing them on the window. The tool might then generate a framework of code which the user can fill in later. It should also be possible for the user to create his/her own controls and plug them into the library of things attachable to a window or box. All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering each other's applications too! o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware is there... but the Finders just don't use it! o It should be possible to run an X Windows based MultiFinder with true multitasking. X Windows is there.... why ignore it! Integrate the thing right into the MultiFinder and polish up the interface (although it would probably run a little slow). MacX isn't a total solution. o Make the OS more Posix call-complient. Functions like FSGetFile are a good thing but there should also be ANSI conformant Unix "open" "read" "write" calls. The Unix OS interface is simplicity in itself. Don't ignore the tide of support for Unix and OS STANDARDS. The OS looks like it came out of a 128K machine from the mid 1980's. Wonder why? Although it's an over-used buzz-word, the OS might support some kind of object-oriented ontology. I like the idea of building modules functionality and clicking them together in different ways. The Mac already supports this with CDEVS, INITs and so forth... thus if you want a window or panel with different functionality than those provided... you just write a CDEF and install it. This is very cool but it often means a LOT of code and that code is pretty esoteric stuff. An object-oriented programming way of looking at things might make this more modular and easier to program. Might facilitate sharing of building blocks (OOPS classes and libraries) better too! o Better documentation for the system, finder and toolbox. I have to glean much too much information from the network. EVERYTHING should be documented. The Inside Mac books are a good start but they aren't nearly as comprehensive as they should be. They are also rather difficult to read. Unfortunately I am forced to suppliment these books with the Macintosh Revealed series, the technical notes and other communications. For example... where are the operations of the MultiFinder documented? Why in a seperate document you can only obtain from APDA... "The MultiFinder Programmer's Guide." Lack of documentation is a frustration to developers and makes the Mac Look like a toy. o 1-2 year warrenty on Apple hardware. Please? Applecare is much too expensive. Doesn't Apple trust it's own hardware to offer a better warrenty (although I notice that NeXT only offers 90 days as well)? I also detest having to rely on dealers for service and technical support. The technical people employed by dealers often don't know the basic technical facts (much less the deep hacker's esoterica). This situation resembles the methodology car manufacturers use to support car buyers... let them rely on the dealerships for service and support. Yuk! o Scalable picture and font technology. I realize that this is coming in some form or other however it doesn't look like Apple's new scalable fonts will be Postscript compatible. It would be great if all of the draw and paint programs on the new machine integrated scalable colour text and graphics in an integrated fashion. Can you say Postscript? I know that what I've just described sounds a LOT like the NeXT computer and for good reason. Jobs and Co. have done a wonderful job of synthesising various technologies into one beautifully designed package that didn't worry about being backward compatible. The Mac is still the computer for the 80's and shows it. The 80's over. What will the Mac of the 90's look like? -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/09/89)
In article <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > When the Mac > was a small inexpensive box, then it was correct to do lots of > stuff in software. Now that Mac CPUs cost upwards of $3,000-$4,000, > Apple can afford a little specialized hardware. The Mac was NEVER a small inexpensive box. The original Mac 128K cost $2400 list when it was released, not counting the printer, with which it could easily set you back $3400 after taxes. The Mac did all this stuff in software at the time simply because there was no other option which would keep them in the price range. Now such options are there, but making them object-compatible is a mess. They are merely trying to get the most out of their platform before abandoning it, and that is a correct business decision. -- Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/09/89)
> o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C > complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. > Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then > Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? How do you rewrite the OS in Pascal but make the calling sequence ANSI C compliant? I agree that CtoPstr() et. al. are hurtful wastes of resources, but you seem to have put apples and oranges together as a solution. > o Simplify calls to the toolbox. I hate having to call functions > with a bazillion arguments. I also dislike sending in "mystery" > parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and > system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 > boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. The "mystery" parameters are often used by cheap hackers like me. Plus, 7.0 will run on any Mac with memory management, which includes the by-now lowly Mac II (with an extra chip). > o Speed up the interface. I can't stand having to wait for all of > those windows to redraw themselves. If necessary, install hardware > blitter hardware to do a lot of the work for you. When the Mac > was a small inexpensive box, then it was correct to do lots of > stuff in software. Now that Mac CPUs cost upwards of $3,000-$4,000, > Apple can afford a little specialized hardware. I agree. I think some stuff in this area was done, but one of the problems is supporting multiple graphics boards, and the blitter would have to be on each board, methinks. I don't know too much about this technology, but I do remember turning the color off on my beautiful $700 monitor while I had it because the text scrolling was unaaceptably slow in 8-bit mode. > o Virtual memory and memory management. Apple IIs use the 68030 chip > which also includes memory management and process protection/mode > switching. USE that capability. Give us multitasking and virutal > memory. It's here. I have it. It will be in System 7.0. And certainly not on the Apple II, but I knew what you were talking about. > o Update the interface. Let's face it... the Mac interface was > inovative 5 years ago, but compared to Motif on X windows or the > NeXT computer interface, its a dog. This is actually a very complex > issue: Yes, it is. I don't think you've considered the complexity enough. > The look and feel of Macintosh windows is very sparten. I would like > to see an interfacethat looks more elegant even if it is no more > functional. Consider the Motif interface in X Windows... very nice > textured panels with 3-D buttons and shadowing. Beautiful. Now look > at Mac windows and dialog boxes... a couple of lines and the samey old > radio buttons and click buttons. Boring. This could be done with CDEF resources. People just haven't done it yet. And to look really NeXTy, people would have to adopt the convention of using a grey background pattern in their windows. None of this would be Apple's responsibility, because it is already possible. > To rid ourselves of this sameyness, there should be a tool on the Mac > very similar to the NeXT computer's interface builder. Such a tool > would let you prototype windows and dialog boxes but froma larger > pallette of "panels" and textures. Various buttons and effects > (shadowing, highlighting, blinking) should be available. Different > types of window panes, controls and menuing paradigms should be > available. This hypothetical tool would allow the user to prototype > windows by draggin each item from a menu and simply placing them on > the window. The tool might then generate a framework of code which > the user can fill in later. It should also be possible for the user > to create his/her own controls and plug them into the library of > things attachable to a window or box. This tool exists. It is called Prototyper. There is another called AppMaker. Neither have the aesthetic diversity you're after, but this is a good thing. The changes you're after should be system-wide; consistency is essential to the success of the Mac. (Which is why I think HyperCard is a Bad Thing, but...) > All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering each > other's applications too! This is also up to third parties. Apple has made it possible for applications to be launched more than once on a server. It's now up to developers to play by the rules that make it possible. > o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days > when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be > greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware > is there... but the Finders just don't use it! That's what ColorFinder is for. You can get it via anonymous ftp to apple.com. I think it's in /pub/dts/mac/hacks. > o It should be possible to run an X Windows based MultiFinder with true > multitasking. X Windows is there.... why ignore it! Integrate the > thing right into the MultiFinder and polish up the interface (although > it would probably run a little slow). MacX isn't a total solution. Competing interfaces on the Mac would kill it. There is A/UX and there is an X-Windows package for it. Also, you will get your true multi-tasking eventually. Maybe in System 8.0. 7.0 won't be anything to sneeze at in that department, either. > o Make the OS more Posix call-complient. Functions like FSGetFile are > a good thing but there should also be ANSI conformant Unix "open" > "read" "write" calls. The Unix OS interface is simplicity in itself. > Don't ignore the tide of support for Unix and OS STANDARDS. The OS > looks like it came out of a 128K machine from the mid 1980's. Wonder > why? Get THINK (Lightspeed) C. It handles all of that kind of stuff. MPW and Aztec probably do too, but I haven't looked at either of them in very much depth. > Although it's an over-used buzz-word, the OS might support some > kind of object-oriented ontology. I like the idea of building modules > functionality and clicking them together in different ways. Well, I've already said a little something about Mac CASE tools. > The Mac already supports this with CDEVS, INITs and so forth... thus > if you want a window or panel with different functionality than those > provided... you just write a CDEF and install it. This is very cool > but it often means a LOT of code and that code is pretty esoteric > stuff. No, to define a new window, you use a WDEF. But that's just nit-picking. I agree that there should be more object orientation on the Mac. So does Apple. That's why they developed Object Pascal with Wirth and that's why they have a C++ compiler coming out in cooperation with AT&T. As for the esoteric qualities of xDEF's, don't be fooled by Steve Jobs' rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. > An object-oriented programming way of looking at things might make > this more modular and easier to program. Might facilitate sharing > of building blocks (OOPS classes and libraries) better too! Ever hear of MacApp? Or the THINK Class Library? > o Scalable picture and font technology. I realize that this is coming > in some form or other however it doesn't look like Apple's new > scalable fonts will be Postscript compatible. It would be great if > all of the draw and paint programs on the new machine integrated > scalable colour text and graphics in an integrated fashion. Can > you say Postscript? Can you ask "Why?" as long as the new technology is just as versatile and powerful? Can you think of a reason Apple would castrate its font technology for System 7.0? They're not that stupid. > I know that what I've just described sounds a LOT like the NeXT computer > and for good reason. Jobs and Co. have done a wonderful job of synthesising > various technologies into one beautifully designed package that didn't worry > about being backward compatible. The Mac is still the computer for the > 80's and shows it. The 80's over. What will the Mac of the > 90's look like? I composed a reply to this, but I realized it belonged in alt.religion.computers, so I deleted it. In short, I think this assertion is both premature and unfounded. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
long@rainbo.enet.dec.com (Richard C. Long) (12/10/89)
In article <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM>, jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes... [ideas about new Mac deleted] > parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and > system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 > boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. Besides being remarkably arrogant, this is wrong. From what I've read, system 7.0 will run on all Macintosh models from the Plus on up. Systems that lack a PMMU will not be able to use the virtual memory capability, but all other features will be accessible. Apple is evidently trying to avoid having a dual-path computer family, i.e. machines that run System 6 and machines that run System 7. This in my opinion is a good thing; it would truly be a mess for developers to have two Systems that needed concurrent support. From the tone of your posting, you are apparently able to afford a 68030 box. Good. Fine. But not everyone can. Don't sell the Plus and SE short; they are perfectly serviceable for many uses, and I applaud Apple's efforts to keep a unified System. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /'') /'' / | mcntsh::long -- or RAINBO -- | A day for firm /''\ /__ /__ | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | decisions!!!!! ----------------| ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | Or is it?? Richard C. Long | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com |========================
warner@s3dawn.ARPA (Ken Warner) (12/10/89)
My vision is simple--a headless SE/30 with two direct connect slots. One for the monitor, one for an ethernet card. Sell it for less than two thousand dollars and I'd be happy. Ken Warner (Please no flames, it's just a fantasy.)
