sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (12/19/89)
On one hand, I like to think of myself as mature, reasonable, etc. On
the other hand, I completely disagree with all these people who say,
"children, children, let's not fight about which machine is better."
Give me blood, I say.
So I guess I have to justify this. First, my position. I, for one,
will prboably end up on the mac side of the war. I look at these guys
who say, "I have a mac now, but I wish I had a NeXT," and suspect that
in 9 cases out of 10, they don't know what they are talking about.
This is one of the benefits of this flame war: it provides
information. Certain issues -- such as whether the MS-DOS command
line interface is better than the Mac's graphical user interface --
have already been chewed over so much that we are all sick and tired
of it. In either case, both machines are now fairly well known, and
most people have a good idea of the differences between the two
machines. People are less aware of the differences betweeen the NeXT
and the mac.
Jobs has done a good job of creating a mystique to go along with his
machine. You get people like me drooling over it before it was
released. There are a lot of neat features, and the graphics arts
people must ahve been working overtime. It's built on UNIX, and seems
easier to program. Etc., etc. A flame war like this can point out
the realistic deficiencies of the NeXT system. Even the most die-hard
NeXT machine fans must realize that the machine is not right for
everyone.
Another reason why I feel this flame war is more productive than a
typical religious war is this: in this case, we are looking at two
machines which are more similar than they are different. Sure, you
can buy Windows for your PC, but the philosophy of IBM PC's is
substantially different from the philosphy of the Mac or the NeXT.
They target different areas, approach things in a different way, etc.,
but it's my contention that the two systems are similar enough to make
the argument that much more interesting. An acid test?
After going through a round of these arguments, can you think of ways
in which your current computer system could be improved?
Well, in my case, I can imagine how the mac could be changed after
looking at the NeXT box. I can't speak for others, but I hope that
the NeXT machine isn't so vastly superior to the mac in all areas that
there is no point in looking to the mac for guidance in certain areas.
Granted, the two cases are slightly different, the most important
factor being that the NeXT machine was designed after the mac. Still,
if there is some basis for arugument, I must belive that some of the
input must have been constructive. And I don't mean a rehash of the
old, "no software, problems with distribution, no third party
hardware, no vertical market applications," stuff.
So, while some of the arguemnt is futile, I find a lot of it
intriguing. What are the points that people find annoying about the
"other" system? What do users lust after in the "other" system?
-Sho
--
sho@risc.com <<-- right now, I'm gettting payed to write this tripe.
is it any wonder it's so long?mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/19/89)
My comment on all of this is: . a NeXT is a Unix workstation with an user-level interface of the Xerox type . a Mac is a PC with a user-level interface of the Xerox type. There is such little overlap between the two a comparison is difficult. This is true even in price. You get a bottom of the line Mac for much cheaper than a bottom of the line NeXT. On the other hand, a NeXT is significantly cheaper than a comparably-equipped Mac. I've been a systems programmer for both the Mac and the NeXT. I hope never to be a Mac systems programmer again. The Mac has got to be one of the most programmer-hostile machines I have ever had to work with. By comparison, the IBM PC is a joy ride. The NeXT has a wonderful tool -- Interface Builder -- that makes the development of applications quite pleasant. Unfortunately, the programming interface under it -- Application Kit -- is often "backwards". Often you can't do what you want directly. Perhaps the nastiest thing are the two parallel sets of objects under Cell and Control that really should have been a single set. However all this is still leaps and bounds better than what exists on the Mac. The NeXT has real memory management and real multi-processing. You cannot call MultiFinder "multi-processing." I can get a lot more done a lot faster on the NeXT. The Mac has a more intuitive graphical interface. I rarely use the icon based interface on the NeXT, preferring instead the Unix shell (and as an old TOPS-20 hacker I'm a shell *hater*). The Mac has a more convenient form of diskettes. Some of the things I dislike about the NeXT are the things that make it Macish. I hate double-clicking, for example; I wish I could use both mouse buttons. I think there's been a bit too much "cutesy" in both interfaces. But that's just opinion. Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU -- MRC@PANDA.PANDA.COM -- (206) 842-2385 Atheist & Proud -- R90/6 pilot -- Lum-chan ga suki ja!!! tabesaserarenakerebanaranakattarashii...kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru
cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (12/20/89)
In article <5094@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >My comment on all of this is: >. a NeXT is a Unix workstation with an user-level interface of the Xerox type >. a Mac is a PC with a user-level interface of the Xerox type. > I am confused now. If I am not wrong, the NeXt is a personal computer according to the article first appeared in Dec 1988 issue of Byte. And then some ads says "the most powerful personal computer ever build". Now people say the NeXT IS a workstation and compare "workstation" to a PC here... I don't get, I am lost. So please, people on the net, tell me what a NeXT really is. Is it a Worstation? or it is a personal computer? (yes, I know the mach support multiuser, and allow other people to login to the same machine...So I am really confused now.) -- |I want Rocket Chip 10 MHz, Z-Ram Ultra II, UniDisk 3.5 | cyliao@wam.umd.edu | |I want my own NeXT, 64 Mb RAM, 660 Mb SCSI, NeXT laser | Chun Yao Liao | | printer, net connection, software, etc. | Accepting Donations!| /* If (my_.signature =~ yours) coincidence = true; else ignore_this = true; */
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) (12/21/89)
What's the difference between a workstation and a PC? I think the line is fuzzy. Five years ago you could point to Suns and say "Work station" and point to 8088/80286 PCs or Mac Plusses and say "PC." I don't think you can quite do that anymore. Some "Workstations" are becoming cheap enough that they can be thought of as high-end PCs. Some PCs and Macs are becoming powerful enough to be called workstations (MAC II CX, 25 and 32 MHz 386 and 486 machines). What's the NeXT? Both. Either.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (12/22/89)
In article <500@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes:
What's the difference between a workstation and a PC?
