128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) (10/14/88)
There's no comp.sys.next yet, so this goes here.
NeXT has gotten so good at keeping secrets that they have managed to keep some
even after the announcement of the machine! (Can't wait for Byte and
NextWorld...)
1. What's the real story on the optical drive? Is it read-only, write-only,
or both :-? As has been stated in previous postings, it just isn't clear
from the press release. And why the winchesters available if this is
so great? Are they a lot faster? Will floppies be available? I realize
they are not "the future" so Steve Jobs may have something against them,
but for the time being, I think it would be handy, no? There is the
software distribution problem, and since the machine depends on lots of
"courseware" being developed by faculty, students, etc., how is it to be
distributed?
2. The monitor. How many bitplanes? How fast do the windows move? Is there
a graphics coprocessor with hardware line drawing and area fill and so
forth? That is one way to blow away Apple- speed of video. They'd better
have at least one graphics coprocessor for a million-pixel display with
many gray scales on which animation is an important task. Also: Must you
use their monitor? What provisions are there for smaller/larger/multiple
monitors?
3. What's the REAL story with the IBM deal? Is IBM trying to leapfrog Apple
in the user-interface wars? (Is this user-interface endorsed by the
PARC visionaries?) I guess it's just a mutually beneficial deal, as they
do not really compete... I'm tempted to read more into it. What's more
important to NeXT, the ten million dollars or the endorsement?
The remaining questions relate to future plans.
4. Color. The San Jose Mercury News had an article entitled "Maybe next
year." I realize it was impractical right now, but it is obviously the
way of the future. By the way, does PostScript/Display PostScript
have any hooks for color?
5. Parallel processing. The version of UNIX they are using, I understand,
is distinguished by its applicability to parallel processing. Does Jobs
have this in mind?
6. Mac software. Let's be realistic; I don't care how great the user-
interface is, the Mac user-interface is darned good and there's tons of
software for it. I think of turning my nose down at the PC-compatibility
question when the Mac came out, complaining "Who would want to run PC
software?", which I still believe, but the Mac is a different story.
The software is good. I am sure the machine COULD run Mac software.
If an Atari ST can run Mac software (I actually saw it!) then this can.
I can only see it benefitting from the capability. The question is, what
does Apple think on that issue? Do they feel threatened by the machine?
7. IBM and Apple have been very successful with the idea of a product family.
The idea is that one size does not fit all. I wouldn't expect many
products before I see one completed, but what's the long term picture
here? I guess this is supposed to be the minimum configuration, and
future products will come along when they may...
And, finally, the big question:
8. Who do they REALLY intend to sell this machine to? Come on- Steve Jobs
does not set his sights low. And to be honest, the higher education market
just doesn't strike me as that big with the current bureaucracy. I just
can't see students shelling out eight grand for a computer, especially with
today's college prices. An article quoted Jobs as saying "The world
doesn't need another $100 million computer company." (I think those were
the exact words) How are we to interpret this?
-> What's the catch? <-
After being used to Apple's prices, the $6500 for the machine, monitor,
optical drive, keyboard, etc., sounds like a BARGAIN, especially with the
inflated RAM prices. (I realize this is not street price, but a sort of
"consortium" price. Even so...) And how can he possibly sell a 400 DPI
laser printer for $2000? I hope there's no law against dumping laser printers
below cost...
I guess the catch is, you can't buy one.
-Jonathan Dubmanwetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (10/15/88)
>"consortium" price. Even so...) And how can he possibly sell a 400 DPI >laser printer for $2000? I hope there's no law against dumping laser printers >below cost... > Simple. Part of the Cost for the Apple LaserWriter is the 68000 controller they've got inside. Since the Next Box uses Display Postscript anyway, it probably just uses the Box to drive the printer directly. If you compare this to Apple's similar printer, the IISC the consortium price (before the price hike) is about $1700. Pierce ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu pwetter@caltech.bitnet pwetter@caltech.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weird theory #48: I'm going to graduate in June. Send Job Offers to: 1-57 Fleming. Pasadena Ca. 91126
lyman@eos.UUCP (Lyman Taylor) (10/15/88)
>4. Color. The San Jose Mercury News had an article entitled "Maybe next > year." I realize it was impractical right now, but it is obviously the > way of the future. By the way, does PostScript/Display PostScript > have any hooks for color? At last year's MacExpo I think I remember Display PostScript running in color on the machines Adobe had in their booth ( Vaxstation and two others it don't remember ) I think its a problem that's a combo of Color Screen udate speed ( alot of stuff to move ) Memory Cost ( alot of stuff to put somewhere ) Color Monitor cost ( look at the cost of any 19" monitor for the Mac ) Remember NeXT has to at least TRY to keep the machine relatively ( relative to a SUN, MacIIx with all the options ) inexpensive since there trying to reach University which have money but not an infinite supply. This machine is a WORKSTATION not a PC. > >5. Parallel processing. The version of UNIX they are using, I understand, > is distinguished by its applicability to parallel processing. Does Jobs > have this in mind? I hope so > > >8. Who do they REALLY intend to sell this machine to? Come on- Steve Jobs > does not set his sights low. And to be honest, the higher education market > just doesn't strike me as that big with the current bureaucracy. I just > can't see students shelling out eight grand for a computer, especially with > today's college prices. An article quoted Jobs as saying "The world > doesn't need another $100 million computer company." (I think those were > the exact words) How are we to interpret this? I think that students aren't the target. At most colleges I know of they have microcomputer labs ( or preferrably Mac Labs :-) where students can come in and use a public or quasi-public ( only certain classes allowed in the lab ) laboratory. Just like Physic Lab, Chemistry Lab, etc. The object is to create a " NeXT Lab " that will take on some of the functionality of a Physics Lab, Chem Lab, Music Lab ( that obviously aligned with the capabilties of the machine ), etc. The machine is entended for the development and use of COURSEWARE. Not speadsheets or CAD/CAM. >-> What's the catch? <- >After being used to Apple's prices, the $6500 for the machine, monitor, >optical drive, keyboard, etc., sounds like a BARGAIN, especially with the >inflated RAM prices. (I realize this is not street price, but a sort of Maybe, its pretty cheap to manufacture. In addition, like I said before they HAVE to keep the price low to gain market share. hum? manufacture a good product with available technology with lost of input from the consumer at a good price . Maybe at least someone has been learning something from Japan Inc. >"consortium" price. Even so...) And how can he possibly sell a 400 DPI >laser printer for $2000? I hope there's no law against dumping laser printers >below cost... > A possible solution to this is that perhaps there no COMPUTER inside the box. That's right your local LaserWriter is really a deadicated computer constantly running PostScript. Well with the NeXT machine you already have one postscript interpreter inside your own box. Maybe, the laser printer uses the interpreter inside your box thereby avoiding the need for two interpreters ( which cost money remember the Adobe licience ). Purely Speculation. I don't have one either. > > -Jonathan Dubman Lyman S. Taylor lyman@eos.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center or more verbose ...{uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!eos!lyman
cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) (10/17/88)
In article <15478@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, 128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) writes: > There's no comp.sys.next yet, so this goes here. I don't suppose that you get the alt net? they have alt.next... > 4. Color. The San Jose Mercury News had an article entitled "Maybe next > year." I realize it was impractical right now, but it is obviously the > way of the future. By the way, does PostScript/Display PostScript > have any hooks for color? I have seen a demo of Display Postscript (MacWorld SF, 88) on a variety of platforms (uVax, PS/2, MacII, Sun). It looked pretty good. I wonder about it's practicle speed (as opposed to the cute demo). Also, will it become a standard? If so, it would make developing portable graphics app's much easier! Oh yes, before I forget, it was in colour on everything but the PS/2. > 6. Mac software. Let's be realistic; I don't care how great the user- > interface is, the Mac user-interface is darned good and there's tons of > software for it. I think of turning my nose down at the PC-compatibility > question when the Mac came out, complaining "Who would want to run PC > software?", which I still believe, but the Mac is a different story. > The software is good. I am sure the machine COULD run Mac software. > If an Atari ST can run Mac software (I actually saw it!) then this can. > I can only see it benefitting from the capability. The question is, what > does Apple think on that issue? Do they feel threatened by the machine? Ok, let us be realistic... porting from one brand of unix to another is fairly simple. In a recent job search, there were several companies that I interviewed with that were in the process of porting to the UNIX workstation market from either MS-DOS or Mac. Including two well known spreadsheet/database manufacturers. Also, Foxbase (a dbase clone) has been on UNIX (well, xenix) for quite a while. For that matter, look at all of the software that comes with UNIX, as well as all of the software that is posted to the net. (NB: look at the 'sources archives). > And, finally, the big question: > > 8. Who do they REALLY intend to sell this machine to? Come on- Steve Jobs > does not set his sights low. And to be honest, the higher education market > just doesn't strike me as that big with the current bureaucracy. I just > can't see students shelling out eight grand for a computer, especially with > today's college prices. [...] I don't know about you, but I am planning on going back to school for a semester (or at least long enough to purchase the beaste). for that matter, several schools are making the purchase of a computer part of the tuition. I can see schools bundling a NeXT in with the tuition for a BS program. Practically, I want to get my hands on one for a few hours (days?) to test drive it. I mean you don't blow $10K ($20K? $30K? etc?) on a car without at least a test drive. Is it really as good as it looks? -- Cory Kempf UUCP: {decvax, bu-cs}!encore!gloom!cory revised reality... available at a dealer near you.