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/10/89)
I'll answer your concerns about where Apple is taking the operating system in the 90's, but judging from some of your comments, it's apparent you having been listening to many of the things that Apple has been talking about for the last year. #1: >What does THIS user want to see in a new Macintosh operating system? > > o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C > complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. > Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then > Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? Gee, I always thought that the Mac OS *was* based on Pascal calls. And you haven't given me any good reason as to why we should make Toolbox calls ANSI C complient. Just for the sake of porting existing applications? Any Mac programmer worth his salt will tell you that porting a stock program doth not a Mac application make. You complaint here is very confusing. #2: > o Simplify calls to the toolbox. I hate having to call functions > with a bazillion arguments. I also dislike sending in "mystery" > parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and > system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 > boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. Simplify calls to the toolbox. Okay, programming the toolbox box has never been a cake walk, and this is a legitimate concern. However, I don't think any parameters are "mystery"; all have a purpose. And I *still* don't know where this hogwash got started about System 7.0 only supporting the 68030. System 7.0 will run on all Macs we make today, as well as the future. That includes the Mac Plus, SE, and original Mac II. What these machines can't do under System 7.0 is run virtual memory. The Mac II can be upgraded with a PMMU chip to do virtual memory. But otherwise these Macs can do IPC, outline fonts, new printing, layout manager, new Finder, and all the other goodies that we rolled out to the developers. *All* Macs can do this. 'Nuff said. #3 > o Speed up the interface. I can't stand having to wait for all of > those windows to redraw themselves. If necessary, install hardware > blitter hardware to do a lot of the work for you. When the Mac > was a small inexpensive box, then it was correct to do lots of > stuff in software. Now that Mac CPUs cost upwards of $3,000-$4,000, > Apple can afford a little specialized hardware. One of the problems with hardware blitters is that most graphics coprocessors can't handle the complex regions that Macs have to draw. Now that's not to saw that graphic blitters are impossible; a few are available right now, but most are not cheap enough to put in all Macs. The engineers in Cupertino have explored numerous technologies to make the Mac what is is today, and we do not ignore technolgies. But the engineers believe that the way they've implemented drawing is right. Also, as shown in the past, Quickdraw is always subject to change, and therefore may obsolete a hardware based solution. #4 > o Update the interface. Let's face it... the Mac interface was > inovative 5 years ago, but compared to Motif on X windows or the > NeXT computer interface, its a dog. This is actually a very complex > issue: > > The look and feel of Macintosh windows is very sparten. I would like > to see an interfacethat looks more elegant even if it is no more > functional. Consider the Motif interface in X Windows... very nice > textured panels with 3-D buttons and shadowing. Beautiful. Now look > at Mac windows and dialog boxes... a couple of lines and the samey old > radio buttons and click buttons. Boring. > > To rid ourselves of this sameyness, there should be a tool on the Mac > very similar to the NeXT computer's interface builder. Such a tool > would let you prototype windows and dialog boxes but froma larger > pallette of "panels" and textures. Various buttons and effects > (shadowing, highlighting, blinking) should be available. Different > types of window panes, controls and menuing paradigms should be > available. This hypothetical tool would allow the user to prototype > windows by draggin each item from a menu and simply placing them on > the window. The tool might then generate a framework of code which > the user can fill in later. It should also be possible for the user > to create his/her own controls and plug them into the library of > things attachable to a window or box. > > All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering each > other's applications too! Contrary to popular opinion, all the things you see in the Mac inferface are not hardwired down to the ROMs. They are al resources that can be changed by modifying the right WDEF, CDEF, or other resource. In fact, some people have already done so in their programs. Others have written INITs to do the same thing. If you doubt that Apple can make changes in the interface for the better, ask your local Apple rep to show you the video tape and literature about our OASIS concept. Or the Knowledge Navigator video. Our technology people are that stupid to rest on past laurels. Interface prototypers for the Mac already exist, although not as flexible as the NeXT Interface builder. but they do exist. #5 > o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days > when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be > greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware > is there... but the Finders just don't use it! Please read the section in Inside Mac 4 and the Human Inferface guidelines book on color and its use in the Mac interface. #6 > o It should be possible to run an X Windows based MultiFinder with true > multitasking. X Windows is there.... why ignore it! Integrate the > thing right into the MultiFinder and polish up the interface (although > it would probably run a little slow). MacX isn't a total solution. I don't even want to begin to comment on how ridiculously complex that would be to implement. But I will say that since the Mac OS isn't a UNIX based system, I really don't think that it would make a really good UNIX client host. And as for Mac X..have you used it? Since its not released yet, I'd say no, and from what I've seen of it, I like what it can do. it provides X-Windows server services to any Mac with 2 megs of memory. And I've tried it with A/UX, DECWindows, and an IBM RT. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. And if memory serves me correct, the NeXt machine doesn't even support X-Windows. Hmmmm..... #7 > o Make the OS more Posix call-complient. Functions like FSGetFile are > a good thing but there should also be ANSI conformant Unix "open" > "read" "write" calls. The Unix OS interface is simplicity in itself. > Don't ignore the tide of support for Unix and OS STANDARDS. The OS > looks like it came out of a 128K machine from the mid 1980's. Wonder > why? The Mac OS may not be POSIX complient, but A/UX sure is. Check it out. And you can even do Mac stuff in the process. And "make sure the OS supports object orientation"??? Where have you been for the past 7 years??? What do you think that the Lisa pioneered in microcomputers??? Object oriented inferface concepts and programming have existed since the old Clascal days. C++ is now available from APDA. OOP is nothing new to Apple; please recognize what we've accomplished. I'll just close this already too long response by responding to your last three complaints. First, Inside Mac is being revamped, and Gary Little of Apple has already has conferences on the major bboards looking for input from the masses. Second, the Apple warrenty. I won't respond to this outside of that Apple always reviews its policies on a variety of issues at various intervals. Third, scalable fonts are coming, and their the best in the business. And the reason that we didn't xchoose Postscript fonts was for speed and flexibility. Our fonts will print to anything, Imagewriters, laserwriters, film recorders, plotters, etc. Even Microsoft liked them enough to liscense them from us. And I think that a fear of "not compatible with Postscript" is completely unjustified. It really doesn't make sense for us to introduce a technology that's functionally incompatible with all our Postscript laserwriters, or any other printer for that matter. Look, I don't mean for any of this to be considered personal or heavy handed, but I always cringe when I read something here that i consider inaccurate or short sided. Some of your complaints were well stated, and should be addressed. But make sure that you have all the facts and understand the technical complexities of the problem before you flame. Thank you. And as always, these comments don't come from my employer. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
kenk@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Ken Konecki) (12/12/89)
In article <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: |What does THIS user want to see in a new Macintosh operating system? I'd like to respond to a few of the points made. | | o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C | complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. | Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then | Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? I assume you meant rewrite in C? My question is why. If you program in Pascal you don't need the CtoPstr and PtoCstr calls. | o Simplify calls to the toolbox. I hate having to call functions | with a bazillion arguments. I also dislike sending in "mystery" | parameters like "0L", -1 and so forth. So what if the ROMS and | system get a little larger. System 7.0 will run only on 68030 | boxes anyway. You have plenty of room to spread out. System 7.0 will run on all Macintoshes, 68000, 68020 and 68030. | o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days | when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be | greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware | is there... but the Finders just don't use it! Why? There are plenty of people out there who don't need or even want color (that's why there are more monochrome Macs in the world than color Macs). | o It should be possible to run an X Windows based MultiFinder with true | multitasking. X-Windows? Why? With regards to your statement about true multitasking, let me ask you this. Can you run more than one program at a time under Multifinder? If you said yes, then you have true multitasking. If you said no, go read your manuals on to start up multiapplications under Multifinder. I fail to understand why so many people think pre-emptive multitasking is the only real way to run more than one application at a time. | o Make the OS more Posix call-complient. Functions like FSGetFile are | a good thing but there should also be ANSI conformant Unix "open" | "read" "write" calls. The Unix OS interface is simplicity in itself. | Don't ignore the tide of support for Unix and OS STANDARDS. The OS | looks like it came out of a 128K machine from the mid 1980's. Wonder | why? Ever wonder why the Unix interface looks like it came out of a 64K machine from the mid-1970's? Just my opinions. -- Ken Konecki "Eat well, stay fit, and die anyway" e-mail:kenk@tellabs.com -or- ...!uunet!tellab5!kenk U.S. Mail: 1271 Portchester Circle, Carol Stream, IL 60188
rieman@boulder.Colorado.EDU (John Rieman) (12/13/89)
In article <141@scubed.SCUBED.COM> warner@s3dawn.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: >My vision is simple--a headless SE/30 with two direct connect slots. One for >the monitor, one for an ethernet card. Sell it for less than two thousand >dollars and I'd be happy. > >Ken Warner >(Please no flames, it's just a fantasy.) Well, it *would* be nice if Apple would sell a video card for the direct connect slot. -john
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/13/89)
Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Apple's stock took a 6% hit yesterday (21% down since October), because its low end market is slipping. Mr. Benton, of Goldman, Sachs & Co. said: "If current products are losing market share, there's no reason to expect [Apple] to gain market share in 1990. Their products [for example the 3-year-old SE] are old, and they are more expensive than IBM and clone products." An unnammed Apple executive said, "How difficult is it to saw the monitor off and give customers an SE with choice of monitors?" The story also mentions Compaq's misfortunes, and ends with, "Still, analysts say, Compaq, unlike Apple, has products that could improve its fortunes in 1990." [Referring to Apple's low-end products being more than a year off.] -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) (12/14/89)
In article <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM>, jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > > I know that what I've just described sounds a LOT like the NeXT computer > and for good reason. Jobs and Co. have done a wonderful job of synthesising > various technologies into one beautifully designed package that didn't worry Just Give up and buy a NeXT..... Let's face it.... There's no one at Apple [in charge] with any vision at all. All the leadership there is worried about 1 thing... the bottom line! And that is no way to go about "Changing the world" or "Giving you the power to Be Your Best" (more like "Giving Scully $9,000,000.00 a year plus bonuses") Scully and Gasse' only care about 1 thing..... how much $$ they can take from you from the latest incantation of repackaged MacII hardware/technology..... Just Give it up.... All you out there get little stiffies whenever you see a NeXT or read anything about it... So just abandon the "Old boat Anchor" today and start living the future..... I did!!!!!!
jasmerb@mist.cs.orst.edu (Bryce Jasmer) (12/14/89)
In article <192@atncpc.UUCP> bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) writes: >In article <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM>, jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: >> >> I know that what I've just described sounds a LOT like the NeXT computer >> and for good reason. Jobs and Co. have done a wonderful job of synthesising >> various technologies into one beautifully designed package that didn't worry > >Just Give up and buy a NeXT..... >Let's face it.... There's no one at Apple [in charge] with any vision at all. I wouldn't go that far. What about Alan Kay. We have him to thank for starting all of this. What about Knowledge Navigator? This is quite feasable in the next couple of years. <EXTREME sarcasm here.> I think Apple has some really neat ideas but they are looking to far into the future and aren't putting out feasable solutions for the near future. NeXT seems to be doing a much better job at looking at what can be accomplished and what is good and exciting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryce Jasmer jasmerb@cs.orst.edu
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/14/89)
In article <192@atncpc.UUCP>, bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) writes: > So just abandon the "Old boat Anchor" today and start > living the future..... I did!!!!!! I'm happy for you. My "Old Boat Anchor" has: - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system software - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards - Color - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page - Thousands of applications and hundreds of peripherals that I can buy off the shelf - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) And it's a lot more affordable. I think I'll keep it, thanks. Look, I don't mean to knock the NeXT, but is has a ways to go before it's competition for the Macintosh, except perhaps for a few specific applications. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (12/15/89)
In article <3273@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >> o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C >> complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. >> Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then >> Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? > >How do you rewrite the OS in Pascal but make the calling sequence ANSI C >compliant? I agree that CtoPstr() et. al. are hurtful wastes of resources, My mistake. That should read: "Rewrite the system in C." So what if we throw Pascal users out on the streets? ;-) ;-) ;-) >This could be done with CDEF resources. People just haven't done it yet. And >to look really NeXTy, people would have to adopt the convention of using a >grey background pattern in their windows. None of this would be Apple's >responsibility, because it is already possible. Why hasn't apple developed sets of resources WDEFS CDEFS and so on to extend the Mac OS becuase it sounds like this is just what resources are good for? At the very LEAST Apple could act as the distribution center for such new extensions. It looks to me like Apple isn't doing a whole lot to help the little guy or the public domain BBOARDS. They just don't seem to participate (although individual employeess do). I've found APDA to be a pretty poor solution as well. I'm not a big-time developer, just a hacker. I also thinkApple is pretty poor concerning their warrantys, service, technical support, etc. Do they think third parties can do it all? >> All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering >> each other's applications too! > >This is also up to third parties. Apple has made it possible for applications >to be launched more than once on a server. It's now up to developers to play >by the rules that make it possible. Apple could incoprporate more good ideas from outside sources. They might also pay more attention to fixing the work they've started, as opposed to intensifying on their grand visionary strategies (like MultiMedia, portable Macintoshes, etc). Actually system 7.0 is a step in the right direction since it makes up for many things that the old system is lacking (virtual memory, scalable font technology, etc). I guess what I'm asking for is more support at the low level. >> o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. The Mac OS grew up in the days >> when the Mac was available only in B&W monochrome. There should be >> greater support in Resedit and the Finders for colour. The hardware >> is there... but the Finders just don't use it! > >That's what ColorFinder is for. You can get it via anonymous ftp to >apple.com. I think it's in /pub/dts/mac/hacks. Thanks... I'll check it out. I've heard of this "colorFinder" but all I know is what I pick up on the street. Why can't Apple sponsor an organization like BMUG which would make these things known? A news letter would be nice for a start. >Competing interfaces on the Mac would kill it. There is A/UX and there is >an X-Windows package for it. Also, you will get your true multi-tasking >eventually. Maybe in System 8.0. 7.0 won't be anything to sneeze at in >that department, either. I'm looking forward to it, although the initial release of 7.0 will have mostly hooks for multitasking. It will also have something called "active clipboards (?)" whatever that is. Sounds like Unix pipes to me. >Get THINK (Lightspeed) C. It handles all of that kind of stuff. MPW and Aztec >probably do too, but I haven't looked at either of them in very much depth. Yes the THINK C implementation is very nice and quite comprehensive. I shouldn't have to rely on a third party library to provide this compatibility though. >No, to define a new window, you use a WDEF. But that's just nit-picking. >I agree that there should be more object orientation on the Mac. So does >Apple. That's why they developed Object Pascal with Wirth and that's why >they have a C++ compiler coming out in cooperation with AT&T. Actually a C++ front-end probably based on Cfront. A true compiler would be preferable since it would support debugging C++ code better. I suppose they'll integrate all of this with MPW and make it work. >As for the esoteric qualities of xDEF's, don't be fooled by Steve Jobs' >rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective >C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new >objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything >on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. Granted, both are obtuse. I don't have experience with the NeXT (wish I did) to make comparisons. The only reason I'm going with a Mac now and not a NeXT is because the software I need is available on the Mac NOW. >Ever hear of MacApp? Or the THINK Class Library? Yes. I have THINK C and the Class library is quite nice. Makes building the interface easier than if you just used straight C code. Again Apple is relying on a third party developr to provide products and then the end user to integrate and develop the extensions. >In short, I think this assertion is both premature and unfounded. Probably... but then I'm only expressing my desires, not a path to attaining them. We can all dream and I dream of a Mac with more capability, cleaner design, attention to standards, hopefully fewer bugs and better support from Apple Computer. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (12/15/89)
In article <192@atncpc.UUCP> bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) writes: >Just Give up and buy a NeXT..... Let's face it.... There's no one at Apple >[in charge] with any vision at all. All the leadership there is worried >about 1 thing... the bottom line! And that is no way to go about "Changing >the world" or "Giving you the power to Be Your Best" (more like "Giving >Scully $9,000,000.00 a year plus bonuses") Scully and Gasse' only care about >1 thing..... how much $$ they can take from you from the latest incantation of >repackaged MacII hardware/technology..... >So just abandon the "Old boat Anchor" today and start living the >future..... I did!!!!!! I agree with the spirit of the above although it might be a bit on the inflammatory side. It's true that Apple charges a LOT of $$$ for their boxes and provides little in the way of support for the little guy. The NeXT computer *is* the future... unfortunately the future doesn't have the software that I need right now! John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/15/89)
Here we go again. I wonder how long this will last... If anyone doesn't wand to read a long message, bail now. From article <10077@zodiac.ADS.COM>, by jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson): > In article <3273@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >>> o Rewrite in Pascal and make software calling sequence ANSII C >>> complient. CtoPstr and PtoCstr is a boatload of nonesense. >>> Of course this will break all kinds of code out there, but then >>> Apple plans to continue support of OS 6 right? >> >>How do you rewrite the OS in Pascal but make the calling sequence ANSI C >>compliant? I agree that CtoPstr() et. al. are hurtful wastes of resources, > My mistake. That should read: "Rewrite the system in C." So what if > we throw Pascal users out on the streets? ;-) ;-) ;-) Well, there's a lot of "what". Firstly, the OS isn't written in Pascal. It's written in 68000 assembler. It observes Pascal calling sequence. That is all. If you can make a persuasive case that somehow Pascal calling sequence is inferior to C calling sequence, I'm with you. As I understand it, C's calling sequence pushes arguments on the stack right-to-left and makes the called routine responsible for cleaning up the stack. Pascal pushes args left-to-right and the caller cleans up the stack. Doesn't strike me that either has a clear advantage, especially when you consider that OS calls are made via the "pascal" function modifier keyword, which forces them into Pascal calling sequence. And the extra typing of "pascal" is covered by the compiler vendor. >>This could be done with CDEF resources. People just haven't done it yet. And >>to look really NeXTy, people would have to adopt the convention of using a >>grey background pattern in their windows. None of this would be Apple's >>responsibility, because it is already possible. > > Why hasn't apple developed sets of resources WDEFS CDEFS and so on to > extend the Mac OS becuase it sounds like this is just what resources > are good for? At the very LEAST Apple could act as the distribution > center for such new extensions. Because, as I said below, destroying the unification of the interface would be suicide. The strength of the Mac interface is its homogeneity, its consistency. Apple probably has official policy high-up NOT to be a clearing house for interface deviations. This is a feature, not a bug. > It looks to me like Apple isn't doing > a whole lot to help the little guy or the public domain BBOARDS. > They just don't seem to participate (although individual employeess do). Agreed. The $600 fee for developer support will eventually kill shareware when the system becomes too hard to program without guru help. It's already having an effect. I wasn't on UseNet when the fee was announced; I imagine there was an uproar; maybe someone could fill me in on anything that didn't make it to CompuServe. > I've found APDA to be a pretty poor solution as well. I'm not a big-time > developer, just a hacker. APDA isn't a support group. It's a tool clearing-house and a publisher and a few other little services as well. > I also thinkApple is pretty poor concerning their > warrantys, service, Me too. > technical support, etc. If you can afford to be a Registered Developer, the tech support is pretty well wonderful, dammit. They've got people who'll crawl the ROMs to find out why your code doesn't work; they work with you; they're cheerful and friendly. (Maybe a tad bit slow, but they make up for it in comprehensivity.) There's NOBODY NOWHERE NOHOW who even comes close Apple's MacDTS. >>> All of these items should be sharable by users without clobbering >>> each other's applications too! >>This is also up to third parties. Apple has made it possible for applications >>to be launched more than once on a server. It's now up to developers to play >>by the rules that make it possible. > Apple could incoprporate more good ideas from outside sources. <beating a dead horse> Diversity will kill the Mac interface. Apple is doing the right thing in not actively encouraging it. > They > might also pay more attention to fixing the work they've started, as > opposed to intensifying on their grand visionary strategies (like > MultiMedia, portable Macintoshes, etc). Actually system 7.0 is a step > in the right direction since it makes up for many things that the old > system is lacking (virtual memory, scalable font technology, etc). I > guess what I'm asking for is more support at the low level. I don't see how any of this relates to what I said. >>> o Stress a greater tie-in with colour. [ complaints about mono Finder ] >>That's what ColorFinder is for. You can get it via anonymous ftp to >>apple.com. I think it's in /pub/dts/mac/hacks. > all I know is what I pick up on the street. Me, too. I don't even have a color Mac. > Why can't Apple sponsor an organization like BMUG which would make these > things known? A newsletter would be nice for a start. Hmmm. Answer: because there are organizations like BMUG. >>Get THINK (Lightspeed) C. It handles all of that kind of stuff. MPW and Aztec >>probably do too, but I haven't looked at either of them in very much depth. > I shouldn't have to rely on a third party library to provide this > compatibility though. You don't. Apple makes MPW. I just haven't looked at it too closely. I've looked at code for it, though, and it looks pretty UN*Xy in most cases. >>As for the esoteric qualities of xDEF's, don't be fooled by Steve Jobs' >>rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective >>C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new >>objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything >>on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. > > Granted, both are obtuse. I don't have experience with the NeXT (wish I did) > to make comparisons. The only reason I'm going with a Mac now and not a NeXT > is because the software I need is available on the Mac NOW. You're kidding? The NeXT still hasn't gone anywhere to prove that it will go anywhere. I suppose when the third parties (Lotus? Ashton-Tate?) get their products out, we'll know something more. Now, though, your reasoning strikes me as pretty risky. >>Ever hear of MacApp? Or the THINK Class Library? > Again Apple is relying on a third party developr to provide products and then > the end user to integrate and develop the extensions. Nope, MacApp is from Apple. In C++, even. > I'm only expressing my desires, not a path to > attaining them. We can all dream and I dream of a Mac with more > capability, cleaner design, attention to standards... You can't escape flames with the "It's just my opinion" defense. Dreams are nice, but you haven't shown why the current Mac is inadequate. If you want to bitch about Apple support (I'll probably join you), go ahead. Otherwise, back up your arguments instead of labelling them "dreams" and expecting us to jump on the bandwagon. > ...hopefully fewer bugs Gads, here's this myth about the OS being buggy again... It's applications breaking the rules that crash, not the System. What do you think the whole System 6.0-6.0.1-6.0.2 upgrade path was about? Apple fixing bugs. They're fixed. 6.0.2 has been stable for a long time (God, it must be at least a year, which in the world of micro's means a lot); the upgrade path was a matter of months. > and better support from Apple Computer. User support, yes. Developer support, which seems to be your concern, no, as I outlined above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) (12/15/89)
In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <192@atncpc.UUCP>, bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) writes: >> So just abandon the "Old boat Anchor" today and start >> living the future..... I did!!!!!! > >I'm happy for you. > >My "Old Boat Anchor" has: > > - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international > localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system > software > > - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards > I can't see how most people would care about this! > - Color > By the end of the summer the NeXT should have color that will blow all other workstations away: High speed graphics processor and 32bits including 8 bits transparency (alpha) > - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page > If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's what I have to do with my Mac. > - Thousands of applications and hundreds of peripherals that I can buy off > the shelf > Right now (or VERY soon where indicated) I can get the following high quality programs that satisfy all of my current computer applications needs: 2 wordprocessors (WriteNow, Frame), drawing program(Top Draw), paint program (Artisan, Illustrator(very soon), spreadsheet(WingZ(very soon)), prog. languages(C, obj C, Fortran, Lisp), UNIX utilities w/ network services, Spice, Mathmatica, scanner (Abatron), Graphics Terminal emulator (Communicae), X-Windows (very soon), DaynaFile floppy drive. You can get a book from NeXT that list many more than I have here. > - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) > You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look primitive. >And it's a lot more affordable. I think I'll keep it, thanks. > Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. >Look, I don't mean to knock the NeXT, but is has a ways to go before it's >competition for the Macintosh, except perhaps for a few specific applications. > >Amanda Walker >InterCon Systems Corporation >-- I do mean to knock the Mac, I think that they have taken a lot for granted. One can also buy an Amiga for 1/2 the price of a MacSE and get much better hardware. I hear that there is even a MAC emulator for it (AMAX?) -ron fellman (rfellman@ucsd.edu) Assistant Prof., Department of Elec. and Comp. Eng. Univ. of Calif., San Diego
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (12/15/89)
C'mon, Mac IIs are great... AS TERMINALS. I'm using one right now to access a NeXT using NCSA Telnet. I can throw up lots of windows, display graphics, loads o' fun. All it took was an added-price Ethernet card (since that's not standard equipment as it is on the NeXT). It even runs under MultiFinder, but I can't run TN3270 at the same time because I don't have MacTCP--decent TCP/IP isn't included with the Mac like it is on the NeXT. Ok, I could use A/UX, but that's even more expensive, and for the most part doesn't have software that makes use of the graphics (or the mouse!). Of course, this Mac II, and all its siblings are already paid for. Why are they here? Well, someone decided that they would be good for document processing. The LaserWriters come with 35 built-in fonts. Even the "clone" PostScript printers come with 35 built-in fonts. The NeXT even has the width tables for these already supplied. The NeXT has this great marketing philosophy-- all the things people NEED are in EVERY cube--Ethernet, TCP/IP, real multitasking, 35 fonts... WAIT--the fonts are MISSING!!! There are only FIVE usable fonts--the four "Blue Book" fonts and Ohlfs. The nifty Display PostScript and NeXT 400 dpi Laser Printer are USELESS for what I need, because all the other places that produce documents ASSUME that those 35 fonts are universally available. An amazing lapse on NeXT's part not to include all the outline fonts. Are we supposed to buy those from Adobe? They can't be that penny-pinching, there are hundreds of fonts in the Adobe catalog, and they'll make big bucks off all the serious publishing users. I'm just looking for MINIMAL DTP capability. Suppose the basic NeXT offering improves to cover the current deficiences that are forcing us to use Macintoshes. What should we do with the Macs then? How about a NextStep windowserver for the Mac II??? (We already have X-Windows!) The M0115 keyboard is almost identical, there's a mouse, a color display that can be put in 4-level gray mode. This would make the NeXTs we have that much more accessible--and acceptable--and convince the powers- that-be to loosen up on their pursestrings to allow us to buy lots more. They don't question Macintosh purchases, but we have to "justify" NeXTs. If cost alone were the criterion, the NeXT would have no trouble... -=EPS=-
sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (12/15/89)
In article <10077@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: >Why hasn't apple developed sets of resources WDEFS CDEFS and so on to >extend the Mac OS becuase it sounds like this is just what resources >are good for? At the very LEAST Apple could act as the distribution >center for such new extensions. It looks to me like Apple isn't doing >a whole lot to help the little guy or the public domain BBOARDS. >They just don't seem to participate (although individual employeess do). Well, there *is* a new piece of software called WindChooser that provides four differnt WDEFs for you to play with, and the promise to provide more if people send the author more so he can distribute them. They're pretty nice (no, I don't have any affiliation... :-) >>rhetoric. The NeXT requires you to know how to develop for UNIX, Objective >>C, and the class library NeXT has constructed if you want to build new >>objects for the NeXT. This is as esoteric if not more esoteric than anything >>on the Mac. And it's the ENTIRE basis of the OS. > >Granted, both are obtuse. I don't have experience with the NeXT (wish I did) >to make comparisons. The only reason I'm going with a Mac now and not a NeXT >is because the software I need is available on the Mac NOW. Er, I recently attended a very impressive demo of a NeXT cube here at St. Olaf and I know that I could start putting together applications that worked well in about a day or two. That's *much* shorter than wading through IM I-V, etc. And no, I don't know much about UNIX either. I think that the NeXT platform has certainly shown how computers should be made to work for/with people, not the other way around. Now, you certainly won't be able to sit just anyone down in front of a NeXT and have them learn how to program it in just a few days, but like I said before, it is a much-needed step in the right direction. -Blake * Blake Sobiloff sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu * * AppleLink: UG0254 Voice/Answering Machine: \\// * * "The firm basis of government (507) 663-6316 * * is justice, not pity." -Woodrow Wilson //\\ *
gdavis@primate.wisc.edu (Gary Davis) (12/15/89)
From article <3317@hub.UUCP>, by 6600pete@hub.UUCP: > If you can make a persuasive case that somehow Pascal calling sequence is > inferior to C calling sequence, I'm with you. As I understand it, C's > Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Bill Gates argues the opposite: that the Pascal calling convention is more efficient than that of C and that's why they used the Pascal convention in Windows (OS/2 as well??). I don't know the reasoning behind this. Gary Davis
halliday@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) (12/16/89)
In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >>My "Old Boat Anchor" has: >> >> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international >> localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system >> software >> >> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards >> > >I can't see how most people would care about this! *I* certainly care. Not all of the world speaks English, you know. Even in the English speaking world, there are variations (do you say month/day/year or day/month/year?). I'll bet Macintosh gurus somewhere are developing Russian system software, if nobody hasn't already. Can the same be said for NeXT? I like NeXT, and may very well buy one next year. But Amanda has pointed out a serious flaw in the way NeXT does things... ...laura
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (12/16/89)
In article <5985@ubc-cs.UUCP> halliday@cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) writes: >In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >>In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >>> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international >>> localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system >>> software I have never, ever understood why this is such a BIG DEAL. Users can do their own localizations, the software company doesn't have to; SO WHAT? The company still has to translate documentation, etc. What difference does it make if the program has to be recompiled with new strings? At best, this is a minor convenience for a few users. (And it is possible to extract .nib files from NeXT apps, and play with them, ala ResEdit.) >>> >>> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards >I like NeXT, and may very well buy one next year. But Amanda has pointed out >a serious flaw in the way NeXT does things... As for the Script Manager, it is also a serious flaw in how APPLE does things. How many applications are Script-Manager compatible? Not many. How many Apple applications are Script-Manager compatible? NONE *I* know of. The fact that the facility exists on the Macintosh does give it a head start, granted; but as a practical feature NOW, TODAY, the Script Manager is NO BIG DEAL. And as for the consistency of the User Interface, let me point out that NeXT makes it EASY for developers to comply with the Interface. Apple makes it VERY HARD INDEED, though they are beginning to address this with some object-oriented tools. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/16/89)
Sigh. OK, I do admit to being a little testy about this particular issue. I'll elaborate a little, and then I'll let everyone argue in peace... In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>, fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: > [about international localization and non-roman writing systems] > I can't see how most people would care about this! Well, I don't know about you, but the population of the planet I live on is not completely made up of English speakers. Would like to have to learn Japanese in order to use your computer? Can I (or anyone) buy a NeXT with all of its system software in French? German? Chinese? > By the end of the summer the NeXT should have color that will blow all > other workstations away: High speed graphics processor and > 32bits including 8 bits transparency (alpha) "By the end of the summer." "should." Macs have no problem with 32bit + alpha color now, as we speak, and pre-existing software is already compatible with it, to boot. "all other workstations." Have you ever used a Silicon Graphics? A Sun with a Transcept board in it? This is an awfully bold claim to make for vaporware. > > - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page > If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's > what I have to do with my Mac. True, and I suppose you even can do basic printer sharing, as long as Mach supports the BSD line printer system. Point taken. I still think the NeXT printer is over-hyped, but that's par for the course in this industry. > Right now (or VERY soon where indicated) I can get the following > high quality programs that satisfy all of my current computer > applications needs: And the NeXT may suit your needs pretty well; it was designed as an academic workstation, after all. However, it doesn't even come close to what's available for the Mac. This may change, but if so it'll take a long time. > > - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) > You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look > primitive. No, actually, I'm not kidding. The NeXT's gray scale buttons and so on are very cute, but they've made a lot of the operations abstract to the point of obscurity. Besides, an application bar and a directory browser are no match for the Finder. This is not to say that the NeXT doesn't have some nifty innovations, but as a whole it's a less cohesive interface. Also, I get the feeling that a lot of people who are claiming that the NeXT, or MOTIF, or whatever are more "advanced" than the Mac actually mean that they look newer. Just because something is familar, though, doesn't mean it's obsolete. > Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than > a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, > DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. Well, last time I tried a NeXT, its performance was closer to a II or IIx than to a IIci. Also, are you counting university prices on both sides? > I do mean to knock the Mac, I think that they have taken a lot for > granted. I think that Mac users take a lot for granted. I agree with Alan Kay that the Macintosh was the first personal computer good enough to criticize. But from my experience with the NeXT, it doesn't perform well enough at enough tasks to *let* me take it for granted... > One can also buy an Amiga for 1/2 the price of a MacSE and get > much better hardware. Hardware is only as useful as the software that is running on it. > I hear that there is even a MAC emulator for it (AMAX?) QED :-). The NeXT has some marvelous innovations, and I hope it succeeds. It's just not there yet, as some people have been claiming. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
duggie@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Doug Felt) (12/16/89)
In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >> [description of some features omitted] >> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards >> >I can't see how most people would care about this! Ah yes, good old American provincialism will never go away... I think the Japanese should just learn English. Better language, anyway. Funny how 'most people' so often translates to 'me and the people I work with.' >> - Color >> >By the end of the summer the NeXT should have color that will blow all >other workstations away: High speed graphics processor and >32bits including 8 bits transparency (alpha) What will it cost? The NeXT needs a graphics processor just for the 4-bit data it has to deal with now, anyway. When you start talking about the future you give up the argument. Amanda's not talking about the future, she's talking about NOW. In addition, NeXT isn't the only company which can bring out new products in the future. You can buy 32-bit graphics accellerators for the Mac today, and there will be more and faster ones coming. Whether, when this hardware ACTUALLY ships, it will "blow all other workstations away", well we'll just have to wait and see. (By the way, you aren't implying that the Mac is a workstation, are you?) >> - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page >> >If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's >what I have to do with my Mac. Or another postscript clone. Sure would be nice to have a choice of printers for the NeXT, though, wouldn't it? >> - Thousands of applications and hundreds of peripherals that I can buy off >> the shelf >> >Right now (or VERY soon where indicated) I can get the following >high quality programs that satisfy all of my current computer >applications needs: [list omitted] Please. VERY soon, even VERY VERY soon, is not NOW. The very phrase is a joke in this industry. You can't possibly be comparing the NeXT's applications software base to the Mac's. It's just not credible. There are a few good programs available for the NeXT. There will be more, if all goes well. That's about all one can say. >> - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) >> >You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look >primitive. It's you who's got to be kidding. It takes more to make an interface than shadowed buttons and a dock on the side of your screen. The Mac at least has a standard menu location for 'undo' (and demands that all serious software support undo), doesn't require you to hold down the alternate key if you want to page the scrollbar, and gives applications an opportunity to save documents when you shut down. Modal alert windows actually look substantially different from regular windows. You can hide application windows without activating those applications. You can launch applications in a reasonable amount of time. You can even put documents on the desktop. I can't defend the Mac Finder, but it's five years old. The NeXT Workspace is just the five-year old Finder with a browser view and a dock added. And it doesn't even automatically update its windows when applications create new documents. Come on. The NeXT UI is 80% looks and 20% feel, if that. >>And it's a lot more affordable. I think I'll keep it, thanks. >> >Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than >a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, >DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. > >>Look, I don't mean to knock the NeXT, but is has a ways to go before it's >>competition for the Macintosh, except perhaps for a few specific applications. >> >>Amanda Walker >>InterCon Systems Corporation > >I do mean to knock the Mac, I think that they have taken a lot for >granted. One can also buy an Amiga for 1/2 the price of a MacSE and get >much better hardware. I hear that there is even a MAC emulator for it >(AMAX?) The NeXT is a better buy for the money, but the prices are pretty competitive here at Stanford. Do you need color and an applications base? Like a UI with some maturity to it? Buy the Mac. Don't mind waiting for a few years while NeXT cleans up the rough spots? Don't need much software, or foreign language support, but want a DSP, optical disk, and (marginally) better development environment? Buy a NeXT. Need speed? Look elsewhere... I'm not thrilled with the Mac either, but let's not make up advantages for the NeXT where they don't exist. The advantages are in hardware and systems software, not applications software base or UI. This can be remedied, but only if NeXT works at it. Writing off three-quarters of the world because they insist on using other writing systems than ours, and mistaking windows that drag whole and a file browser for a real UI, is not going to help NeXT turn the cube into a success. >-ron fellman (rfellman@ucsd.edu) >Assistant Prof., Department of Elec. and Comp. Eng. >Univ. of Calif., San Diego Doug "loyal opposition" Felt Courseware Authoring Tools Project Stanford University