It has nothing to do with processing power, but everything to do with
design philosophy. A workstation is most fulfilled as part of a
network of its kin, a PC is perfectly happy sitting in a cave
somewhere contemplating its own navel.
What's the NeXT? Both. Either.
Schizophrenic, ambiguous, and undecided.daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/22/89)
in article <5094@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:48060 comp.sys.next:4581 > The NeXT has real memory management and real multi-processing. You > cannot call MultiFinder "multi-processing." Actually, you can't call the NeXT "multi-processing" yet either, though of course Mach supports multi-processing. But, unless you count running the 68030 at the same time as the 56000, you're single processing on any NeXT that NeXT is currently talking about. However, you are really multitasking. With friendly applications on the Mac, you're really multitasking too. The big difference with a system like the NeXT, designed for multitasking (like all UNIXs), is that you never waste CPU time sitting in a task that's waiting for some external event, while you certainly can under Multifinder. And of course, you've got real IPC on the NeXT. > Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (12/23/89)
In article <9138@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Actually, you can't call the NeXT "multi-processing" yet either, though of >course Mach supports multi-processing. But, unless you count running the >68030 at the same time as the 56000, you're single processing on any NeXT >that NeXT is currently talking about. > >However, you are really multitasking. With friendly applications on the >Mac, you're really multitasking too. The big difference with a system >like the NeXT, designed for multitasking (like all UNIXs), is that you never >waste CPU time sitting in a task that's waiting for some external event, >while you certainly can under Multifinder. And of course, you've got >real IPC on the NeXT. Foo. By your definition mainframe timesharing systems are "multitasking" and not "multiprocessing". In the past 20 years that I've been involved with computing, "multitasking" has referred to facilities where you could dynamically load programs as more or less cooperating co-routines into a single-processing computer. Generally, there is only a single address space; programs are relocatable (via a base register) and must be careful not to step out of its memory bounds. In the case of multi-processing, each program runs in its own virtual machine. Memory relocation and protection is generally done in hardware. Process control is handled via scheduling based on time quanta instead of voluntary relenquishment via a co-routine call. Internally, most operating system kernels are multi-tasking (e.g. between scheduling, interrupt servers, etc.), but present a multi-processing environment to the user-level programmer. And anyway, what's all this Amiga junk doing on comp.sys.next anyway? The Amiga has even less to do with this newsgroup than the Mac does. At least the Mac and the NeXT have some overlap in their customer base. Why not go back and hash it out against the Atari ST? Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU -- MRC@PANDA.PANDA.COM -- (206) 842-2385 Atheist & Proud -- R90/6 pilot -- Lum-chan ga suki ja!!! tabesaserarenakerebanaranakattarashii...kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/07/90)
in article <5142@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:48428 comp.sys.next:4648 > And anyway, what's all this Amiga junk doing on comp.sys.next anyway? > The Amiga has even less to do with this newsgroup than the Mac does. You're confused. Architecturally, the Amiga and the NeXT have much more in common. For example, dedicated DMA channels (the NeXT "mainframe on a chip stuff"), hardware coprocessors (the Amiga's blitter/copper, the NeXT's 56001). The Macs are still using the fool CPU to grab data, a byte at a time yet, from the the hard disk! But I'll leave the bashing up to others. I'm typing this on an Amiga. Tell me why it isn't comparable to the NeXT to some extent. I have a 25MHz 68030 driving this machine, so does the NeXT. I have a 1024x1024x2 monochrome display; NeXT's have 1280x1024x2. I also get 1 MB/sec performance off the hard disk, though the filing system. I can call up a command-line shell any time I don't want to go through the multitasking WIMP interface. The NeXT is certainly doing it's stuff with newer technology, but it's not all _that_ different. > Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough