tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) (06/19/91)
One of the reasons I bought an "old" cube was because it came with ACL. I have no problem generally being patient. Even waiting many months for my upgrade wasn't that taxing. My system worked, everything was fine, the board would arrive when it arrived. But I *need* my ACL upgrade. I'm glad I didn't base my product on NeXT-ACL, or I'd have been up the creek. Still, I have a fair investment in Lisp code. And now that I have my 68040, I can't run ACL at all. I'm fairly sure I recall Franz Inc. announcing that they released the 68040 3.1 upgrade last April, yet when I call NeXT, they say they're not expecting to receive the ACL upgrade until July. My understanding was that Franz was releasing the 4.0 ACL release in July. This isn't part of the free upgrade, but is a $375 upgrade to their new version which supports native CLOS. So either I misunderstood the announcement of 3.1 68040 availability last April (or imagined it), or NeXT is confused. I may eventually shell out for the ACL 4.0 release. But it isn't what I need now. All I need is my basic 3.1 CLTL Common Lisp. And no, Kyoto Common Lisp is not an acceptable substitute. If the delay is on the part of Franz, Inc, this reflects poorly on them. If not, then it reflects poorly on NeXT. In general I've had largely positive experiences with Businessland and NeXT. But on this Lisp issue, my patience is wearing very thin. Please, where is my upgrade? Dave
anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) (06/19/91)
Whether the delay owners of updated cubes are experiencing in getting a working version of ACL is the fault of Franz or of NeXT, I don't know. But the problem isn't with the code: there is a version of ACL 3.1 that runs on the '040. I received it a couple of months ago. I didn't get it from NeXT, though, but from Franz. When placing an order with Franz for ACL for my office Suns, I included a year's `maintenance' for ACL on my home cube, and that's how I got it. I think it's inexcusable that copies of this haven't gotten from Franz to NeXT and from there to owners of upgraded old cubes. Like Dave Tenny, I originally bought my cube in part because of ACL, and the fact that the upgrade broke ACL ought to have been remedied as quickly as possible. But whether it's Franz or NeXT that shouldn't be excused isn't clear (to me, at least). Maybe NeXT hasn't shelled out for maintenance yet, and they don't have a copy of their own.... --Steve Anderson
mdixon@parc.xerox.com (Mike Dixon) (06/19/91)
i looked into this a little while ago and got the following explanation:
a) franz has given ACL 3.1 to NeXT for distribution
b) next will, as promised, send it out to people who upgraded
c) unfortunately, they will distribute it with the upgrade to mathematica,
which is not yet complete
sounds pretty stupid to me too. i guess they want to save themselves
the cost of a second OD. if this is all accurate, your lisp upgrade
will have to wait until the mathematica people get their act together.
--
.mike.lacsap@media.mit.edu (Pascal Chesnais) (06/19/91)
Everytime I call the 800 number I ask about it, they say that they are waiting for Mathematica to be ready in order to send out only one upgrade package. Franz has sent their updated software to NeXT, and NeXT will release it when everything is ready (sybase+acl+mathematica). If you object to this practice, let your local NeXT sales office know, and they can communicate it through the proper channels. BTW that is the NeXT accepted way of filing complaints. Posting these gripes to c.s.n. does not really help expedite things. -- Pascal Chesnais, Research Specialist, Electronic Publishing Group Media Laboratory, E15-351, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Ma, 02139 (617) 253-0311 email: lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (NeXT)
eckel@ircam.fr (Gerhard Eckel) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.121755.27992@engage.pko.dec.com> tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) writes: [... stuff deleted ...] > I may eventually shell out for the ACL 4.0 release. But it isn't what I need > now. All I need is my basic 3.1 CLTL Common Lisp. And no, Kyoto Common Lisp > is not an acceptable substitute. > [... stuff deleted ...] Just out of curiosity, why is KCL not an acceptable substitute? I never worked seriously with any (ACL & KCL) of them but I might in the future. Could somebody point out the differences for me? Thank you in advance! Gerhard Eckel IRCAM, Paris eckel@ircam.fr
tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.162549.3917@news.media.mit.edu>, lacsap@media.mit.edu (Pascal Chesnais) writes... >If you object to this practice, let your local NeXT sales office know, >and they can communicate it through the proper channels. BTW that is the >NeXT accepted way of filing complaints. Posting these gripes to c.s.n. >does not really help expedite things. That's constructive input. I'm guilty of using this conference as the "place of last resort" to air this particular gripe. I'm hoping NeXT people read it and take it for what it is, a reasonable request from a patient person, and that maybe they can effect some change. Unfortunately, my "local NeXT sales office", which *was* Businessland, is no longer associated with NeXT. So complaining to my sales rep isn't likely to do me any good at all. The situation merely contributes to the helplessness I feel in waiting for my upgrades. Dave