melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (09/21/90)
In article <1990Sep20.214607.1515@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: [Info about Next releasing extremely nicely priced Next in last-ditch effort] [to save the company] >>Read comp.sys.next for more info. Let's take this to c.s.next. Macintosh discussions are routinely flamed in the Next group, so I'm not sure we should be reading Next stuff here. Just a thought... Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================ Why not? When I describe the NeXT computer to people, I tell them that it is a "workstation class Mac." I think that people who like the Mac will also like the NeXT computer. The NeXT is a great deal at the moment(this may change after they hit it big time). After all, a Mac fx costs ~$5500 dollars and runs at 1/2 the speed. Besides, when it comes time to upgrade your Mac, you might find that it's cheaper to buy a new NeXT instead. ;-). -Mike
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (09/21/90)
It's late, and probably I should keep my mouth shut, but I get just too many people with this same song and dance (not just about the NeXT...most every new machine comes with its share of silly expectations). Try to keep in mind that I really like the NeXT, and will 95% certain buy a NeXTStation... In article <Fkc$h#62@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >Why not? When I describe the NeXT computer to people, I tell them >that it is a "workstation class Mac." > He was refering to the nearly endless flame war that develops whenever people mention Mac and NeXT in the same article. In any case, every time I try to explain a NeXt in those terms, the eyes light up and I get "Gee...you mean it will run Excel and MacPaint and...". Then I get to explain that, well, it's *like* a Mac...but it's not a Mac...the eyes go dim and they by a couple more IIcx's. A Mac is a Mac and a NeXT is a NeXT, and as far as people who buy lots of machines are concerned, thats not even close... >I think that people who like >the Mac will also like the NeXT computer. The NeXT is a great deal at >the moment(this may change after they hit it big time). After all, a >Mac fx costs ~$5500 dollars and runs at 1/2 the speed. Besides, when >it comes time to upgrade your Mac, you might find that it's cheaper to >buy a new NeXT instead. ;-). This completely ignores reality. A single individual, sure, maybe upgrading from a Mac to a NeXT is no big deal. However, for the companies that I routinely deal with (several with revenue in the billions), those that have dropped perhaps $1-5 million dollars on Macs, and more importantly, Mac software, in the past two years, jumping into the NeXT machine at this point would mean trashing that investment in hardware, throwing the software (often custom written) in the dumpster, and spending the next year to 2 years trying to sort out the MIS mess. Most of these shops have just gone through trench warfare trying to get Macs in the door in the first place (anybody here tried to explain to a VP of MIS at a 20 year MVS/TSO shop why he needs icons and windows?). This, kids, is why people still buy 4381's and AS/400's when we *all* know that a SPARCServer 330 blows them away for a fifth the cost. The bottom line is that computer companies do not succeed by selling to students and a few artists. Computer companies prosper by breaking into the general buisiness market and selling to the government. NeXt isin't even in the ballpark to do either at this point. -- ken seefried iii ken@dali.gatech.edu "Vee haf veyz off making you talk...release da veasles..."
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (09/21/90)
In article <13955@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
He was refering to the nearly endless flame war that develops
whenever people mention Mac and NeXT in the same article.
In any case, every time I try to explain a NeXt in those terms,
the eyes light up and I get "Gee...you mean it will run Excel and
MacPaint and...". Then I get to explain that, well, it's *like*
a Mac...but it's not a Mac...the eyes go dim and they by a couple
more IIcx's. A Mac is a Mac and a NeXT is a NeXT, and as far as
people who buy lots of machines are concerned, thats not even
close...
[stuff deleted]
--
ken seefried iii ken@dali.gatech.edu
"Vee haf veyz off making you talk...release da veasles..."
When people ask for Excel, I tell them about Wingz. If companies
purchase Wingz(Word Perfect -- and don't forget about Framemaker) they
are not going to be locked into a hardware company. They can buy
Macs, IBM PC's, NeXT's, or even Sun Workstations, and use them all
effectively in an office. If people could effortlessly(i.e. w/o
reformatting.) load their Word 4.0 documents into WP or WriteNow on
the NeXT, then it would be an easier sell NeXT's to businesses who
have already made a commitment to the Mac. I don't suppose Microsoft
is going to port their wares to the NeXT. They're probably still at
little miffed at NeXT. Oh well, the price for not getting a product
to market early in a computer's life is very little market share.
IMHO, now would be an excellent time for Word Perfect to take a shot
at Word 4.0 on the Mac.
-Mikejmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (09/21/90)
In article <F7$$_j72@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: |> |>When people ask for Excel, I tell them about Wingz. If companies |>purchase Wingz(Word Perfect -- and don't forget about Framemaker) they |>are not going to be locked into a hardware company. They can buy |>Macs, IBM PC's, NeXT's, or even Sun Workstations, and use them all |>effectively in an office. If people could effortlessly(i.e. w/o |>reformatting.) load their Word 4.0 documents into WP or WriteNow on |>the NeXT, then it would be an easier sell NeXT's to businesses who |>have already made a commitment to the Mac. I don't suppose Microsoft |>is going to port their wares to the NeXT. They're probably still at |>little miffed at NeXT. Oh well, the price for not getting a product |>to market early in a computer's life is very little market share. |>IMHO, now would be an excellent time for Word Perfect to take a shot |>at Word 4.0 on the Mac. |> You're probably right about Microsoft, and it's too bad. Excel is better than Wingz. Word is much, much better than WordPerfect (yuch). And there are several other good Microsoft products out there. By the way, are there DOS and OS/2 versions of Wingz yet? If not, Excel still provides the best cross platform compatability of any business spreadsheet. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (09/25/90)
In article <2412@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >Excel is better than Wingz. This is new to me... >Word is much, much better than WordPerfect (yuch). On the Mac, yes. On PC's and on all the UNIX and VMS machines certainly not. (Not even to speak about the fact that Word is not available on some of these machines). WordPerfect is still the most portable text processing program. >By the way, are there DOS and OS/2 versions of Wingz yet? Yes there is at least a Windows 3.0 version around. Ronald PS: If you find a GOOD Microsoft product, please tell me. I always like to know new things. I haven't come across one yet. But then, what else than brain damaged software do you expect on a brain damaged XYZ-compatible computer? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet