tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) (02/05/91)
This probably isn't the most unbiased place in the world to ask this
question, but I have to start somewhere. I currently have a Mac II
and have been sorely tempted to sell it in favor of a NeXTstation Color.
As I see it, here are the pros and cons:
Pros:
Mind-numbingly fast (compared to my Mac)
Much better screen resolution and color depth
Full unix system
Wondrous development system (altho Mac ain't bad either)
"Interpersonal" aspects, ie. the connectivity plug
Cons:
Giving up my large software base.
Possible lack of support
"Interpersonal" aspects: I'll be using it from home, so will I even
be able to use the wonderful mail and what-not via modem?
Full unix system: my current workstation (at school) is a Silicon
Graphics Iris, and it's friendly (somwhat) but still a pain. Is the
NeXTStep front-end to unix more substantial than what exists for the
Iris?
As for bang for the buck, it's hard to beat these new NeXTs. I'd really
have to have some of my "cons" fears assuaged, though, before taking the
plunge.
Addendum to the first Con: Giving up my large software base. Even
if the NeXt software arena blooms beautifully, will the prices be
exorbinantly high for a home user such as myself, since the NeXT has been
targetted towards "grant-rich" academia?
I'm anxious to hear any and all comments, including any hearty cries of
"Don't sell your Mac!!" Please, though, no "Ditch the Macintoy, dude.
It sux. NeXT rox" kind of remarks.
Tobmrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (02/06/91)
It's a tough question to answer.
It is not likely that there will ever be much of a third-party
software market for the NeXT. It's too much of a fringe market, and
likely to remain that way. The proprietary status of NeXTstep and the
limited platforms on which it is available scares many vendors away.
We're seeing this now.
There are, however, some dedicated vendors in the NeXT market who are
producing good work. If you like their products, you win; on the
other hand if you don't you can't go to their competition.
I do not believe the NeXT will ever match the PC in the marketplace.
It may, in time, match the Mac; but I consider this optimistic.
Questions remain about the long-term prospects of NeXT the company.
Although the circumstances of NeXT's management makes it freer to
explore new innovations, it also makes it less sensitive to market
considerations. The pragmatism in abandoning the late unlamented
optical disk is encouraging; however this must be muted by the
excessive PC mentality being exhibited. Be wary of the attitude that
the vendor knows more about what the customer needs than the customer
does.
If compatibility with your work environment is important, you should
talk with your management about their long-term plans for the NeXT
platform. The odds are that they are adopting a "wait and see"
attitude. If the Pencomm (or other) X support fails to work out, we
may see early retirement for the NeXTs here. That in itself won't
break (or make) NeXT, but that scenario played out at enough other
sites can cause a difference.
A lot also depends how well you can tolerate the worst case. If NeXT
the company went away, or if release 3.0 turned out to be totally
unacceptable for your use, would you still be able to use what you
have now? It is still a 68040 engine which is a reasonable hardware
platform. It runs a reasonably modern clone of Unix which should be a
viable enough software platform long after the hardware has ceased to
be interesting.
Remember: Computer ownership is not for the faint of heart. The
baseline monochrome loss-leader system, it is only 3 grand at academic
pricing. It is difficult to go wrong at that low a price. You'll
have to judge for yourself on the color system.
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
_|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?"
|_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin."
--|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin."
/|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin."
/ | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!"
Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/06/91)
In <15875@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >It is not likely that there will ever be much of a third-party >software market for the NeXT. It's too much of a fringe market, and >likely to remain that way. The proprietary status of NeXTstep and the >limited platforms on which it is available scares many vendors away. >We're seeing this now. This is true of every new computer produced. If by "proprietary" you mean "Not the world's biggest keenest standard, like UNIX and X. No one will write software unless it's for UNIX and X." Then try to substitute in: "The proprietary status of AmigaDOS..." (2 million sold so far) "The proprietary status of Macintosh..."(bazillions sold so far) "The proprietary status of SunTools..." (which is what my copy of Frame runs under. Lots sold) "The proprietary status of MS-DOS..." (Enormous amounts sold) "The proprietary status of Windows 3..." ('nuff said) "The proprietary status of MVS..." (too many sold) "The proprietary status of VMS..." (blah, blah) "The proprietary status of TENEX..." (Yes, Mark, TENEX) "The proprietary status of PostScript.." On the other hand, if by "proprietary" you mean something for which one can obtain the source, then I'll say it's already looking like getting source to NeXT's Mach will be simply a matter of paying a fee to NeXT. (disclaimer: For Universities/developers at least. I doubt home users will care). I don't know about NeXTStep at this point, but I'm still waiting for my commented source listing to MS-DOS. I hate this disassembly stuff. I can't think of a single innovative product in 'puterdom that didn't start out as part of the "fringe market." >There are, however, some dedicated vendors in the NeXT market who are >producing good work. If you like their products, you win; on the >other hand if you don't you can't go to their competition. Not yet. This is a standard and well-understood aspect of a general product's development. Luckily all of the NeXT third-party products so far have been of extremely high quality, so I haven't much wanted to go elsewhere. And I think that much of the system software can take the credit for the calibre of what the third parties have been turning out. >I do not believe the NeXT will ever match the PC in the marketplace. >It may, in time, match the Mac; but I consider this optimistic. If it ever gets close to matching the Mac I'll consider it a runaway success. No one can argue that the Mac has not become one of the single most successful computer products ever developed. I think NeXT has a good chance to be as successful. >Questions remain about the long-term prospects of NeXT the company. >Although the circumstances of NeXT's management makes it freer to >explore new innovations, it also makes it less sensitive to market >considerations. The pragmatism in abandoning the late unlamented >optical disk is encouraging; however this must be muted by the >excessive PC mentality being exhibited. Be wary of the attitude that >the vendor knows more about what the customer needs than the customer >does. If you're implying that NeXT may fold don't hold your breath. Jobs was extremely clever when it came to capitalization of his company. They've got the bucks to ride out the teething years. And I hate the damn floppy drive. The optical disk certainly had reliability problems, but one OD (even at $150 a pop) is a hell of a lot more pleasant to deal with than 50-100 goddamn beer-covered floppies. And, it looked like software companies were beginning to get around the cost consideration with ODs by allowing customers to send theirs in and have whatever software implanted on them - avoiding media costs. >If compatibility with your work environment is important, you should >talk with your management about their long-term plans for the NeXT >platform. The odds are that they are adopting a "wait and see" >attitude. If the Pencomm (or other) X support fails to work out, we >may see early retirement for the NeXTs here. That in itself won't >break (or make) NeXT, but that scenario played out at enough other >sites can cause a difference. Mark, you place far too much importance on the compatibility issue. The real issue is buying a machine that gets the job done. Here we have a couple of Ardent Titans (talk about company viability questions - and these babies cost around $200K each) and some Silicon Graphics machines. In both cases they're running SysV with supposed "Berkeley" enhancements. The enhancements don't work too well, X11 on the Titans is flakey as they come and the SGI doesn't even run X. Yet the machines are in use 18 hours a day. I just don't get it. The NeXT station, at academic pricing of about $3K is an unbeatable value. If I had the money to spend I would buy a NeXT station color today over a Mac (for the same price) or any other "personal" computer. Thank God they bought me one at work (and a NeXTDimension at that!). >Remember: Computer ownership is not for the faint of heart. The >baseline monochrome loss-leader system, it is only 3 grand at academic >pricing. It is difficult to go wrong at that low a price. You'll >have to judge for yourself on the color system. Absolutely right Mark. And NeXT has taken much of the risk out of what is traditionally a very risky purchase with a product line that's unbeatable. From $3K to $20K, the same software, the same system. Pay what you can afford and you always get a great deal. The only tradeoff is color performance and expandability. The former is of no concern to a large segment and the latter didn't hurt the original Mac much. And NeXT at least gives you a choice. > _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" [a megabyte or two of .sig deleted] -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications Disclaimer: I heart hate email.
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (02/06/91)
In article <10509@cica.cica.indiana.edu> greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: >If by "proprietary" you >mean "Not the world's biggest keenest standard, like UNIX and X. No one >will write software unless it's for UNIX and X." I don't think either UNIX or X are "keen". But they are there, and are undeniably the path on which academic computing is heading. By "proprietary", I mean in the usual industry use of the word, "proprietary to a particular hardware vendor." >Then try to substitute in: AmigaDOS How many universities or corporations have standardized on AmigaDOS? >Macintosh An OK example, but Macintosh would have eliminated MS-DOS if Apple hadn't been so insistant on preventing a clone market from developing and in charging such exhorbitant prices. >SunTools Dying in favor of X11. >MS-DOS >Windows 3 >PostScript Available on zillions of different hardware platforms. >MVS Got its market share years ago, before the issue came up. >VMS Your one good example. But one on which the writing is on the wall. >TENEX Uh uh. TOPS-20 yes; but Tenex was paid for by the US Government. The TOPS-20 debacle was a major lesson as to why proprietary operating systems were a lose. >If you're implying that NeXT may fold don't hold your breath. I think it is still 50-50. The next couple of years will be critical. >you place far too much importance on the compatibility issue. Which compatibility issue? A box in a distributed systems environment should be compatible with the other boxes in that environment. You can judge for yourself what the compatibility issues are in an environment that is mostly UNIX/X. If you mean the home/work compatibility issue, every person has to judge for themselves. I develop software for a living. A box which is not compatible with my office environment isn't worth spending my money on. Other individuals may not have the same requirements; which is why I offered that as something to consider rather than an explicit requirement. _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" _|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?" |_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin." --|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin." /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/06/91)
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >I don't think either UNIX or X are "keen". But they are there, and >are undeniably the path on which academic computing is heading. This is not at all clear. I doubt anyone in our English department could describe what "X windows" means. UNIX, possibly. I will admit, much to my dismay, that a very good liberal-arts application, the Great American History Machine (GAHM), runs under X11. However, I don't think a few isolated examples can speak for the "undeniable path on which academic computing is heading." Hell, if you ask our computing center it's gonna be DESQview (I hope I got the spelling right)/Macintosh. >>Then try to substitute in: AmigaDOS >How many universities or corporations have standardized on AmigaDOS? I don't think this is germane. If I were a commercial software developer number of units sold functioned with ease of implementation would be my criteria for going with a particular platform. Implementing a nice text editor with NeXTStep/Interface Builder is fairly trivial so I might figure it's worth it even if I'll sell few. I gotta see a billion workstations running X before I'll get back into writing X code. I don't care "how many universities or corporations have standardized on <insert system here>" Two million is two million. And remember, in both this and the Macintosh case it was approximately five years from the initial offering to widespread popularity. >>Macintosh >An OK example, but Macintosh would have eliminated MS-DOS if Apple >hadn't been so insistant on preventing a clone market from developing >and in charging such exhorbitant prices. Yes, but as a result (rightly or wrongly) the Macintosh is viewed as a much more "sophisticated" computer. Also, remember that the IBM clones are based upon rogue BIOSs (Phoenix et. al) and sometimes altered system disks (a-la Zenith). IBMs BIOS and Microsoft's DOS are still proprietary. I will not deny that most of the "clone" software is of extremely high quality (Phoenix) but most conservative corporate elements still buy only IBM PCs running MS-DOS. Macintosh has none of the compatability problems that the PC world has had because they have maintained control of their product. Hell, hardware-wise it's just as easy to build a Mac or a