jack@umbc4.umbc.edu (Jack Suess) (06/21/91)
As a owner of a NeXT machine I am hopeful that the company remains in bussiness. The discussion of the NeXT as a Vanilla Unix box and how Next markets (so to speak) the machine has made me think about where NeXT fits in on our campus. I believe that next should target the machine as a personal productivity machine aimed at users presently considering the purchase of X-terms. With the release of the latest generation of machines (i.e HP snake, RS/6000, R4000), CPU cycles are quite abundant. We find that many researchers buy one of the above beasts as a computation server but then look at having a X-term or MAC in their office. Most users at our campus want an easy to use machine that has a good word processor and graphics package that also allows them to run applications on their computation server. The Mac offers good word processing and graphics capabilities and bundled with Mac/X offers access, albeit poor, to the X applications being run on the computation server. An Xterm provides good X access to the server but forces the user to rely on standard Unix tools for personal productivity. The NeXT can provide both X-access and good word processing. The neXT is much more cost effective than a comparable Mac II and Academic prices place the 105MB NeXt within shooting distance of good X-term. The flaw in this marketing niche is the reluctance on NeXT to openly accept the fact that the X-protocol is really the key to open systems. I am not recommending that NeXT forego the Nextstep environment but rather admit that X is important in an open systems environment and ship an App that supports an X-server within the Nextstep environment. This could be NeXt's own product or one such as co-Xist. Until NeXT itself states that X is important and NeXT is committed to providing users with a means of supporting X, users will be leery to purchase a NeXT in place of an X-term. I have seen pencom's product and it is a good product. In fact I am ordering it for the Next I am getting at work; however, I would feel much better if X support came with every NeXT. In a distributed computing model I need at least two things from every desktop device, TCP/IP and X. NeXT's acknowledgment of the importance of X would assure me they would do nothing to jepordize the support for X, such as release version 3.0 with changes to Nextstep that break Pencom's product. I realize I am probably paranoid, but do others share my paranoia? jack suess Assistant Director, UMBC Academic Computing -- Jack Suess UMBC Academic Computing Internet: Jack@umbc5.umbc.edu Standard Disclaimer: Bitnet: Jack@umbc The opinions expressed above are mine and ATT: 301.455.2582 not my employers.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.025728.2044@umbc3.umbc.edu> jack@umbc4.umbc.edu (Jack Suess) writes:
[recommends NeXT over xterminals]
The idea of a NeXT as an X-terminal replacement with good elementary
capabilities, user friendly interface,etc...is very discouraging. First
of all, we can get X-terminals for 1/2 the cost of a NeXT. Secondly,
while X currently has become a standard, it is hardly an elegant one. It
appears to have won out more by default than anything else. If X is the
final answer, I think I'll go back to my slide ruler.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.utoronto.ca
[my opinions,etc...]nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk (Nigel Metheringham) (06/21/91)
In <1991Jun21.061143.16495@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <1991Jun21.025728.2044@umbc3.umbc.edu> jack@umbc4.umbc.edu (Jack Suess) writes: >[recommends NeXT over xterminals] >The idea of a NeXT as an X-terminal replacement with good elementary >capabilities, user friendly interface,etc...is very discouraging. First >of all, we can get X-terminals for 1/2 the cost of a NeXT. Secondly, >while X currently has become a standard, it is hardly an elegant one. It >appears to have won out more by default than anything else. If X is the >final answer, I think I'll go back to my slide ruler. I agree. We bought our original NeXTs at least partly because we could see that some people had put X onto them. So far we haven't seen the nedd to get the X stuff and I hope we don't have to (I will eventually be forced to get X since I have to support Suns that do use it). X is a standard. Unfortunately it is an awful standard (a bit like the horse designed by comittee). We're stuck with it, but there's no need to encourage it. Nigel. -- # Nigel Metheringham # (NeXT) EMail: nigelm@ohm.york.ac.uk # # System Administrator ####### Phone: +44 904 432374 # # Department of Electronics # Fax: +44 904 432335 # # University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO1 5DD #
ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu (Ernest Prabhakar) (06/22/91)
Philip McDunnough writes > > The idea of a NeXT as an X-terminal replacement with good elementary > capabilities, user friendly interface,etc...is very discouraging. I agree with your point, but disagree with your conclusion. The long term goal is, of course, for everyone to run Display PostScript and NeXTStep so we can send them our pictures in NeXTMail, no? ;-) However, the short term goal is to get NeXTs out into the marketplace where people can see them and realize what awesome machines they are (and also keep money flowing to Steven so the NeXT isn't orphaned :-}. The way I am trying to convince our purchaser to buy a NeXT is precisely that: as an X-terminal. True, it is more expensive than your average X-term, but not a whole lot (depending on your vendor, of course). It also doesn't eat up CPU cycles on the server and network bandwidth the way a 'dumb' X-term would do. Plus there is enough curiosity about the NeXT to possibly justify the extra cost versus an X-term, even though there isn't enough to justify purchasing one on its own merits :-(. Of course, this would all be academic if we could run NeXTStep on our IBM RS/6000s. Sigh. Someday, perhaps. This way, NeXTs can sneak in through the 'back door', but then people would find out all the neat stuff they could do with a NeXT, and X-terms would be as passe as VT240s. Fortunately, I do believe NeXT is realizing this. There is a white paper called "NeXT and Open System Standards" where they brag about X compatibility, so it is pretty clear they are not unaware of this marketing point. So yeah, running X on a NeXT is a bit humiliating, but if that's what it takes to gain a toehold in a lab, I'm willing to bite the bullet. -- Ernie P. -- Ernest N. Prabhakar Caltech High Energy Physics CaJUN President NeXTMail:ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu "...and ourselves, your servants for Jesus sake." - II Cor 5:13a
billb@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Bill Burris) (06/29/91)
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: > In article <1991Jun21.025728.2044@umbc3.umbc.edu> jack@umbc4.umbc.edu (Jack S > > appears to have won out more by default than anything else. If X is the > final answer, I think I'll go back to my slide ruler. > NeXT should support X, to convince X users to swith to NeXT and also to provide support for using the other machines which we have on our local networks. The best solution would be for NeXT to develope, or licence NeXTStep terminal emulation software so that we can use our Suns, Decstations, 386, 486, etc machinces as terminal for our NeXT machines. Bill Burris Edmonton Alberta Bill Burris billb@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982