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/16/89)
"" - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page "" " "If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's "what I have to do with my Mac. " I use a LserwWriter IINT and, with MultiFinder, my output spools to disk and prints in the background. It does slow the foreground application down, but not too much. Contrast this with the NeXT I tried out, which did literally grind to a halt while it struggled to do the PostScript imaging (at 400dpi, no less). There's a big difference there. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
pmy@jeeves.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) (12/16/89)
In article <7701@portia.Stanford.EDU> duggie@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Doug Felt) writes: >[...], and mistaking windows that drag whole and a file browser for a >real UI, is not going to help NeXT turn the cube into a success. "real UI", heh! I've used Macs heavily, I've used NeXT heavily. Relatively speaking, Mac's UI sux. So there. Same goes for development environment. Makes me wonder how much experience you've actually had with the cube. Peter M. Yadlowsky | "Pay no attention to that man Academic Computing Center | behind the curtain!" University of Virginia | pmy@Virginia.EDU |
mccoy@aristotle.Berkeley.EDU (Jim McCoy) (12/16/89)
In article <21296@mimsy.umd.edu>, folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: > > "" - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page > "" > " > "If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's > "what I have to do with my Mac. > " > > I use a LserwWriter IINT and, with MultiFinder, my output spools to disk and > prints in the background. It does slow the foreground application down, but > not too much. > > Contrast this with the NeXT I tried out, which did literally grind to a halt > while it struggled to do the PostScript imaging (at 400dpi, no > less). There's a big difference there. The difference is that the NeXT uses Postscript for it's screen as well as the printer. This means that until they get a graphics processor it will slow things down, but at least the NeXT has -true- WYSIWYG. I find it very amusing that the people supporting the Mac are using the same justifications that the PC people used a few years back: there is no established software base. It was not difficult for this software base to grow on the Mac, and because the NeXT is not a programmer-hostile as the Mac was, I expect that the NeXT softare base will soon rival the Macs (although it will probably lack the frivilous software that is common among personal computers such as games, cute and useless utilities, etc.). The NeXT is at the same stage that the Mac 128K was a while back. It is trying to build a software base and user base that other systems have. I have no doubt that it will do so, but until it does there will be a flock of Mac worshippers who will continue to point out the fact that the Mac has a larger software base (remind them that the PC has an even larger one :-). jim
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (12/16/89)
In article <21296@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: >I use a LserwWriter IINT and, with MultiFinder, my output spools to disk and >prints in the background. It does slow the foreground application down, but >not too much. > >Contrast this with the NeXT I tried out, which did literally grind to a halt >while it struggled to do the PostScript imaging (at 400dpi, no less). There's >a big difference there. READ OUR COLLECTIVE LIPS: You can attach the selfsame LaserWriter IINT to a cube, and have printing not impact the cube's performance AT ALL. Or you can buy a NeXT printer, save $2000+, and be patient while you're printing. IT IS A CHOICE, FOLKS. IT IS NOT nExt-PRINTER OR NOTHING. So shut up about the printer, and b***h about slightly less nonsensical things instead. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
duggie@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Doug Felt) (12/16/89)
In article <2179@accuvax.nwu.edu> mccoy@aristotle.Berkeley.EDU (Jim McCoy) writes: [stuff about printing deleted] >I find it very amusing that the people supporting the Mac are using >the same justifications that the PC people used a few years back: >there is no established software base. Software base IS relevant if you are considering a purchase of the NeXT now, just as it was for the Mac when it came out. People who don't mind being pioneers will see the potential of the machine and purchase it anyway. Both the IBM PC and the Apple II have larger software bases, and most of this is junk. What you need is a base large enough to offer several programs in a variety of categories and at different price and performance levels. This takes time and matters to people who need to find immediate uses for their machines. >The NeXT is at the same stage that the Mac 128K was a while back. It >is trying to build a software base and user base that other systems >have. I have no doubt that it will do so, but until it does there >will be a flock of Mac worshippers who will continue to point out the >fact that the Mac has a larger software base (remind them that the PC >has an even larger one :-). Yes, Mac worshippers will do this. NeXT worshippers will pretend the *current* problems don't exist. I myself prefer to castigate both camps. :-) Doug Felt Courseware Authoring Tools Project Stanford University
chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey) (12/16/89)
> No, actually, I'm not kidding. The NeXT's gray scale buttons and so on are > very cute, but they've made a lot of the operations abstract to the point > of obscurity. Besides, an application bar and a directory browser are no > match for the Finder. This is not to say that the NeXT doesn't have some > nifty innovations, but as a whole it's a less cohesive interface. Also, > I get the feeling that a lot of people who are claiming that the NeXT, or > MOTIF, or whatever are more "advanced" than the Mac actually mean that they > look newer. Just because something is familar, though, doesn't mean it's > obsolete. Well. From "real-world" experience, I can tell you that people who find the Macintosh puzzling get along rather well on the NeXT. It is just so simple to use. Use effectively, is what I meant to say. I'd love to take two people who are as technology ignorant as say my father or my roomate and sit them both down in front of a Mac II and a NeXT. I can tell you that whoever is on the NeXT will get their document out faster. Really, my roomate is one of the most ignorant people you could find when it comes to computers and he uses WriteNow, PrintManager, Webster Librarian and Quotations quite effectively. He never asks questions and he never complains. He cannot use a Mac and Word. Period! > > Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than > > a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, > > DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. > > Well, last time I tried a NeXT, its performance was closer to a II or IIx > than to a IIci. Also, are you counting university prices on both sides? What on earth are you talking about? The only time I find my NeXT slow is when I happen to be taking in stuff at 19.2k over the modem and unbatching news onto an optical when I'm trying to do something else. Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure. And disk access. Don't even try to argue that one. Sorry to be fussy but, I'm letting off a little exam tension. Chris chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu \ chari@nueces.cactus.org --NeXT Mail
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>, by fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman): > In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >>In article <192@atncpc.UUCP>, bruce@atncpc.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) writes: >>My "Old Boat Anchor" has: >> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international >> localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system >> software >> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards > I can't see how most people would care about this! You haven't programmed the Mac and you only speak English. I see computers have had their legendary affect on your literacy. > By the end of the summer the NeXT should have color that will blow all > other workstations away: High speed graphics processor and > 32bits including 8 bits transparency (alpha) In contrast, the Mac has 32-bit QuickDraw NOW. And don't tell me it'll be here for the NeXT at the end of summer. NeXT is notorious for missing ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. And don't get me going on the beta versions of Mach... >> - A printer that doesn't halt my machine when I print a page > If you are worried about this, then just buy a LaserWriter IINT. That's > what I have to do with my Mac. Nope. You can do it with a LaserWriter (not even a Plus) and a Mac Plus. MF makes the wait even shorter. >> - Thousands of applications and hundreds of peripherals that I can buy off >> the shelf > [ list of Mac applications ported to the NeXT, vaporware, and other > applications which have had implementations of their type on the Mac > for years. ] > You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look > primitive. Buzz. The NeXT's interface is more versatile and less consistent. Might as well be a PC with a graphics package. Good bye, interface. Good bye, reusability of user knowledge. > Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than > a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, > DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. Oh, how nice. Universities get it for dirt cheap. Sounds like Apple's deal. It's a marketing strategy, nothing more. Do you think Jobs would throw so much away of what he learned at Apple? > One can also buy an Amiga for 1/2 the price of a MacSE and get > much better hardware. And no software, relatively speaking. And no interface consistency. And periodic forced graphics upgrades to run new software. > I hear that there is even a MAC emulator for it (AMAX?) And the emulator won't run Virtual, System 7.0, and I don't think Color QD. What a bargain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <1989Dec15.172524.6463@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, by dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner): > In article <5985@ubc-cs.UUCP> halliday@cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) writes: >>In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >>>In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >>>> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international >>>> localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system >>>> software > The company still has to translate documentation, etc. What difference > does it make if the program has to be recompiled with new strings? You're missing the point about the resource manager. To really understand it, you pretty much have to hack it. This is not an elitist viewpoint. It's just that graphical intuition does not translate to the printed word. Granted, NeXT has done a lot with graphical design of applications. But not as much as Apple. Write your own NeXT graphical objects and see what I mean. > The fact that the facility exists on the Macintosh does give it a head > start, granted; but as a practical feature NOW, TODAY, the Script Manager > is NO BIG DEAL. Eh? Certainly it is; the Mac HAS a script manager. Does NeXT? The head start if of course important. How long do you think it will take for a non-existent script manager to be supported as opposed to an extant one? > And as for the consistency of the User Interface, let me point out that > NeXT makes it EASY for developers to comply with the Interface. Nope. Interface consistency has nothing to do with the difficulty with which the interface standard is adhered to. (Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition. Sue me.) > Apple makes it VERY HARD INDEED, though they are beginning to address this > with some object-oriented tools. BEGINNING? Read the previous posts; OO has been with the Mac for 7 years. NeXT as a company hasn't even existed that long. The lag is attributable to the resistance to OO technology that is generalized in the field. (Individuals C++ enthusiasts may think "What? Resistance?" -- but keep in mind that the industry's backbone is still baldies guarding 200K line Fortran programs.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) (12/16/89)
In article <1636@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >Well, I don't know about you, but the population of the planet I live on is >not completely made up of English speakers. Would like to have to learn >Japanese in order to use your computer? Can I (or anyone) buy a NeXT with >all of its system software in French? German? Chinese? > As was already pointed out, it is a simple matter to replace the .nib files for any particular language or environment you choose. Why should anyones' own machine have to carry around extra baggage that they won't use, whatever their origin. They will want to have a manual in their own language also I presume, thus it is desirable to have seperate versions of a program. >"By the end of the summer." "should." Macs have no problem with 32bit + >alpha color now, as we speak, and pre-existing software is already compatible >with it, to boot. > >"all other workstations." Have you ever used a Silicon Graphics? A Sun >with a Transcept board in it? This is an awfully bold claim to make for >vaporware. > I have found that very few applications can really make good enough use of color to justify its high cost. Aside from the monitor, one needs a color hardcopy capability for color to be substantially more useful than greyscale. IC layout, and certain graphics applications are about the only applications that I would be able to justify for myself. Are you saying that you really NEED color now or simply that it is a 'cute' addition that you are willing to PAY for. >> Right now (or VERY soon where indicated) I can get the following >> high quality programs that satisfy all of my current computer >> applications needs: > >And the NeXT may suit your needs pretty well; it was designed as an academic >workstation, after all. However, it doesn't even come close to what's >available for the Mac. This may change, but if so it'll take a long time. > How many different types of drawing programs or word precessors do you need? What are some applications areas that you use the Mac for that you can't do with the programs that I listed? BTY. When I said VERY soon, I meant 2 weeks in most cases to 1 month for X-Windows (Jan 15.). I'll bet that it would take about that long for the ordering process anyway. >> > - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) >> You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look >> primitive. > >No, actually, I'm not kidding. The NeXT's gray scale buttons and so on are >very cute, but they've made a lot of the operations abstract to the point >of obscurity. Besides, an application bar and a directory browser are no >match for the Finder. This is not to say that the NeXT doesn't have some >nifty innovations, but as a whole it's a less cohesive interface. Also, >I get the feeling that a lot of people who are claiming that the NeXT, or >MOTIF, or whatever are more "advanced" than the Mac actually mean that they >look newer. Just because something is familar, though, doesn't mean it's >obsolete. > What does 'less cohesive' mean? I can do everything that finder can do (and much more) except park things that aren't running at an arbitrary place on the desktop. Where is a 'hide' button for the finder? Where is the multitasking or the interprocess communication. With NextStep, every program can integrate the abilities of any of the other programs via Mach IPC. Thus, I don't need an editor built into each application. The 'Editor' can be automatically integrated into any application. That is both consistant AND cohesive! Also, Interface Builder makes consistancy built-in with predefined print menus, edit menus, etc. that already are wired up and work. >> Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than >> a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, >> DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. > >Well, last time I tried a NeXT, its performance was closer to a II or IIx >than to a IIci. Also, are you counting university prices on both sides? > Have you tried version 1.0? Granted that the feel is a bit slower than a IIci, but then it is doing a lot of stuff in the background. I generally have five or more applications always running (a clock, a performance monitor, mail, nfs, and a calendar program). The user feel is still more than acceptable for me. Benchmarks of Spice have shown it to be within 1% of a MacIIci. >Hardware is only as useful as the software that is running on it. > True. It very much depends upon what applications you need and the environment. For a networked system in a UNIX environment, the Mac doesn't even come close. (That is what we have here.) At home I still have my MacII. They both have excellent software for what I do. (Writing articles, proposals, course administration.) Neither is very good for CAD work or simulation speed (I'm getting a DECStation3100 for that) but the NeXT, unlike the Mac, can live very comfortably with the DECstation. The only software I NOW miss on my NeXT is a good outliner program. >The NeXT has some marvelous innovations, and I hope it succeeds. It's just >not there yet, as some people have been claiming. > I obviously hope so too. Although I feel that it is here now, it will certainly take time for more general acceptance. With a little knowledge of NeXTs finances, I'm not worried about them going away for at least a few more years. I think that they therefore have enough time to become a serious contender. -ron
phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/16/89)
In article <3326@hub.UUCP>, 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes... >In contrast, the Mac has 32-bit QuickDraw NOW. And don't tell me it'll be >here for the NeXT at the end of summer. NeXT is notorious for missing >ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. And don't >get me going on the beta versions of Mach... I have had a Mac before I bought my NeXT, so don't tell me I haven't used a Mac. One thing is for sure: what you consider a beta version is certainly much more reliable and stable than the unprotected Macintosh OS. If you run the wrong application on your Mac, your system dies. In contrast, my NeXT at one time was up for WEEKS, and I use the thing about 12hours/day. You are comparing the beta version of a Mercedes against the "refined" version of a Model T. >Nope. You can do it with a LaserWriter (not even a Plus) and a Mac Plus. >MF makes the wait even shorter. Don't make us laugh. Sure, a CP/M machine can do this, too. That doesn't mean it's worth anything. Incidentally, what's the going price of a new Laserwriter? So, why do people buy NT and NTX laserprinters, if they can do what you want to do on a non-plus laserwriter? >> [ list of Mac applications ported to the NeXT, vaporware, and other >> applications which have had implementations of their type on the Mac >> for years. ] Like Excel? Which for years had a 1MB memory limit? Until late in this year, there wasn't a single decent Mac spreadsheet which allowed us to use memory. Tell me: what decent Stats package exists on a Mac? What decent data handling processing languages and data tools exist on a Macs (although you and I may disagree here). Text Filters? Programming Tools? Graphically oriented Unix (don't tell me about A/UX [but factor in the $1000 price tag])? >Buzz. The NeXT's interface is more versatile and less consistent. Might >as well be a PC with a graphics package. Good bye, interface. Good >bye, reusability of user knowledge. Good bye, intelligence. I don't think its any more inconsistent than the Mac user interface, and its applications (try Microsoft garbage). Sorry, if you judge consistency by similarity to the Mac, NeXT won't do. >Oh, how nice. Universities get it for dirt cheap. Sounds like Apple's deal. >It's a marketing strategy, nothing more. Do you think Jobs would throw so >much away of what he learned at Apple? This sounds like, Apple is a school specializing in teaching employees like Jobs how to do things :-). I agree, though. Anyone with an introductory course in Industrial Organizations and Price Discrimination knows that its profitable to lower the price where the demand is the most elastic. >And no software, relatively speaking. And no interface consistency. And >periodic forced graphics upgrades to run new software. I think there is more GOOD software today on the NeXT than there is for the Mac and the PC combined. We already chatted about interface consistency. I am glad to hear that Apple decides to never force any upgrades, but stick to its good old proven design. Lucky for them, they don't have 640K problems, or they would have to invent OS/2 like schemes. >And the emulator won't run Virtual, System 7.0, and I don't think Color QD. >What a bargain. The point here was not to argue that one should buy an Atari, but that the Mac is vastly overpriced. The hardware---not the compatibility---is there at 1/2 the price >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa >Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription >Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills Ivo Welch Assistant Professor of Finance UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management w/o entrenched interest in Macintosh magazines and NeXT failure, and/or interest in submitting Mac and *D*O*S* articles.