NeXT (save for the latter's custom chips) as it is a PC clone. It's those darned ROMs that we really want. >>SunTools >Dying in favor of X11. As it should, but a lot of the reason for this is that SunTools is not based upon a client/server model. NextStep and X are. The point I was trying to make is that quite a number of companies developed good software for a very arcane (by today's standards) windowing system. >By "proprietary", I mean in the usual industry use of the word, >"proprietary to a particular hardware vendor." >>MS-DOS >>Windows 3 >>PostScript >Available on zillions of different hardware platforms. As long as they're 8086-type machines for the first two. Everybody's paying Adobe a license fee for every implementation for the last one. I can't think of a better example of "proprietary" than PostScript. And PostScript is so successful because it's just a darned good idea. Like NeXTStep. X isn't making any of the implementors rich. >>MVS >Got its market share years ago, before the issue came up. So what are you saying, that UNIX and X represent the end of the line as far as system/windowing software is concerned? No one will EVER develop a successful operating system again? >>VMS >Your one good example. But one on which the writing is on the wall. DEC is supposedly trying to port VMS to their/MIPS RISC machines. Disgusting as that may be, they obviously see money in it. >>TENEX >Uh uh. TOPS-20 yes; but Tenex was paid for by the US Government. The >TOPS-20 debacle was a major lesson as to why proprietary operating >systems were a lose. I think that limitations in the DEC-10/DECsystem-20 hardware had a lot more to do with the death of TENEX/TOPS-10/TOPS-20 than the fact that the OSs were "proprietary." >>If you're implying that NeXT may fold don't hold your breath. >I think it is still 50-50. The next couple of years will be critical. Obviously. They're still about three years away from the point at which most other computers (save the IBM PC, which was even more heavily capitalized) "made it." >>you place far too much importance on the compatibility issue. >Which compatibility issue? >A box in a distributed systems environment should be compatible with >the other boxes in that environment. You can judge for yourself what >the compatibility issues are in an environment that is mostly UNIX/X. NeXT runs Mach. One of the great things Mach does is emulate 4.3BSD extremely well. It "does UNIX" and doesn't carry around any of the conceptual baggage that current UNIXs suffer from, like lack of good multiprocessor support or support for lightweight processes. >If you mean the home/work compatibility issue, every person has to >judge for themselves. I develop software for a living. A box which >is not compatible with my office environment isn't worth spending my >money on. Other individuals may not have the same requirements; which >is why I offered that as something to consider rather than an explicit >requirement. My "office environment" consists of approximately four Sun workstations and servers, four NeXT machines, three PCs, a dozen Macs, two Stardent Titans, one IBM RT, three VAXs (one running VMS), various PostScript devices (laser and color), scanners, etc. They're all networked together and the NeXTs fit in very well, thank you, in a distributed environment consisting of shared mail/file servers/Appletalk servers. That's just in our department. They also work quite well with the University's other computers. > _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications Disclaimer: I heart hate email.
kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) (02/06/91)
Several points.
1) All the software that most people use is already on
the NeXT and it is typically the most advanced version.
WordProc. Frame and WordPerfect
Spreadsheet Lotus
Database Ingres and others
Graphics Abobe
Mail System stuff
Graphic Debugger Onyx
C++
emacs
etc
2) Compatability
With Wordperfect and Lotus and the IBM disk
drive your golden for most of what you would want to do.
3) Will NeXT survive?
Well, most kids (<16) use Macs today. In 10 years when they
are in college, they probably will not tolerate DOS, unix,
etc unless it is made much easier and more effective. NeXT
(like many others) has a chance to get this market.
NeXT has enough money and enough of a base (now with the
new machine) to last long enough for this market to arrive.
4) What made the Mac was PageMaker (ie DeskTop Publishing)
The NeXT is by far the best env. for Mathematica.
I'm betting Mathematica will make it ***very*** big over the next 20 years.
NeXT, if nothing else, could ride on the coat-tails.
pkocks%chemistry.stanford.edu@relay.cs.netsethross@well.sf.ca.us (Seth Ross) (02/06/91)
> "Interpersonal" aspects: I'll be using it from home, so will I even > be able to use the wonderful mail and what-not via modem? > Tob Yes. Set up a UUCP link. Tweek your etc/sendmail/sendmail.cf file. Launch NeXT Mail. Pay heed to Lip Service (TM). Click on the "Deliver" button ... modem fires, off the mail goes. Just got this going on my standalone cube. Remote, automated, multimedia communication at its best. Something the Mac can't handle, yet. Seth Ross ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ seth@albion.sf.ca.us "Enslav'd, the Daughters of Albion weep: a trembling lamentation Upon their mountains; in their valleys, sighs toward America." --William Blake
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (02/09/91)
In article <15875@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >It is not likely that there will ever be much of a third-party >software market for the NeXT. It's too much of a fringe market, and >likely to remain that way. The proprietary status of NeXTstep and the >limited platforms on which it is available scares many vendors away. >We're seeing this now. We're seeing Lotus, Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect, Adobe Systems, IBM, and a slew of other vendors embracing NeXTstep. Just who do you see being scared away? Also, look at Sun Microsystems, who have the quintessential "open system." In fact, they embrace standards so thoroughly that they often change their strategy every six months or so. THAT is what's scares away vendors. I wish I had a nickel for every developer I heard say something like "We're not going to develop for UNIX until the vendors sort out all their incompatibilities and problems." In the meantime, people are developing for NeXT because it's proprietary, and not likely to change on whim. I love the word "likely" in your posting. It is not likely that there will ever be a market, and it's likely to remain that way. Just what does "likely" mean? All you need to have a third-party market is an installed base of machines, and people are buying NeXT machines at a record pace. I'd say it's pretty "likely" that that will result in a good market for third-party software. -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)
dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (02/14/91)
In article <10509@cica.cica.indiana.edu>, greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: > In <15875@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > > >It is not likely that there will ever be much of a third-party > >software market for the NeXT. It's too much of a fringe market, and > >likely to remain that way. The proprietary status of NeXTstep and the > >limited platforms on which it is available scares many vendors away. > >We're seeing this now. > > This is true of every new computer produced. If by "proprietary" you > mean "Not the world's biggest keenest standard, like UNIX and X. No one > will write software unless it's for UNIX and X." Then try to substitute in: > > "The proprietary status of AmigaDOS..." (2 million sold so far) > "The proprietary status of Macintosh..."(bazillions sold so far) > "The proprietary status of SunTools..." (which is what my copy of > Frame runs under. Lots sold) > "The proprietary status of MS-DOS..." (Enormous amounts sold) > "The proprietary status of Windows 3..." ('nuff said) > "The proprietary status of MVS..." (too many sold) > "The proprietary status of VMS..." (blah, blah) > "The proprietary status of TENEX..." (Yes, Mark, TENEX) > "The proprietary status of PostScript.." > Certainly it is true of every new computer produced. However, realise that the next machine is not comparable to most of these examples. The Mac and Amiga marketplaces got where they are not by selling the higher priced machines but rather low end machines (for the Amiga < 1K) the Mac, (< 2K). The fancy more powerful machines came later when the user base was there and wanted more power. While the Next box is a great deal at the educational price it is only a great deal because the box is so capable and the display is so nice. Certainly, I could get a very nice MSDOS or Amiga box that is less capable but costs less money especially if I'm not eligable for the educational discount. Many of the vendors listed above were addressing a different market and/or were innovators that opened markets, some on their own or in the case of PostScript, riding on Apple's coattails. As nice as the Next machine is, it is a pretty much 'me too' machine in the workstation marketplace, without the volume of a Sun. Unlike when Sun entered the market, the low end workstation market is getting to be just as competitive as PCs. As nice as the Next machine is, it is also still a pretty pricey machine and lacking in software to sell to average Joe businessman or Joe public most of whom wouldn't see any great advantage to a Next over a PC or a mac and some pretty obvious disadvantages such as price, getting the package they want at the price they want if at all, and potential stability of the vendor. Further while there might be plenty of software available for VMS, MVS, etc. much of it is priced for expensive computer volume i.e. getting your money back from low sales but high prices i.e. $1000 and up. Expecting someone who bought a 5K machine to pay 1K for software isn't likely to happen and therefore it isn't likely to even get written. I'm considering getting a Next box but I certainly wouldn't even consider it if the availability of current and future commercial software was an important issue. Some software will no doubt get written because someone who owns a Next or uses one at school codes it up and they will either get released as PD or maybe they will try to vend it. Truthfully, I don't think that the concept of a Unix box on every businessman's desk is any more a workable concept today than it was when AT&T tried it with the 3b1. As a whole businessmen are perfectly happy with their macs and PCs and will be highly resistant to change. Unless a miracle occurs I don't see the Next being more than a niche machine and mostly the educational market niche at that. David Albrecht
hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy)) (02/16/91)
CompatAbility? Use your Webster: =>Compatibility Hardy Mayer ----****---- Professor Meinhard E. Mayer Department of Physics University of California Irvine, CA, 92717 USA