jensen@gt-eedsp.UUCP (P. Allen Jensen) (10/18/88)
In article <1740@eos.UUCP>, lyman@eos.UUCP (Lyman Taylor) writes: >..... > A possible solution to this is that perhaps there no COMPUTER inside > the box. That's right your local LaserWriter is really a deadicated computer > constantly running PostScript. Well with the NeXT machine you already have > one postscript interpreter inside your own box..... The laserprinter has no computer - Or memory - It uses the NeXT CPU for everything and sends an image over a "special high-speed" laser printer interface. Looks like it will only work on the NeXT box ! -- P. Allen Jensen Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!jensen INTERNET: jensen@gteedsp.gatech.edu
caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (10/18/88)
In article <157@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >In article <15478@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, 128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) writes: >> There's no comp.sys.next yet, so this goes here. >I don't suppose that you get the alt net? they have alt.next... Not all of us get it-- we get a lot of alt groups (alt.rhode-island???) but not alt.next... Most of this traffic is going to comp.misc, so I'm sending followup there. >> 6. Mac software. Let's be realistic; I don't care how great the user- >> interface is, the Mac user-interface is darned good and there's tons of >> software for it. >> The software is good. I am sure the machine COULD run Mac software. >> If an Atari ST can run Mac software (I actually saw it!) then this can. Well, about that Atari trick: It works pretty well, even coming out about the same speed as a Mac SE. The only problem: You have to have a set of Macintosh 128K ROMs. Legit copies are actually not that hard to find (not PROMS, genuine from Apple ROMS, are available mail-order if you look around enough). I'd think an emulation could be managed at a speed well above that of the SE, since the NeXT has a fair amount of coprocessor support the Mac lacks, and the extra muscle CPU... One trick the Atari emulation mamaged that the NeXT would have some trouble with: Can the optical drive read and write Mac floppies? ;-) >Ok, let us be realistic... porting from one brand of unix to another is >fairly simple. Unix ports of existing applications shouldn't be too hard, for the most part... except for one little detail: NeXT's decision to not use X windows. I don't know how having NeXT's own windowing system to cope with will slow down porting anything with an interesting interface... >> And, finally, the big question: >> >> 8. Who do they REALLY intend to sell this machine to? Come on- Steve Jobs >> does not set his sights low. And to be honest the higher education market >> just doesn't strike me as that big with the current bureaucracy. Well, Jobs isn't exactly part of the current bureaucracy, much of the time... although I can't imagine this machine not being in fierce demand about a year from now for the publishing market-- figure in a year, they'll have both desktop publishing applications and color monitors ready, and I think sufficient market demand will cause Steve to reconsider his "University only" policy. -Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu
suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Steve Uitti) (10/19/88)
In article <532@gt-eedsp.UUCP> jensen@gt-eedsp.UUCP (P. Allen Jensen) writes: >In article <1740@eos.UUCP>, lyman@eos.UUCP (Lyman Taylor) writes: >>..... >> A possible solution to this is that perhaps there no COMPUTER inside >> the [laser printer]. >The laserprinter has no computer - Or memory - It uses the NeXT >CPU for everything and sends an image over a "special high-speed" >laser printer interface. Looks like it will only work on the NeXT >box ! For the Mac II, I have the General Computer Personal Laser Printer (PLP). As with the Apple Laserwriter IISC, it connects to the computer via SCSI. There is a processor in the laser printer, but it does not interpret Postscript (or anything else remotely complicated). It does have some memory, but I don't believe it has enough for anything like a page of bits (about a Megabyte is required). As far as I can tell, the host rasterizes the stuff & sends it to the printer. SCSI, the printer's CPU, and the Mac are quick enough to get the data to the drum so that it is not slower than having a CPU & RAM inside the printer. I haven't a clue as to what interface the NeXT machine uses. I hope it is SCSI. The NeXT machine does support SCSI, therefore, it should be possible to support IISC & PLP printers on it, as they describe, at 300 dpi. While this is pretty much Mac specific (Mac II, SE, plus if SCSI is available), it is only due to the software availability on the Mac. If one had SCSI on a PC (clone), and software that could talk to it, these printers should work. The advantages of Postscript (or some sort of language) in the printer are: 1. The data sent to the printer is smaller. 2. The host doesn't have to rasterize the document. The advantages of having the host do it are: 1. If there is a bug in the language, it can be fixed (it is just software). 2. More than one language can be supported (it is just software). 3. It is cheaper. A PLP goes for around $2K. A Laserwriter Plus is $3.5K. This last point is interesting. For the Apple Laserwriter II series, one can upgrade the printer to something stupid like 12 MB of RAM, a 40 MB (80?) hard disk, etc. For people who didn't start with a 16 MHz 68020 (or better), the printer is a much faster machine with better resources than the host. For the PLP, I can upgrade my Mac II to something stupid like 8 MB of RAM and lots of hard disk. Further, I can use this same RAM and disk for things unrelated to printing. One argument goes that having the smarts in the printer allows the host to go on working while the printer prints, thus freeing the host. For the Mac, this isn't generally true. It is probably only true for the last few pages of text. The Mac often has to convert what is doing from quickdraw, or a rasterized bit plane to postscript anyway. Finally, it ships it to the printer, and waits for it to get there. Curiously, for the NeXT machine, it is more true. The OS there is a true multuser OS. Time spent degrades the performance of the rest of the machine (potentially, the network). In a workstation environment (a Mac or NeXT, but not here at the office), the CPU is idle most of the time (otherwise it is not a very good workstation), and so you may as well let it be *able* to do something now and then. One could make a strong argument that a good workstation is one that is able to do lots of stuff, but never seems to spend any time doing anything. I haven't been following the industry too closely, but I'd probably pay real money (but not too much) for a postscript system that will run on my Mac that will talk to my PLP. Now that it has been done for the NeXT machine, it should be easier. I think, though, I'll work on making quickdraw act like it really knows the PLP (at 300 dpi for everything), and devise some scheme for transfering tiny ASCII based text+graphics files around such that they can be used on a variety of machines (host type + printer type) for a variety of applications (including real word processing). Stephen.
