[comp.sys.next] NeXT in June issue of BYTE

barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (05/27/91)

NeXT makes a big appearance in the latest (June 1991) BYTE 
magazine.

First, they have a nice pic of Steve Jobs in the "News"
column, announcing the receent good sales figures.

Then, they have a big article comparing the major GUI's,
in which NeXTStep is presented quite favorably (compared
to Windows, Mac, OS/2, GeoWorks, Amiga, Motif and Open Look).
Of course, these GUI's are very different, and the purpose of
the article is to informally compare them on a variety of aspects
(user issues, networkability,
developer issues, apps available, resource requirements, etc).
The author doesn't go so far as to pick a ``winner'', but
its clear that, other issues aside, he feels NeXTStep is the
superior GUI (which would be difficult not to conclude, given
all the industry awards its won, compared to none for the others).
His recommendation is that those not already
tied to a machine, or who want a GUI for unix, seriously
check out NeXT. The only downside mentioned for NeXTStep (aside from
it running only on NeXT and IBM RS/6000) is the lack of apps---but
the author correctly points out that the Apps that do exist 
are all true NeXTStep apps (making full use of the NeXTStep 
toolkits), unlike many of the Apps for Motif, Open Look,etc.

Finally, there is the long awaited BYTE review of NeXTStation,
which is very positive. It blows away 386 and 486 boxes
on BYTE's benchmarks, as well as the Mac fx and Sun IPC. The author 
doesn't even bother to make a detailed price comparison to 
other comparable machines, becasue he does some
rough calculations that show similarly functional Mac, PC, or Sparc
would cost at least twice as much (list prices). The overall tone
of the article is that NeXT has made up for the sins of
the original cube, and that there is no comparable 
buy in the high end PC or low end workstation market.

So, finally NeXT gets some good PR from BYTE
(which normally writes as if an "ALR FlexCache 486" PC clone were the 
state of the art in computers)---that should make a bit of bump
in their already healthy sales figures.

PS: The lead story in the News column is on the ACE Consortium,
which consists of Microsoft, a bunch of PC cloners, and DEC,
and whose stated goal is to define an Industry Standard Workstation,
in order to ease future networking and software engineeering.
Since MicroSoft is one of the leaders, its no surprise that 
the standard CPUs have been chosen as Intel 386/486/...(hey, quit 
laughing :-) and MIPS 64 bit RISC chips (a thankful DEC influence).
Their standard OS's include SCO UNIX, and, I think, Sys V (?).
But, on to the punchline: one of the key networking 
issues they want to address is easy networking of their workstations
with machines running DOS, Windows and OS/2! (ha, ha, ha, .... :-)

I think I once had a nightmare about such a network :-)

O' Brave New Workstation! :-)

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)

gillham@andrews.edu (Andrew Gillham) (05/27/91)

In article <1991May27.033207.28372@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>NeXT makes a big appearance in the latest (June 1991) BYTE 
>magazine.
>
>First, they have a nice pic of Steve Jobs in the "News"
>column, announcing the receent good sales figures.
[.. interesting stuff deleted ..]

>So, finally NeXT gets some good PR from BYTE
>(which normally writes as if an "ALR FlexCache 486" PC clone were the 
>state of the art in computers)---that should make a bit of bump
>in their already healthy sales figures.


Some magazine (info-world, pc-week?)  was discussing the next on the back page.
They started out discussing a (forbes?) article that mentioned the higher 
volumes of Next and attributed most of them to Upgrade boards and heavily
discounted educational and developer sales.
The (info-world or pc-week) article went on to say some good things about the
next and such..


-Andrew
--
===========================================================================
Andrew Gillham          
Andrews University      
(gillham@andrews.edu)   

crum@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) (05/28/91)

In article <1991May27.033207.28372@math.ucla.edu> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> PS: The lead story in the News column is on the ACE Consortium,
> which consists of Microsoft, a bunch of PC cloners, and DEC,
> and whose stated goal is to define an Industry Standard Workstation,
> in order to ease future networking and software engineeering.

Here's the ACE member to watch:  Silicon Graphics.  (That name used to
be spelled SiliconGraphics, without the space.)

In my opinion, computers from NeXT and SiliconGraphics and the companies
themselves are similar in many high-level ways.  Both offer powerful
and elegant platforms which are particularly good for developers
(including science research groups not developing applications to sell).

And, both Steve Jobs and Jim Clark seem to have the vision of making
new types of technology very accessible.

Both NeXT and Silicon Graphics seem to be ready to introduce
multiprocessing in relatively low-end systems ($3,000 - $10,000)
within a year -- multiprocessing with a UNIX-like system call
interfaces for controlling multiple processors, that is.  The Silicon
Graphics operating system, IRIX, currently runs on multiprocessor
systems (up to 8 processors) that cost around $100,000.  NeXT Mach is
probably not too far behind IRIX even though NeXT does not currently
support a multiprocessor configuration.  Other companies (BBN,
Encore?) have used Mach for multiprocessor UNIX-like systems.  Does
anyone know of other companies is as good positions as NeXT and
Silicon Graphics to offer multiprocessor systems (with a single system
call interface for all processors) for particularly low prices?  Are
some already available?

