gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (10/17/90)
In article <33530@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Marc Barrett <WHE46@ccvax.iastate.edu> writes: |> Hopefully the new introductions by Apple will be just what is |> needed to kick Commodore in the ass and get them to start producing |> a low-cost Amiga system with decent color capability. Probably not, |> though. Commodore seems stubborn about color: they will go out of |> business before they improve it. I agree here, although I must point out that Commodore is doing all that they can. They are doing "all the right moves". Sadly, they are just too far behind. Another machine to really look out for is the new NeXT systems. These machines kick ass. The low cost system is beautiful: 4 grey scale megapixel display, 100 meg drive (far too small of course, but you can add more 8-), 8 megs RAM, and NeXTStep, all for a pittance. The color system is more expensive, but is worth it. All of these machines have the ultimate GUI. Forget Finder and Intuition, NeXTStep is simply beautiful. The only thing that is comparable is Open Look and NeWS. I used some NeXTs when they first came out (actually a little before they first came out), and there was no software available for it. Now, things have changed, there IS software available for it, and furthermore the Interface Builder is sooooo easy to work with. You can have programs up and running in no time flat. |> Sure, you can get fancy color cards for the Amiga that give you |> 24-bit color, but they are totally non-standard, work with very |> little software, and cost extra. The point of the two new color |> MAC systems is that they give you better color capability than an |> Amiga as standard hardware for a decent price, something that the |> Amiga can no longer offer. I hope that Commodore has something to show that will make all things switch around. I am going to be getting a system within a year or so, and if Commodore has something with a megapixel color display, device independent graphics, UNIX, etc, then I will possibly buy it. The idea is, I'm going to try to get the most computer for my buck (and right now, it just doesn't deliver adequate performance). See ya, Ralph PS- Please send flames (and I know that there's gonna be a lot of them), to me via email, only post if it benefits the net. gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | "You mean THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?" 536 South Forest | Apartment 915 | "No. Haven't you heard, I come in six packs!" Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | (313) 662-4805
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/18/90)
In <6823@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Oct16.200318.28393@engin.umich.edu> gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: >> beautiful. The only thing that is comparable is Open Look and >> NeWS. > >Open Look? Barf. > >Open Look is just a style guide. It does nothing to solve the programming >problem. NeWS is dead: Sun just plain dropped the ball by being greedy: if >they'd given it away they'd have a home-team advantage now. What's the >status of Display Postscript (the NeWS lookalike NeXT uses)? If they gave it away? Let's see, the full spec was published and available, and folks were encouraged to write their own implementations. Sun's source code was available at a reasonable price (don't recall numbers), and you could buy NeWS for the Sun for about $150 (that's in Northern Pesos, so US price was less). That $150 bought you the Media, software, extensive docs, and 'right to use' license. Greedy? Hardly. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct16.200318.28393@engin.umich.edu> gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: > beautiful. The only thing that is comparable is Open Look and > NeWS. Open Look? Barf. Open Look is just a style guide. It does nothing to solve the programming problem. NeWS is dead: Sun just plain dropped the ball by being greedy: if they'd given it away they'd have a home-team advantage now. What's the status of Display Postscript (the NeWS lookalike NeXT uses)? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/19/90)
In <9948@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>, msawyer@hokulea.hig.hawaii.edu (Michael Sawyer (REU)) writes: >In article <2138@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > >>available at a reasonable price (don't recall numbers), and you could buy NeWS >>for the Sun for about $150 (that's in Northern Pesos, so US price was less). >>That $150 bought you the Media, software, extensive docs, and 'right to use' >>license. Greedy? Hardly. > >But the software was a dog... I had to spend some time using NeWS for >to run a few `minor' programs, and and it was terrible to work with. >The user interface was OK (better than SunView, I will admit), but I >must have found 100 bugs in the system. This is true, and it was the reason X 'won' the market, (as opposed to 'greed' on Sun's part). >Much better is their new OpenLook stuff (which incorporates NeWS as >well). The NeWS in this version seems to have the bugs fixed, and >doesn't force you to use the NeWS terminal windows. (Which if you >make small, the text size gets small, still 80 col by 24 lines...) Well, to each his own. I use OpenLook every day, and am not overly thrilled with it. Yes, it is based in NeWS, but it has a lot of X-isms (implemented in NeWS, which says a fair bit about the power of NeWS itself). >Although I am not sure exactly we got on this topic in c.s.a.t, but I >will say that overall I have liked OpenLook better than the Amiga >windowing system. I have only played with the 2.0 windows a little >bit (too busy with other stuff to mess with that). I think all the GUIs can learn a little from each other. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
msawyer@hokulea.hig.hawaii.edu (Michael Sawyer (REU)) (10/20/90)
In article <2138@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >available at a reasonable price (don't recall numbers), and you could buy NeWS >for the Sun for about $150 (that's in Northern Pesos, so US price was less). >That $150 bought you the Media, software, extensive docs, and 'right to use' >license. Greedy? Hardly. But the software was a dog... I had to spend some time using NeWS for to run a few `minor' programs, and and it was terrible to work with. The user interface was OK (better than SunView, I will admit), but I must have found 100 bugs in the system. Much better is their new OpenLook stuff (which incorporates NeWS as well). The NeWS in this version seems to have the bugs fixed, and doesn't force you to use the NeWS terminal windows. (Which if you make small, the text size gets small, still 80 col by 24 lines...) Although I am not sure exactly we got on this topic in c.s.a.t, but I will say that overall I have liked OpenLook better than the Amiga windowing system. I have only played with the 2.0 windows a little bit (too busy with other stuff to mess with that). --- return mail to: msawyer@io.soest.hawaii.edu Michael Sawyer, Univ of Hawaii Physical Oceanography (They don't even know I am using rn, so I sure don't speak for UH!)