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/16/89)
I don't want to contribute to the general bashing here, but some things have to be said to this: > NeXT is notorious for missing > ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. NeXT has so far a pretty good record for KEEPING the things they promised. Including deadlines. The only time so far was the 0.9 software release. But this wasn't due to the software but because of a shipment of bad optical disks and NeXT was just verifying that there are no bad disks delivered. However don't make the mistake to take NeXT on what theu don't say but only rumors. So far the official statement from NeXT is still only "color/photorealism on the desktop for the 90's". Not more, not less. Maybe there is in the meantime an announce- ment for next year. But so far I never heared any fixed date. Therefore NeXT can't be late, as they didn't promise anything. > And don't > get me going on the beta versions of Mach... MACH is pretty stable, I get more often bombs on the Mac than crashes on the NeXT. And anyway: 1.0 is NO longer beta. SunOS 4.0.something has about the same stability as NeXT's MACH. (Whatever this means, at least it has protected multi- tasking, compared to the Mac... ) >Oh, how nice. Universities get it for dirt cheap. Sounds like Apple's deal. >It's a marketing strategy, nothing more. Do you think Jobs would throw so >much away of what he learned at Apple? University or not, compare the same pricing, either business or university pricing, and the NeXT will be cheaper than a comparable Mac (if there exists such a thing). On the rest (printer, color, etc) have been enough intelligent and less intelligent remarks, so I'll skip that. >Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for >subscription ^no wonder he is upset! Why don't you settle down and publish a NeXT Programming Journal? >Hire this kid | ^ maybe, one day... But he will have to work on a NeXT :) Does anyone know by chance how much international language support is built into Postscript? Does anyone know how international language support will be implemented in future Unix releases? (I mean NeXT would be stupid, if they would make a proprietary standard in this respect. But if they had some technology they could licence it to OSF. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/16/89)
The main thing with ethernet is, that it does not cost much
more than appletalk, if you put it on your mainboard. The user
saves only k$$ because he has not to finance the profit of a
second company, as you have to if you buy a ethernet card for
the Mac.
The use of built in networking is pretty simple. Many people
dont use it because it is expensive to upgrade. If however it
is built in, then they will use it, as soon as they have a
chance. (After all they don't want to waste their money.)
Only after the used it just because they have it, they recognize
the benefit and applications like mail take off.
> OO has been with the Mac for 7 years.
Well there are OOL's and OOL's. C++ has not even a shot at the
capabilites of Objective-C. Sadly enough, it seems to become
a standard. The same holds true for the Mac. There is some OO
stuff in the Mac (after all they saw it at Xerox), but its not
even close to what NeXT offers (at least so far, and as we do
not want to start another vaporware war...)
Ronald
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnetjgreely@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (12/16/89)
In article <22438@ut-emx.UUCP> chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey) writes: >Well. From "real-world" experience, I can tell you that people who find >the Macintosh puzzling get along rather well on the NeXT. Don't fool yourself. From "real-world" experience, I can tell you about quite a few people who find the NeXT interface confusing, inconsistent, arbitrary, gratuitously incompatible, and suffering from an excess of design philosophy. It doesn't mean either side is right, it just means that I know different people. >It is just so simple to use. Use effectively, is what I meant to say. >I'd love to take two people who are as technology ignorant as say my >father or my roomate and sit them both down in front of a Mac II and a >NeXT. I can tell you that whoever is on the NeXT will get their >document out faster. If that's the sole test of ease-of-use, you may be right. If that person sits down *cold* at a NeXT, with nothing on the dock and the browser in its default mode, it may be ten minutes before they *find* the word processor, let alone print a document. Don't scoff, I've seen it happen. I'd love to run your Mac vs. NeXT test, and, unlike you, I have no idea how it would come out. I've worked with a lot of Mac novices, and I've watched a lot of people sit down at our semi-public NeXT and try it out. I still don't know which way the frog will jump. >Really, my roomate is one of the most ignorant people you could find >when it comes to computers and he uses WriteNow, PrintManager, Webster >Librarian and Quotations quite effectively. He never asks questions and >he never complains. He cannot use a Mac and Word. Period! You stacked that deck. Word is not the easiest word processor for the Mac, nor is it the default (nor does it pay more than lip service to the Mac user interface guidelines). Put WriteNow on both machines and try again. The naive-user friendliness of both machines is fairly equal; where I see the NeXT's *potential* is in supporting users who are no longer naive. >What on earth are you talking about? The only time I find my NeXT slow >is when I happen to be taking in stuff at 19.2k over the modem >and unbatching news onto an optical when I'm trying to do something else. >Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure. And disk access. >Don't even try to argue that one. (aside: why not? was that intended as a formal proof?) As a dissenting voice, I find my NeXT quite pokey at times. Context switching can be tedious, application launch is sluggish, printing (to a NextLaser) makes the machine nearly unusable for the duration (although I did like the 0.9 feature of being able to stop printing indefinitely by rapidly moving a window), logging in takes a while, and booting, even with the usually-reliable fsck-skip, is slow. Performance is improving, but it ain't there yet. Dropping in an extra four meg would speed things up, but again, that's stacking the deck. When the NeXT is *finished* (a date I've arbitrarily set at October, 1990), things may be different, but right now, you're talking about a machine that's at the evolutionary level of a 128K Mac in 1984. When the NeXT-equivalent of a Mac+ comes out, we'll talk (that is, a Mac+ at the time it came out, not the low end of the family as it is now). "Sure, you can optimize the hell out of Fortran, but optimized spaghetti is still only lasagna." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
izumi@violet.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) (12/16/89)
In article <5985@ubc-cs.UUCP> halliday@cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) writes: >In article <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >>In article <1630@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >>>My "Old Boat Anchor" has: >>> - A Resource Manager, permitting (among other things) international >>> localization *without recompilation*, including all of the system >>> software >>> >>> - Built-in facilities for handling non-roman writing systems and keyboards >> >>I can't see how most people would care about this! > >*I* certainly care. Not all of the world speaks English, you know. > >I'll bet Macintosh gurus somewhere are developing Russian system software, if >nobody hasn't already. Can the same be said for NeXT? What do you think Canon, which owns 1/6 of NeXT and has exclusive distribution rights for NeXT in east Asia, is doing for its market of Japan, Korea, China among others? And no one puts in a universal power supply for 100 - 240 volts into NeXT just for satisfying travelling US users. I do care too, and NeXT is better prepared for non-English writing systems. NeXT uses Display PostScript and its extended version handles the complete Japanese character set (6000+ characters). The printer version of this is already in LaserWriter II NTX available in Japan (includes a hard disk within the printer). Not only will this take care of Japanese, this will allow writing systems which go right-to-left (Hebrew, Arabic), as well as text lines that go from top to bottom. This without any hardware modification. Do you know that Macs sold in Japan have different hardware (ROMs) to make Kanji rendering faster? Although KanjiTalk runs on the US version of hardware, but slowly. NeXT cubes sold anywhere will be identical in terms of hardware. No special ROMs are needed, and the cube can be plugged in anywhere without any power converter. The good part is that the current NeXT printer will be automatically a Kanji printer too by a simple upgrade to a new version of Display PostScript. With Mac, you will have to buy a new printer if you use anything other than NTX. Ah, you might say that KanjiTalk can print Kanjis on regular LaserWriters, but try printing them at 60-point Font size. Yuck! Those smoothed jaggies are ugly. Izumi Ohzawa, izumi@violet.berkeley.edu
jgreely@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (12/16/89)
In article <7619@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >As was already pointed out, it is a simple matter to replace the .nib >files for any particular language or environment you choose. I thought that was "only so long as you don't increase its size" (for the common case of compiled-in nibs). Haven't checked recently, so I'll have to browse around and see what turns up. >Why should anyones' own machine have to carry around extra baggage >that they won't use, whatever their origin. They will want to have a >manual in their own language also I presume, thus it is desirable to >have seperate versions of a program. I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone seriously suggested that one copy of anything would contain the "extra baggage" of multi-lingual dialog boxes. The point is that the internationali- zation support on the Mac makes it easier for vendors to produce those separate versions of programs faster, more easily, and more reliably. >I have found that very few applications can really make good enough use >of color to justify its high cost. In general, I agree. For *my* purposes, 8-bit grayscale is preferable to color. I don't treat it as an important issue because it's not, to *me*. I won't presume to tell someone else that it's not important at all. >How many different types of drawing programs or word precessors do you >need? One of each, that *works*. :-) Having half-a-dozen makes it possible for competition to produce better ones, as well as letting me pick the one that most fits my style (currently, my document-production style is Emacs+LaTeX, and my drawing program is Yap; go figure). While we're discussing "practical" applications, how many vertical-market accounting systems are there for the NeXT (and, to be nasty, I'll specify that it must be able to handle 30-character account numbers, and break on no less than 9 subsets of that number)? I don't need it now, but I know quite a few people who do, and they won't be buying NeXTs. >When I said VERY soon, I meant 2 weeks in most cases to 1 month for >X-Windows (Jan 15.). I'll bet that it would take about that long for >the ordering process anyway. It's vaporware until I *see* it. And where do I go to see it? Why, Businessland, of course, which is about a hundred miles from here. Assuming they carry it. Assuming they understand it. Assuming they don't drive me out of the store by knowing substantially less than I do about the machines they sell. Assuming they sell machines (I haven't seen any sales figures, but my impression is that there's not a lot going out the door). >With NextStep, every program can integrate the abilities of any of the >other programs via Mach IPC. Thus, I don't need an editor built into >each application. The 'Editor' can be automatically integrated into >any application. Quick! How do I make "any application" call Emacs instead of Edit? If you can't answer, your point is null. If I can't figure it out by poking through Librarian, it's useless to me, and there are a *lot* of things which can't currently be found that way. Full-text indexing is interesting, but there's a lot to be said for a decent "normal" index. >Also, Interface Builder makes consistancy built-in with predefined >print menus, edit menus, etc. that already are wired up and work. (excuse me while I chuckle heartily. Nothing against IB, but it ain't the last word in user interface toolkits. I had a grad student sum it up nicely: "it's an evolutionary step up from X or Prototyper, but not revolutionary") >>Hardware is only as useful as the software that is running on it. >True. It very much depends upon what applications you need and the >environment. For a networked system in a UNIX environment, the Mac >doesn't even come close. And the NeXT does? Despite a great deal of improvement since 0.8, the NeXT is still not quite at home in a Unix network. Proprietary system administration, subtle (and blatant) differences from "standard" Unix (arbitrarily defined as SunOS 3.5, just because that's what I compare it with most), and, neither last nor least, Yet Another Windowing Paradigm. Mac, X10, X11, SunView, MGR, NeWS, Motif, Open Look, weenie-widgets (ok, HPWM for X11), and ... NextStep. *Just* what we need. Yet Another Way to handle scrollbars, Yet Another Way to implement click-to-type, Yet Another Way to handle a mouse. Yet Another Way to Confuse Users (not that this is NeXT's fault, necessarily; the legal silliness currently stifling the industry is mostly to blame). >With a little knowledge of NeXT's finances, I'm not worried about them >going away for at least a few more years. I think that they therefore >have enough time to become a serious contender. My usual response is, "the only thing that could put NeXT out of business right now is the fall of Western Civilization (such as it is)". "Can I open my eyes yet?" "That depends. Are you waiting for us to be anywhere near ground?" "Right." "Keep your eyes shut." "Right." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <22438@ut-emx.UUCP>, by chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey): > Well. From "real-world" experience, I can tell you that people who find > ...my roommate... cannot use a Mac and Word. Period! Word's not a Mac program. It's a PC program ported to the Mac. I know, I know, it is vastly superior to the PC version and is very different in some fundamental ways, but what I'm most importantly saying here is that Word/Mac is not a Mac program. People have complained about it for years. WriteNow, which I imagine chances are the word processor your roommate uses on the NeXT, is a Mac program. It borrows heavily from MacWrite. QED. > Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure. Whoops. Try the NeXT being 4-bit mono and the IIci you might have used being in 8-bit color. Whenever I'm doing heavy text on a color Mac, I turn all the colors off. Performance skyrockets. That's what the Monitors cdev was designed for. > And disk access. Don't even try to argue that one. You're kidding, right? The optical drive is hideously slow. The 100MB SCSI Winchester is OK, but that's not standard, is it now? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <6761@tank.uchicago.edu>, by phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu: > In article <3326@hub.UUCP>, 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes... > I have had a Mac before I bought my NeXT, so don't tell me I haven't used > a Mac. Have I? > One thing is for sure: what you consider a beta version is certainly > much more reliable and stable than the unprotected Macintosh OS. If you > run the wrong application on your Mac, your system dies. Oh, God, here we go again. It's not the OS, it's the applications which don't know any better than to not check out the system before running. Do you think Apple is responsible for every dork who doesn't check for HFS before making PBH calls? > In contrast, my NeXT at one time was up for WEEKS, and I use the thing > about 12hours/day. Same with my Mac, when I'm not hacking it. >>Nope. You can do it with a LaserWriter (not even a Plus) and a Mac Plus. >>MF makes the wait even shorter. > > Don't make us laugh. Sure, a CP/M machine can do this, too. That doesn't > mean it's worth anything. I wasn't saying it WAS worth anything. I was pointing out that spooling was available for Mac PS printing with the implication that it wasn't on the NeXT. > Incidentally, what's the going price of a new Laserwriter? If you don't like the price, get a clone. Aple charges what the market will support. That doesn't really say anything about the printer itself. > So, why do people buy NT and NTX laserprinters, if they can do > what you want to do on a non-plus laserwriter? Because spooling is the only thing I was talking about. There are a lot of things you can do with the NT line that have nothing to do with spooling, not the least of which is speed. >>> [ list of Mac applications ported to the NeXT, vaporware, and other >>> applications which have had implementations of their type on the Mac >>> for years. ] > Like Excel? Which for years had a 1MB memory limit? Until late in this > year, there wasn't a single decent Mac spreadsheet which allowed us to > use memory. > Tell me: what decent Stats package exists on a Mac? > What decent > data handling processing languages and data tools exist on a Macs (although > you and I may disagree here). Full dBASE code compilers. I don't have much experience in databasing, but it seems to me dBASE is "decent" by most anyone's standard. > Text Filters? Programming Tools? MPW. Lightspeed (THINK) anything. > Graphically oriented Unix (don't tell me about A/UX > [but factor in the $1000 price tag])? Price tag is irrelevant, as I said before. Apple charges what it can. X for A/UX will be out "soon," as will X for NeXT. >> The NeXT's interface is more versatile and less consistent. > I don't think its any more inconsistent than the Mac user interface... > (try Microsoft garbage [on the Mac]) Hmmmm. The sheer _amount_ of rules for the Mac UI is larger than the corresponding amount for the NeXT. Given what we've learned about the amount of deviation to which programmers subscribe on the Mac, what's going to happen when Microsoft releases Word for the NeXT? Ugh. >>And no software, relatively speaking. And no interface consistency. And >>periodic forced graphics upgrades to run new software. > > I think there is more GOOD software today on the NeXT than there is for > the Mac and the PC combined. Whoops. If you'll read back a bit, you'll see we were talking about the Amiga here. >>And the emulator won't run Virtual, System 7.0, and I don't think Color QD. >>What a bargain. > > The point here was not to argue that one should buy an Atari, but that the > Mac is vastly overpriced. The hardware---not the compatibility---is there > at 1/2 the price The hardware counts for nothing without the compatibility. I won't pay less for something that's at least 2 years out of date. > w/o entrenched interest in Macintosh magazines and NeXT failure, Whoops. Macker is a free magazine I put together in my free time. I have no entrenched interest in it because, as subscribers will attest, I haven't even gotten my shit together to put out the first real issue yet. (Hang on, folks. I have the articles all put together and all I have to do now is wrap it all up with the editorial...) > and/or interest in submitting Mac and *D*O*S* articles. Ecuuuuse me for marketing my skills. I happen to have learned a lot about DOS before I realized the error of my ways. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <23098@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >> NeXT is notorious for missing >> ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. > > NeXT has so far a pretty good record for KEEPING the things > they promised. Including deadlines. The only time so far... Nope. They told us we would have the machine with a real OS (or they implied it would have a real OS by telling us the machine would be ready) about 6 months before it actually shipped. And they told us they would have color NeXT month, January (this was a rep we had on campus last summer). >> And don't get me going on the beta versions of Mach... > MACH is pretty stable... I wasn't talking about its stability, I was talking about its half-life. > I get more often bombs on the Mac than crashes on the NeXT. Firstly, the NeXT runs a UN*X variant. Processes rarely kill the entire system. (Although I seem to be doing it with increasing frequency... but that's probably because X gets killed and kills the machine in turn...) The Mac doesn't run UN*X. The Mac is a microcomputer. Sometimes it runs UN*X. The OS it is shipped with isn't UN*X. This is according to demand. Secondly (and I feel like I should put this in a macro at this point), I DON"T CRASH THE MAC unless I'm hacking. People I know don't crash the Mac. If crashes happen, we blame the application and throw it out. The crashes go away. It's the application's problem. The OS is stable. > And anyway: 1.0 is NO longer beta. <clap clap clap> How long did it take again? > University or not, compare the same pricing, either business or > university pricing, and the NeXT will be cheaper than a > comparable Mac (if there exists such a thing). Marketing marketing marketing. Macs cost because people pay. >>Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for >>subscription > ^no wonder he is upset! Why don't you settle > down and publish a NeXT Programming Journal? Give me a NeXT and I will. But I'll have to learn tons more about UN*X, Objective C, and NeXT's class library first. Give me three or four years. >>Hire this kid | > ^ maybe, one day... But he will have to work on a NeXT :) Fine. I haven't got anything against UN*X. But I wouldn't tarde my SE/30 for a NeXT, regardless of monetary considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <7619@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>, by fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman): > Why should anyones' own machine have to carry around extra baggage > that they won't use, whatever their origin. They shouldn't. Do you really think extra routines in ROM is significant "baggage"? The resource manager doesn't "weigh" anything. > They will want to have a manual in their own language also I presume, > thus it is desirable to have seperate versions of a program. Haven't you heard the rhetoric about Mac users not needing manuals? Most of it is true. The part you do need a manual for you ask a human being about. Screw the manual. Word needs a manual; it's not a Mac program. > I have found that very few applications can really make good enough use > of color to justify its high cost. But that's not the point. The point is not that Mac has color and NeXT doesn't, the point is that NeXT can't point to vaporware and say it's anything but vaporware. I HATE color. It distracts me, it gets in my way, and by its very nature takes longer to draw. I always turn it off. > How many different types of drawing programs or word precessors do you > need? As many as it takes to satisfy a diverse marketplace. > What are some applications areas that you use the Mac for that you > can't do with the programs that I listed? Preference always affects efficiency. Once a higher up was smitten by WriteNow and sent out an edict that everyone learn it immediately. There was widespread rebellion because WriteNow doesn't do all the things that Word does, and our department was full of computer geeks who could deal with Word's nonsense (including me -- I love Word but will always take time to point out that it's not a Mac application and should probably be taken out and shot.) > BTY. When I said VERY soon, I meant 2 weeks in most cases to 1 month for > X-Windows (Jan 15.). In other words, Real Soon Now. Vaporware is vaporware until it's in the users' hands. > Where is a 'hide' button for the finder? System 7.0.* > Where is the multitasking... It's here. It's been here for a while now. Longer than NeXT. Bash the type of multitasking if you must. > or the interprocess communication. System 7.0.* * OK, this stuff is vaporware. Bash away. But I bet there are more developers working with advance copies of System 7.0 than there are with release copies of NeXT/Mach 1.0... :-) > Also, Interface Builder makes consistancy built-in with predefined print > menus, edit menus, etc. that already are wired up and work. As do AppMaker, Prototyper, and hordes of evangelists spouting interface rhetoric. > Granted that the [NeXT] feel is a bit slower than a IIci Ah, but you see, that's all that counts. > but then it is doing a lot of stuff in the background. > I generally have five or more applications always running > (a clock, a performance monitor, mail, nfs, and a calendar program). > The user feel is still more than acceptable for me. Run a bunch of apps under MultiFinder and that's basically the effect on the Mac, too. I sympathize. > the NeXT, unlike the Mac, can live very comfortably with the DECstation. I suppose that depends on your idea of comfort. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
From article <23100@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): > The use of built in networking is pretty simple. Many people > dont use it because it is expensive to upgrade. If however it > is built in, then they will use it, as soon as they have a > chance. Nope. Phone companies will never wire EtherNet. Too big and expensive. Fiber optics look good for that. Soon as that goes through, the NeXT's EtherNet will be a boat anchor. I don't have any faith in EtherNet for personal workstations at all. It's great for academia at the moment, which is what NeXT is for. But we're talking about whether NeXT can or should bump Mac from the personal arena. > Only after the used it just because they have it, they recognize > the benefit and applications like mail take off. Truthfully, I can hardly wait. Anyone who reads alt.cyber* can, too. > C++ has not even a shot at the capabilites of Objective-C. I'm not qualified to say anything about this except that Think C 4 does Objective C. Or a large subset. Someone's liable to chime in about this any second now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (12/16/89)
In article <23098@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: >Does anyone know by chance how much international language >support is built into Postscript? Heh? -Sho -- sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- How do you say Bezier in French? Oh.
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/16/89)
Damn. I knew I would leave something out. > From article <6761@tank.uchicago.edu>, by phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu: >> Like Excel? Which for years had a 1MB memory limit? Until late in this >> year, there wasn't a single decent Mac spreadsheet which allowed us to >> use memory. So? Until late in this year, the NeXT didn't even have a real OS. Should you really be building a spreadsheet bigger than 1M or is that a job for an accounting package? What accounting packages are there for the NeXT? >> Tell me: what decent Stats package exists on a Mac? Oh, SYSTAT. I suppose that's a bad stats package, though. I don't know tons about stats pacakages, to tell you the truth. There are a number more than one, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (12/17/89)
From article <2179@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by mccoy@aristotle.Berkeley.EDU (Jim McCoy): > It was not difficult for this software base to grow on the Mac, and > because the NeXT is not a programmer-hostile as the Mac was, I expect > that the NeXT softare base will soon rival the Macs [...] On the contrary, it was *EXTREMELY* difficult for "this software base to grow on the Mac." It took a lot of effort on Apple's part to convince software developers to write programs for the mac; Then it took a lot of support from Apple to see that the developers completed their projects. To quote Guy Kawasaki "Apple dedicates over 150 people and spends over $20 million per year to support developers. That's about 140 people and $18 million more than any other [hardware] company." Commercial software houses care very little about how programmer-friendly the NeXT is. The bottom line is usually the deciding factor. 'Are there enough NeXT users who need my particular product and are willing to pay a price that allows me to make a substantial profit?' NeXT must convince them that either this is the case or this will be the case by the time the project will be completed. Software for the NeXT box won't just happen. NeXT must expend much effort and resources to build a software base. Is it? -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences UUCP: {cbosgd, rutgers} 219 Mathematical Sciences Building !okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
bell@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mike Bell) (12/17/89)
In article <3335@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >From article <23098@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >>> NeXT is notorious for missing >>> ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. >> >> NeXT has so far a pretty good record for KEEPING the things >> they promised. Including deadlines. The only time so far... > >Nope. They told us we would have the machine with a real OS (or they implied >it would have a real OS by telling us the machine would be ready) about 6 >months before it actually shipped. And they told us they would have color >NeXT month, January (this was a rep we had on campus last summer). > >>> And don't get me going on the beta versions of Mach... > >> MACH is pretty stable... OK, this discussion has lined the Mac camp up against the NeXT camp. Well, I am both a Mac developer and a NeXT Developer, and I have one thing to add. As a developer, I judge a machine on two main criteria; the machine itself, and the developer support I receive from the company that makes it. I have developed for the Mac for over 5 years, and have always received tech notes, a commercial support network (Applelink), bug fixes and patches...etc. The support that NeXT gives in comp.sys.next is great...but not everyone has access to netnews. Also, there are hundreds of undocumented anomolies (missing symbolic links, undocumented program features, undocumented changes that must be aplied to standard unix programs to run on the NeXT, out-and-out bugs, etc...) that have never been mentioned to the registered developers. I am also still waiting for the magical NeXTbus interface chip; without which I cant do any hardware development. Developing for the Next has really made me appreciate Appple's Developer Tech Support, and all the little things that they do that we developers take for granted. All that said, I do like and use my NeXT....as a UNIX machine. Right now, however, it isn't going to replace my Mac. It is possible to do things on the NeXT that you cant do on the Mac, but there are some basic programs on the NeXT that are painfully slow....specifically graphics programs. As the hardware evolves, this may change.(Hopefully). Now if I only had MACH on my Mac with a finder front end.......... Mike Bell ******************************************************************************** Mike Bell CSnet: BELLMA%ERVX01@dupont.com Senior Engineer Applelink: D2747 DuPont Electronic Imaging Core Technology Group MacBrisc..... When you feel the need for speed.......... ********************************************************************************
cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (12/17/89)
Excuse me, but I am tired of watching flames and flames of flames and ..... Look, if one like NeXT, fine, keep loving it. If one is crazy of Mac, ok, go ahead., but don't fight to each other. This is a country of freedom, everyone has freedom of belief. If one believe what he thinks is correct, fine, no problem. BTW, each of you had pointed out advantage and disvantage of each computer and we all know that no one is perfect so as things human created. Is this time to have a rest? Of course, each company are doing their best on their part already, so I think it is better to support them instead of fighting different point of view here. I began with Apple II, I like Mac and I want my own NeXT, this is nothing wrong. Ok, time for me to get off from my soapbox. -- $I want Rocket Chip 10 MHz, Z-Ram Ultra II, UniDisk 3.5 $ cyliao@wam.umd.edu * $I want my own NeXT, 64 Mb RAM, 660 Mb SCSI, NeXT laser $ Chun Yao Liao * $ printer, net connection, software, etc. $ Accepting Donations!* /* If (my_.signature =~ yours) coincidence = true; else ignore_this = true; */
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/17/89)
>>> NeXT is notorious for missing >>> ship dates; they've missed the date for color before already. >> >> NeXT has so far a pretty good record for KEEPING the things >> they promised. Including deadlines. The only time so far... > >Nope. They told us we would have the machine with a real OS (or they implied >it would have a real OS by telling us the machine would be ready) about 6 >months before it actually shipped. And they told us they would have color >NeXT month, January (this was a rep we had on campus last summer). > It is completely irrelevant, what a rep. tells you on campus. If he tells stuff like this, NeXT should make him shut up, because he harms NeXT. The only relevant things, are what you get as an official press release. This does not mean, that any rumor and specualtion you can find in some newspaper is true, but when you have the company spokesmen/womyn releasing official statements to the press, then it is relevant. And so far these announcements did hold pretty well. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/17/89)
>I wasn't saying it WAS worth anything. I was pointing out that spooling was >available for Mac PS printing with the implication that it wasn't on >the NeXT. Spooling IS on the NeXT. What makes the print process stall the whole machine is that the printer has no postscript interpreter and the WINDOW-SERVER can't interpret postscript for the screen and for the printer at the same time. As soon as you print on a printer with it's own postscript engine, there is hardly any noticable slowdown, there is complete spooling as in any UNIX system. >Price tag is irrelevant, as I said before Well, if it is irrelevant, why are all people talking about bang/buck ratio? Just send me your superflous money, I'll take care of it... >Hmmmm. The sheer _amount_ of rules for the Mac UI is larger than the >corresponding amount for the NeXT. Given what we've learned about the amount >of deviation to which programmers subscribe on the Mac, what's going to happen >when Microsoft releases Word for the NeXT? Ugh. Maybe it is not how MANY guidelines there are, but WHAT guidelines. The more there are, the less I'll remember them all, and the less consistent will my programs be. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/17/89)
>Nope. Phone companies will never wire EtherNet. Too big and expensive. >Fiber optics look good for that. Soon as that goes through, the NeXT's >EtherNet will be a boat anchor. I think we don't talk about vaporware? Normally you wire just your office. And if you need access to some other, national net, then there is no obsatcle to plug in a board into the NeXT to allow for that. But the NeXT has to work NOW and not in a few years when fiber optics are finally widespread. There are a lot of companies using ethernet. And without floppies, DOS, MACos, there has to be some way to integrate the NeXT, and this is the network. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (12/17/89)
People, PEOPLE, PEOPLE!!!! Can we cool down the my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad arguements (or at least take them to talk.comp.religion???)? And can we recognize that what drives a machine's acceptance is the software available NOW? Or we going to be like Amiga and ST fanatics, circa 1986??? -- Roger Tang, Member Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
I've been reading all this Mac vs. NeXT thread for the past week, and have even participated in some of it when the allegations against the Mac got ridiculous and inaccurate. But I personally am getting weary about this especially when *no one* is contributing anything contructive to this, outside of "My machine handles objects better than yours", or "My machine has more apps than yours" or "My machine is faster than yours"....ENOUGH ALREADY!!! You know, when it comes right down to it, the Mac and the Cube don't compete directly in most enviroments, and for the ones we do, I haven't heard many good arguments on why customers buy one machine over the other. All you guys are spouting off the mouth about hard specs and esoteric BS that quite frankly gets a little old in the real world. I have a hell of a lot of respect for the Cube regarding technical innovation, sound, unix enviroment and such, but that doesn't mean that I want to froth at the mouth, and bash every Mac at a moments notice. Likewise, the Mac has 32-bit color, myriads of storage options, multiple screens and a vast software collection in all catagories, but I don't bash NeXT for being a relative newcomer, or that solutions aren't here yet. The NeXT has toomuch going for it for it to wither and die next year. About two years ago, I think I would have held most of the opinions that many of you on both sides do. But now that I am an engineer in a sales enviroment, I see things from both sides of the street. Most of the things you people argue about do not matter to the customer unless there is something specific than one can do over the other. But most of the times, one feature or product does not convince someone to use that platform...or close sales. You all miss the point on several issues, and as the volume level increases, the strength of the arguments deteriorates dramatically. These places are meant as a forum to discuss the relative strenghts and weaknesses of a platform on several issues. And sure, every now and then, a flame is necessary. But before this gets any worse, please take a deep breath, reread what you've written, and think twice before sending it. Some of it is downright laughable. Others kill your own arguments. (stepping of the soapbox...my "flame" is done) -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
A bit of clarification is needed here. X-Windows 11 has been available for A/UX for quite awhile now, certainly since the last two releases. Also, Appletalk access is available in release 1.1.1, allowing you to access any printer on the network, as well as other networked Appletalk services. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
Please define what it means to be "confortable" with a DECstation. We have two Vaxen here in house in which I'm quite cozy with. Please explain. thanks... -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
>From article <23100@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >> The use of built in networking is pretty simple. Many people >> dont use it because it is expensive to upgrade. If however it >> is built in, then they will use it, as soon as they have a >> chance. >Nope. Phone companies will never wire EtherNet. Too big and expensive. Wrong wrong WRONG!!! Phone companies string networks every day! they installed our original Ethernet system. (BellSouth). If you believe this, then you still live in the days before the AT&T breakup. Also, Ethernet does not need to be thick or expensive anymore. Unlike the thick or thin wore solutions that have been prevelent, many firms are moving to *unshielded twisted pair* (read: phone wire) solutions. How do I know? My Mac is hooked to one. Who installs this for most people? "Hello, BellSouth?" -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
To Mike Bell: Nice objective argument. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (12/17/89)
There are a few misunderstandings... 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >From article <22438@ut-emx.UUCP>, by chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey): >> Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure. >Whoops. Try the NeXT being 4-bit mono and the IIci you might have used being >in 8-bit color. Whenever I'm doing heavy text on a color Mac, I turn all the >colors off. Performance skyrockets. That's what the Monitors cdev was designed >for. Well. It is grayscale, not mono for one thing. And, for another, I WAS talking about the mac in 1-bit mode. >> And disk access. Don't even try to argue that one. >You're kidding, right? The optical drive is hideously slow. The 100MB SCSI >Winchester is OK, but that's not standard, is it now? I wasn't talking about an optical. I was talkign about a *330* meg SCSI and anyway, the optical is (perceptibly) faster than most Mac drives that cost $1500.00 and give you 256 megs of storage on a $50.00 removable disk. Oops. I guess there aren't any. Oh well. -- Chris Whatley Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711 ext 123) Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475) Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.064813.16650@nueces.cactus.org> chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) writes: >There are a few misunderstandings... > >6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: > >>From article <22438@ut-emx.UUCP>, by chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey): >>> Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure. > >>Whoops. Try the NeXT being 4-bit mono and the IIci you might have used being >>in 8-bit color. Whenever I'm doing heavy text on a color Mac, I turn all the >>colors off. Performance skyrockets. That's what the Monitors cdev was designed >>for. > >Well. It is grayscale, not mono for one thing. And, for another, I WAS >talking about the mac in 1-bit mode. > >>> And disk access. Don't even try to argue that one. > >>You're kidding, right? The optical drive is hideously slow. The 100MB SCSI >>Winchester is OK, but that's not standard, is it now? > >I wasn't talking about an optical. I was talkign about a *330* meg >SCSI and anyway, the optical is (perceptibly) faster than most Mac >drives that cost $1500.00 and give you 256 megs of storage on a $50.00 >removable disk. Oops. I guess there aren't any. Oh well. > > >-- >Chris Whatley >Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711 ext 123) >Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475) >Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu I said that I wouldn't say any more about this, but if more of this inaccurate dribble goes on, then I have no choice. We all know that the NeXT machine is 4-bit mono, not grayscale, but you *did not* imply that you were refering to the Mac's performance either in 1-bit or 4-bit mono earlier, and to say so now destroys your original argument. Make sure you are explicit about this. Even then, I think your argument is grossly inaccurate, and I have used both the cube and the IIci. My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the optical drive is slow; he has to me. The optical drive was a gutsy technological advance that I think was a little bit ahead of its time. Competing technologies today are much faster and are approachine 30ms access times, which I consider a watermark of working in a tolerable unix enviroment. the Canon optical does not come close to these specifications. Also, most of todays technologies will get you 600 meg on a disk, not 256. The Canon was state of the art when it was ready in 1987. The NeXT machine, unfortunetely, was not. And if you think you can't get a removable manegto-optical drive for the Mac, then you haven't been shopping lately. And as far as the 330 meg Winchester drive goes, this drive is no different than any similar unit that is available for the Mac, PC, or any Vax/Unix platform, simply because all these companies buy their drives from the same manufacterers, primarily Imprimis, Micropolis, Priam, and others. Again, i say, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE!!! Some of these comments made here are downright wrong! And silly! -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (12/18/89)
In article <3334@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >> Graphically oriented Unix (don't tell me about A/UX >> [but factor in the $1000 price tag])? > >Price tag is irrelevant, as I said before. Apple charges what it can. >X for A/UX will be out "soon," as will X for NeXT. X-Windows for A/UX has been out for months. It's X for the Mac OS (from apple, there might be another vendor) which will be out "soon". -- Mark Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu P.S. Don't forget about object code compatibility between Mac OS and A/UX
jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille) (12/18/89)
In article <37341@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: > > We all know that >the NeXT machine is 4-bit mono, not grayscale Gee, I'm glad we all know that...... Flame on: Mono is black&white which implies 1-bit. "4-bit mono" is nonsense. NeXT is 2-bit GREYSCALE which implies 4 (2^2) shades of grey. Flame off. In article <37341@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.064813.16650@nueces.cactus.org> chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) writes: >> >>I wasn't talking about an optical. I was talkign about a *330* meg >>SCSI and anyway, the optical is (perceptibly) faster than most Mac >>drives that cost $1500.00 and give you 256 megs of storage on a $50.00 >>removable disk. Oops. I guess there aren't any. Oh well. > >My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the >optical drive is slow; he has to me. Anyone who says 90 ms seek time isn't slow is lying or brain-dead. >And if you think you can't get a removable manegto-optical drive >for the Mac, then you haven't been shopping lately. Jeez....read what he wrote!! He wasn't saying that you can't buy the same technology for a Mac. Of course you can. But people who buy NeXTs are getting one a LOT cheaper. Last prices I saw for Mac drives were in the $5-6K range. Of course, those are double sided drives (600 M), so you could probably get a single-sided (300M) drive like the NeXT's for half that. But they're definitely not cheap. You could buy a good chunk of a NeXT for what the drive will cost you... >Again, i say, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE!!! Some >of these comments made here are downright wrong! And silly! I'd like to send that one RIGHT BACK AT YOU, BUCKO! :) Sorry for joining in on this one, folks. I don't see that we're accomplishing anything here. How about we redirect this discussion to alt.religion.computers? See Followups line. Jon jcargill@cs.wisc.edu
phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/18/89)
First, I must apologize for my previous message. It was a bit too personal. Thank you, Pete, for not starting a war. Still, I stand by most of the content of my previous message. Here is my latest (short) contribution to what appears to become Pete's war against the rest of the world. >Should you >really be building a spreadsheet bigger than 1M or is that a job for an >accounting package? In my opinion, spreadsheets should be able to handle a few megabytes worth of spreadsheet with a few thousand rows (problem in Mac's Full Impact) easily. >Oh, SYSTAT. I suppose that's a bad stats package, though. I don't know tons >about stats pacakages, to tell you the truth. There are a number more than >one, though. Systat is pretty bad (although it is pretty expensive). The magic words are SAS and S, furthermore Matlab, Gauss and (for small applications) Minitab and (for TS) SCA. I guess everyone can insert his own favorites after the "furthermore." S is available by now. True, full-blown SAS is under development for the NeXT. /Ivo Welch ivo@next.agsm.ucla.edu
phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/18/89)
>Anyone who says 90 ms seek time isn't slow is lying or brain-dead.
How about 90ms over a 100 terabyte surface :-)? If you restricted yourself to
half the OD surface (128MB), you get approx. half the average access time.
There is of course another problem, if I am correct: To write, the heads must
pass twice over the surface (once to erase, I think).
/ivo welchwilson@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Wilson Chan) (12/18/89)
In article <6773@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >>Anyone who says 90 ms seek time isn't slow is lying or brain-dead. > >How about 90ms over a 100 terabyte surface :-)? If you restricted yourself to >half the OD surface (128MB), you get approx. half the average access time. > >There is of course another problem, if I am correct: To write, the heads must >pass twice over the surface (once to erase, I think). > >/ivo welch To quote Sept. 1989 issue of UnixWorld: "Writing is done in three passes-- an erase pass, a write pass, and a verify pass. ...writing took about the same amount of time as reading..." (p.82) wilson@media-lab.media.mit.edu Standard disclaimer applies
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/18/89)
>the NeXT machine is 4-bit mono, not grayscale, What please is the difference between 4-bit mono (or for the sake of the argument n-bit mono) and grayscale? >My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the >optical drive is slow; he has to me. You can't really compare the optical to a hard drive, compare it to a floppy, then you get what it is meant to be: removable and portable, not necessarily fast. >Competing technologies today are much faster and are approachine 30ms >access times, and then again: compare the costs: a disk costs around 250-300$ vs. 100$ (50$ for universities) and a single drive unix costs about the same as an entire NeXT system. And third they often state as capacity what can be writen on a double sided disk. But as they have only one r/w head you have to turn the disk to access the other half of your capacity. This is very unpractical, as you can not even access the whole information if you had a second drive, because you can't split the media. Except for the little space you save, you traded a lot of hassle if you chose to use one of these 1.5 sided optical systems. As long as they can't access both sides at once, double sided disks are nonsense, and quoting the capacity of both sides to be the capacity of the drive is close to a criminal act... Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
mfi@serc.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (12/18/89)
In article <6772@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >Systat is pretty bad (although it is pretty expensive). The magic words >are SAS and S, furthermore Matlab, Gauss and (for small applications) >Minitab and (for TS) SCA. I guess everyone can insert his own favorites >after the "furthermore." S is available by now. True, full-blown SAS >is under development for the NeXT. Reality check: SAS has a product called JMP that is out for the MAC that is very nice. It is not SAS it is a fully interactive and graphical stats package. I have spoken with SAS employees (not just salesbeings) and the concensus is that a straight port of SAS wouldnt sell on the MAC. They are appearantly moving SAS towards a more modern software architecture where it will work nicely on graphics "workstations". In the future. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end of everything we know." Marvin Minsky
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) (12/18/89)
But, for businesses, NeXT prices are NOT cheaper than MAC II prices. Yes, the LIST prices are comprable. If I buy all my hardware from Apple at list and all my software at list, then the NeXT is cheaper. But most businesses do NOT buy at list. We get about 32 % off on Mac hardware, and buy all our software from places like MacWarehouse and MacConnection at 30% - 40% below list. Currently, BusinessLand does NOT discount NeXTs, even if you want to buy lots of them. So, in the real world, a comprable Mac is cheaper.