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (10/19/88)
In article <15478@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> 128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) writes: > >-> What's the catch? <- >After being used to Apple's prices, the $6500 for the machine, monitor, >optical drive, keyboard, etc., sounds like a BARGAIN, especially with the >inflated RAM prices. (I realize this is not street price, but a sort of >"consortium" price. Even so...) And how can he possibly sell a 400 DPI >laser printer for $2000? I hope there's no law against dumping laser printers >below cost... Easy. A 400 DPI laser printer for $2000. 300 DPI printers can be had for less than $2000. The catch? You can't buy a PostScript printer for that cheap. With the NeXT computer, you don't need one. Display PostScript has the postscript already done. Imagine plugging in a GCC printer into your Mac for $1700 and getting PostScript with programs like CricketDraw, Illustrator, Freehand, etc. Ken Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP/ Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | INTERNET: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
casseres@Apple.COM (David Casseres) (10/20/88)
In article <9599@haddock.ima.isc.com> suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com (Steve Uitti) writes: > For the Mac II, I have the General Computer Personal Laser >Printer (PLP). As with the Apple Laserwriter IISC, it connects to the >computer via SCSI. There is a processor in the laser printer, but it >does not interpret Postscript (or anything else remotely complicated). >It does have some memory, but I don't believe it has enough for >anything like a page of bits (about a Megabyte is required). As far >as I can tell, the host rasterizes the stuff & sends it to the >printer. SCSI, the printer's CPU, and the Mac are quick enough to get >the data to the drum so that it is not slower than having a CPU & RAM >inside the printer. For comparison, the LaserWriter IISC does have a MByte of RAM for a page buffer. Contrary to your last statement, for comparable modes of printing the LaserWriter IISC is faster than the PLP -- unless you have some version or configuration of the PLP that I haven't seen. The PLP software uses the disk as a buffer for the bitmap data to be printed, and this slows it down. > The advantages of Postscript (or some sort of language) in the >printer are: >1. The data sent to the printer is smaller. Correct as long as the original data is not a bitmap. >2. The host doesn't have to rasterize the document. > The advantages of having the host do it are: >1. If there is a bug in the language, it can be fixed (it is just > software). >2. More than one language can be supported (it is just software). >3. It is cheaper. A PLP goes for around $2K. A Laserwriter Plus is $3.5K. All true. > One argument goes that having the smarts in the printer allows >the host to go on working while the printer prints, thus freeing the >host. For the Mac, this isn't generally true.... >... Curiously, for the NeXT machine, it is more true. The OS >there is a true multuser OS. Time spent degrades the performance of >the rest of the machine (potentially, the network). But actually it is true for the Mac, even without using a print server on the net, if you print in the background under MultiFinder with the LaserWriter. There is only a small degradation of foreground performance while printing. The time spent in spooling the print job in the foreground is very short for most documents and most applications. David Casseres
twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (10/20/88)
I haven't seen anyone mention the joke NeXT has been playing on the world. For the last couple of years people have been trying to get a look at the NeXT computer to see what it would look like. There have been screens of speculation. Stories were told about people who were interviewing for jobs at NeXT. How when they walked down hallways, someone went ahead shutting doors so that the applicant would not see a NeXT machine and tell the world what it looked like. Anyone notice the NeXT logo??? The company name written on top of their CPU box. It has been sitting in front of us for years. TeriAnn