Gary

waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (05/28/91)

In article <1991May27.033207.28372@math.ucla.edu>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu 
(Barry Merriman) writes:
	[...interesting material about BYTE reviews of NeXTstation, NeXTstep
		deleted (yea, BYTE!)...]
> 
> PS: The lead story in the News column is on the ACE Consortium,
> which consists of Microsoft, a bunch of PC cloners, and DEC,
> and whose stated goal is to define an Industry Standard Workstation,
> in order to ease future networking and software engineeering.
> Since MicroSoft is one of the leaders, its no surprise that 
> the standard CPUs have been chosen as Intel 386/486/...(hey, quit 
> laughing :-) and MIPS 64 bit RISC chips (a thankful DEC influence).
> Their standard OS's include SCO UNIX, and, I think, Sys V (?).
	I've posted some stuff about ACE consortium previously.  Their
	standard OS's include OS/2 with Windows 3.0 (for the Intel
	architectures) and SCO UNIX for the MIPS architecture.  Note, however,
	that the SCO UNIX is based on DEC's implementation of OSF/1 (which is
	based on Mach [version 2.5, I believe]).  I believe there are very
	strong reasons why this would be a good choice for NeXT as it will be
	a very easy platform to produce at low cost; will be possible to 
	leverage off of all of the work that will be done to produce the
	standard OS while permitting NeXT software engineers to concentrate on
	the things that make NeXT unique (DSP and NeXTstep, for instance).
> But, on to the punchline: one of the key networking 
> issues they want to address is easy networking of their workstations
> with machines running DOS, Windows and OS/2! (ha, ha, ha, .... :-)
> 
> I think I once had a nightmare about such a network :-)
	Well, UNIX networks ARE nicer, but LAN Manager has to be taken
	seriously as well.  So does OS/2 in its latest (and planned)
	incarnations (not all the smart people are working for Steve Jobs, you
	know; for instance, you're not and I'm not ;^)  In fact, so long as
	you're not the poor soul who has to develop applications for it,
	there's really nothing terribly wrong with Window on OS/2 on a 486
	platform (and even the development environment's improving with third
	party tools continually being offered).  So while the NeXT's better in
	our opinion, the other people ain't standin' still either.  Given
	NeXT's limited resources, I hope they find a way to concentrate on the
	things that them better.  Joining the ACE consortium and adopting the
	MIPS architecture and the OSF/1 implementation might be a way to
	accomplish this.  If the ACE consortium is committed to Mach 3.0 (no
	AT&T kernel code) and to real-time and multi-processor implementations,
	it looks like it would be irresistible.  These things aren't NeXTstep
	so why should NeXT waste resources working on them?


c.f.waltrip

Internet:	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.

thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/30/91)

Barry Merriman writes
  
  NeXT makes a big appearance in the latest (June 1991) BYTE magazine.

  So, finally NeXT gets some good PR from BYTE (which normally writes
  as if an "ALR FlexCache 486" PC clone were the state of the art in
  computers)---that should make a bit of bump in their already healthy
  sales figures.

It is good to see some reasonably good press for NeXT. That hack job
in Forbes last month was pitiful. However Forbes does not influence
as much 'conventional wisdom' as Byte, so let's us hope that the
balance is still slightly positive for NeXT.

Sales continue healthy says my contacts. NeXTstation Color is actually
selling neck and neck with NeXTstation. NeXTdimension is in the chute
and will boost sales again. Most people I talk to are glad of the NeXT
they bought (with nits), so the word of mouth seems positive.

Actually, sales as a rate (machines/month) have approached Sun's rate
in late '86, early '87. I wonder of the acceleration is closing. I have
noticed that my local Sun rep is paying much closer attention to our
NeXTs, what we are doing with them, and why we buy them instead of
Sun. (TRW was reputed to be the #1 sales channel a year or two ago
for Sun, so I can see why we might get attention now).

Gary L. Crum writes

  And, both Steve Jobs and Jim Clark seem to have the vision of
  making new types of technology very accessible.

Speaking of SGI and NeXT in the same breath, BTW, reminds me that
Norm Miller was the key engineer in SGI's Personal Iris design and
early NeXTdimension work (circa 1989). He deserves a round of
applause for two reasonably affordable color systems with good
dimensions (pixels, bits per pixel), together with the other
engineers who made vision into something we can buy. There is not
much offering as much as SGI and NeXT for the price (though NeXT
has it all over in software on top of the OS).

Mark R. Thomsen

edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) (05/31/91)

Gary L. Crum writes:
>
>Does
>anyone know of other companies is as good positions as NeXT and
>Silicon Graphics to offer multiprocessor systems (with a single system
>call interface for all processors) for particularly low prices?  Are
>some already available?

Competitive with Silicon Graphics in multiprocessor systems today (in
the mid-priced range) are a bunch of companies, including NCR and
Data General. There are also a number of "super-microcomputers" that
first came out three years ago, such as the Stardent and Apollo (now
HP/Apollo) DN-100x0 in the $70k+ range. 

There are are also a number of non-symmetric multiprocessor
machines available, the best-selling one probably being the Compaq
SystemPro. 

There are two standardization efforts for multiprocessing Unix: Unix
Systems Labs/Unix International and Open Software Foundation. The
former is based upon Unix v4, the latter upon Mach 3.

I am not aware of any machines with symmetric multiprocessing that
are available in the $10,000 price range. There are a number of
challenges in making symmetric multiprocessing hardware perform
well (alternatively the issue might be regarded as a compiler and
scheduler optimization problem) without resorting to sophisticated
(and often expensive) memory, interrupt, etc. architectures.

For this reason the low-end machines are generally fast uniprocessors,
or have multiprocessors that are assymmetric (sound, graphics, etc.).

--
Edward Jung
Microsoft Corp.

My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.