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/19/89)
From article <23143@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >>I wasn't saying it WAS worth anything. I was pointing out that spooling was >>available for Mac PS printing with the implication that it wasn't on >>the NeXT. > Spooling IS on the NeXT. What makes the print process stall the > whole machine is that the printer has no postscript interpreter > and the WINDOW-SERVER can't interpret postscript for the screen > and for the printer at the same time. OK, but then we get into an argument about where printing begins and ends. Is it the PostScript interpreter's fault that printing slows the NeXT to a crawl or is the print spooler's (lpr's?). I don't know -- that's probably a philosophical issue, and I've had enough philosophy for one education, thank you. > As soon as you print on a printer with it's own postscript engine, there > is hardly any noticable slowdown, there is complete spooling as in any UNIX > system. ...and the printer most likely to be used... OK, OK, that's not fair. But it does illuminate a point: we're talking about standard features. Otherwise, I could wail about how easy it is to install EtherNet support on the Mac. >>Price tag is irrelevant, as I said before > Well, if it is irrelevant, why are all people talking about > bang/buck ratio? Just send me your superflous money, I'll take > care of it... Are they? I don't think I've seen that phrase used yet. I said cost wasn't an issue because we aren't talking about having to buy one, we're talking about various design choices. If you'll read my previous articles, you'll see I've gone to great pains to divorce marketing, which probably has the most bearing on pricing, from the actual design of the machine. It's a issue worth considering, but I personally am not interested in it. At least not in this flame war. >>Hmmmm. The sheer _amount_ of rules for the Mac UI is larger than the >>corresponding amount for the NeXT. Given what we've learned about the amount >>of deviation to which programmers subscribe on the Mac, what's going to happen >>when Microsoft releases Word for the NeXT? Ugh. > Maybe it is not how MANY guidelines there are, but WHAT guidelines. > The more there are, the less I'll remember them all, and the less > consistent will my programs be. All right, you got me. What I was trying to communicate was that Apple pretty much puts developers in a straighjacket. And I don't mean that negatively, of course. I mean it to be the best possible thing they could be doing. Mac would have failed without the straightjacket. NeXT seems to have the Toolbox without the conscience. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/19/89)
From article <23147@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >> Phone companies will never wire EtherNet. Fiber optics look good for that. > I think we don't talk about vaporware? ...the NeXT has to work NOW... Granted. But we were talking about hard-wiring EtherNet on the NeXT motherboard. In the Mac, you drop in a card. Later you can drop in a fiber-optics card. Now, this is not a specific advantage (or at least I am not attempting to show that this is a specific advantage here). Rather, I was trying to show that putting Ether on the motherboard and not also including enough open architecture features was probably not the best design decision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/19/89)
From article <37335@apple.Apple.COM>, by rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing): >>From article <23100@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >>Nope. Phone companies will never wire EtherNet. Too big and expensive. > Wrong wrong WRONG!!! Phone companies string networks every day! Long distance? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (12/19/89)
Consider where hyphenation, fonts and spell-checking of "foreign" (just different, not foreign) languages is needed most: Word processing and DeskTop Publishing. Frame, the single most impressive piece of word processing/DTP software I have ever used, supports all three for UK English, French, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Italian, and Norwegian. It's there-- it just isn't system wide (that I know of). Admittedly, there is a large gap when it comes to eastern languages... b.bumgarner | Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own. wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu | I officially don't represent anyone unless I NeXT Campus Consultant | explicity say I am doing so. So there. <Thpppt!> "I ride tandem with the random/Things don't run the way I planned them..."
peters@sahiways.gov.au (12/19/89)
What would _I_ like to see in the "Mac of The Nineties?" An operating system written in pure assembly code. Leave all these high-level languages to those with low intelligence.
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/20/89)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@cogsci.bitnet
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (12/20/89)
6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >From article <23143@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >>>I wasn't saying it WAS worth anything. I was pointing out that spooling was >>>available for Mac PS printing with the implication that it wasn't on >>>the NeXT. >> Spooling IS on the NeXT. What makes the print process stall the >> whole machine is that the printer has no postscript interpreter >> and the WINDOW-SERVER can't interpret postscript for the screen >> and for the printer at the same time. >OK, but then we get into an argument about where printing begins and ends. Is it >the PostScript interpreter's fault that printing slows the NeXT to a crawl or >is the print spooler's (lpr's?). I don't know -- that's probably a >philosophical issue, and I've had enough philosophy for one education, >thank you. Let us get this straight.... 1) If you have a NeXT with a NeXT Printer attached and print something... a) the file goes into a queue b) the printer daemon see that there is a file waiting to be printed c) the printer daemon sends the file to the printer which, in this case, happens to be the window server. 2) If you have a LaserWriter hooked up to your NeXT a) the file goes into a queue b) the printer daemon see that there is a file waiting to be printed c) the printer daemon sends the file to the printer which, in this case, happens to be a LaserWriter In case 1, the system slows down. Why, because it is rasterizing millions of dots to blast out to the printer engine. The speed of the NeXT printing at 400dpi is comparable to that of a 300dpi LaserWriter IINTX (at least as far as I can tell). This makes sense, it takes alot of computing to print a 400dpi page. In case 2, the NeXT is not slowed at all. All it is doing is sending files over a serial line at 9600 baud to a LaserWriter. Any computer can do that. A standard benefit of using unix is that any computer can spool its print jobs on that NeXT connected to the LaserWriter or a NeXT printer. >...and the printer most likely to be used... Of course. If you need a high quality, high volume LaserPrinter, by all means, do NOT get a NeXT laser printer for the NeXT. Get an Imagen or even a Linotronic. The NeXT printer is cheap and it produces a low volume of exceptional output. There is nothing special about this it is 400dpi and it is PostScript. Chris -- Chris Whatley Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711 ext 123) Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475) Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (12/20/89)
6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >From article <23147@brunix.UUCP>, by rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony): >Granted. But we were talking about hard-wiring EtherNet on the NeXT motherboard. >In the Mac, you drop in a card. Later you can drop in a fiber-optics card. Now, >this is not a specific advantage (or at least I am not attempting to show that >this is a specific advantage here). Yes that is true. One thing you fail to recognize is that it doesn't cost NeXT much more to build ethernet on their board than it does for Apple to put AppleTalk on theirs. Also, the NeXT has slots too. You could even use it as a gateway to a fiber-optic network if you wanted. -- Chris Whatley Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711 ext 123) Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475) Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu
karl@cgdisis.uucp (Karl Sierka) (12/20/89)
Greetings, (Oh wealth of resources) NeXT users. Has anyone successfully connected third party disks to the external SCSI port on the (v1.0) NeXT machine? If so, which drives have worked and which have not? What steps were performed in either case, and why were they taken? I'll summarize to this list. Thanks for your time. karl --- Karl Sierka sierka@ncar.ucar.edu or (303)-497-1338 karl@cgdisis.ucar.edu (128.117.24.18) CGD/NCAR 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80301 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not those of my employer. Karl Sierka sierka@ncar.ucar.edu or (303)-497-1338 karl@cgdisis.ucar.edu (128.117.24.18) CGD/NCAR 1850 Table Mesa Drive
cbradley@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Chris Bradley) (12/20/89)
In article <37341@apple.Apple.COM>, rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: > I said that I wouldn't say any more about this, but if more of this > inaccurate dribble goes on, then I have no choice. We all know that > the NeXT machine is 4-bit mono, not grayscale... Actually, the MegaPixel Display and DPS provide a 2-bit/pixel grey value, with a 2-bit/pixel alpha (transparency) value, for the 1120x832 pixels on the screen. DPS performs an automatic dithering function, creating apparent greyscales with 2-bits/pixel when given a "fill" value (0 <= value <= 1). These "dithered" regions, at 92 dpi, do indeed present varying shades beyond the "black, dark grey, light grey, white" that is possible with plain 2-bits/pixel. > Again, i say, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE!!! Some > of these comments made here are downright wrong! And silly! I couldn't agree more :) -- Chris Bradley | "To integrate Advanced Technologies into new | Sr. Eng'r, Advanced Systems | and existing customer environments." | Businessland, Inc. |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| Dallas, Texas USA | Known to management, but unclaimed thereby |
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (12/21/89)
< Really, my roomate is one of the most ignorant people you could find < when it comes to computers and he uses WriteNow, PrintManager, Webster < Librarian and Quotations quite effectively. He never asks questions and < he never complains. He cannot use a Mac and Word. Period! And if or when Microsoft sells Word for Next, your roomate probably won't be able to use it there, either. The perverse nature of Word is able to transcend any particular user interface and become unusable to non-gurus on any machine. Tim Smith
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (12/21/89)
Many people have claimed here that a Mac with MultiFinder does not make you wait for printing. Please tell me how to accomplish this wonderous feat. I've got backgound printing enabled. When I print, control returns to the application fairly quickly. And then every few seconds while the file is printed, menus stop working and keystrokes get lost. This does not sound like "not waiting" to me. I suppose if I typed at 3wpm, it might not be a problem, but I type a lot faster than this, and it is quite annoying. Tim Smith ps: yes, it is better than not having background printing enabled. But it is a *long* way from what it should be. I hope this works better under System 7.
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/22/89)
Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers References: <1989Dec19.175846.25694@nueces.cactus.org> From article <1989Dec19.175846.25694@nueces.cactus.org>, by chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley): > 1) If you have a NeXT with a NeXT Printer attached and print something... > 2) If you have a LaserWriter hooked up to your NeXT > In case 1, the system slows down. > In case 2, the NeXT is not slowed at all. > If you need a high quality, high volume LaserPrinter, by > all means, do NOT get a NeXT laser printer for the NeXT. Okey doke. I don't have any problem with that. But we were talking about standard equipment, remember? A LaserWriter or whatever is another $5K. Strikes me as ironic that NeXT people (not necessarily you) bash the Mac for having an expensive printer and then recommend that one go out and buy one for the NeXT... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/22/89)
From article <1989Dec19.180200.25784@nueces.cactus.org>, by chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley): >> Granted. But we were talking about hard-wiring EtherNet on the NeXT >> motherboard. In the Mac, you drop in a card. Later you can drop in a >> fiber-optics card. > One thing you fail to recognize is that it doesn't > cost NeXT much more to build ethernet on their board than it does for > Apple to put AppleTalk on theirs. Please see the continued saga in alt.religion.computers. Followup-To: alt.religion.computers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
rogerj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda) (12/22/89)
In article <37341@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.064813.16650@nueces.cactus.org> chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) writes: >>There are a few misunderstandings... >> >My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the >optical drive is slow; he has to me. The optical drive was a gutsy >technological advance that I think was a little bit ahead of its time. >Competing technologies today are much faster and are approachine 30ms >access times, which I consider a watermark of working in a tolerable >unix enviroment. the Canon optical does not come close to these >specifications. Also, most of todays technologies will get you 600 >meg on a disk, not 256. The Canon was state of the art when it >was ready in 1987. The NeXT machine, unfortunetely, was not. >And if you think you can't get a removable manegto-optical drive >for the Mac, then you haven't been shopping lately. > Well, with Canon owning almost 20% of NeXT, does this mean we (the brave souls who bought the early machines designed in '87 for that year's technology) will get Canon's latest and greatest drives as an upgrade option (I won't hold my breath for the "free" part of that line...but if NeXT REALLY wanted to reward us for debugging their product for them...). SONY has 30ms Optical drives for the PC and MAC and there's no reason for NeXT not to but the very best from one of their benefactors (Canon, not Sony. A friend of mine who works for Canon says they've had 30ms AND BETTER for "a long time now". I am sure Canon has even better one's in the wings. Why can't we get 'em, even as a (gulp) cost upgrade? Just 'causin trouble... Roger Jagoda FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/22/89)
in article <3326@hub.UUCP>, 6600pete@hub.UUCP says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:47799 comp.sys.next:4507 >> One can also buy an Amiga for 1/2 the price of a MacSE and get >> much better hardware. > And no software, relatively speaking. Relative to what? Relative to the PC, no. Then again, relative to the PC, the Mac could be said to have very little software, numerically. Relative to what I need, the Amiga is missing one real application, a really good schematic capture program. I haven't found an acceptible one for the PC or the Mac, either, but there are excellent ones for Apollos. > And no interface consistency. Most of the applications I'm using are pretty similar. Nothing you need to dig out a user manual for. There are good ways and bad ways to make things consitent; the next Amiga OS release does this the good way -- it makes consistency much easier to program than inconsistency. It doesn't force the programmer to do things one particular way, since it's not always the best solution to do things any particular way. > And periodic forced graphics upgrades to run new software. Huh? You may need some more memory, but other than that, every application I've seen will still run on the original Amiga 1000. There will be enhanced graphics chips available, but never required, and they just plug into most Aigas. That's better than forced motherboard upgrades just to add a meg or two of RAM. >> I hear that there is even a MAC emulator for it (AMAX?) > And the emulator won't run Virtual, System 7.0, and I don't think Color QD. I haven't tried the Virtual INIT or System 7.0, but it runs pretty much everything that's around. Unless System 7.0 requires a ROM upgrade for all 128k machines, it shouldn't be a problem. Obviously you'd need an MMU for virtual memory, just like any Mac would. There's currently no support for color Quickdraw, that's true. You seem to know so much about Amigas; have you ever actually used one? Recently? > Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa > Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription > Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (12/27/89)
6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers >References: <1989Dec19.175846.25694@nueces.cactus.org> >From article <1989Dec19.175846.25694@nueces.cactus.org>, by chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley): >> If you need a high quality, high volume LaserPrinter, by >> all means, do NOT get a NeXT laser printer for the NeXT. >But we were talking about standard equipment, remember? A LaserWriter or >whatever is another $5K. No kidding. You have a horrible memory. I suggest that anyone buying a NeXT should buy an appropriate printer. >Strikes me as ironic that NeXT people (not necessarily you) bash the Mac >for having an expensive printer and then recommend that one go out and buy >one for the NeXT... I don't bash the mac about anything. I have a mac and a NeXT and I was a mac person before I became a NeXT-Macintosh-Sun-*nix person. I simply find that the NeXT is the appropriate computer to purchase for many people and that it delivers alot more than the mac in many situations and that it has alot more room to grow than the mac does. If you look at the programming environment you will see that the NeXT OS could be ported to about any fast CPU that exists with only a small effort. For a small example, see an IBM RT running NeXT Step (I say it is a small example because it is only the user level programs which have been ported to the RT). The point is that the NeXT environment is portable and the Mac is not. Unless Apple works its butt off, the Mac is dead with the '040. I have heard that there is no '050. The NeXT, of course, can move to 88k or even SPARC. (Just like Sun did) Chris -- Chris Whatley Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail) (512/471-7711 ext 123) Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail) (512/499-0475) Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu
wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) (01/09/90)
In article <5985@ubc-cs.UUCP> halliday@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) writes: > I'll bet Macintosh gurus somewhere are developing Russian system software, > if nobody hasn't already. Can the same be said for NeXT? I certainly hope someone is making a Cyrillic system, since the US->Soviet trade barriers seem to be slowly melting away (and seeming more silly all the time). We seem to have Arabic, British, Chinese, Dutch, Faeroese, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese (Kanji), Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, and Yugoslavian done already. Even in 1984, as I recall, the Mac was the machine of choice for French homework, thanks to all those nifty extended characters (hey, accented vowels instead of playing card symbols and smiley faces--what an idea!). - Walt -- Walter Smith wrs@apple.com, apple!wrs Apple Computer, Inc. (408) 974-5892 My corporation disavows any knowledge of my activities on the network.