joe@oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver) (07/20/89)
After learning that I'm not alone in yearning for a VT100 emulator, let me follow up -- Having a lot of friends who are business oriented, and, recalling (myself) that VisiCalc is what got the whole microcomputer circus rolling in the first place, does it strike anyone as slightly odd that there's no spreadsheet distributed with the NeXT? Maybe some of you can sympathize -- people come in and see the new machine, and then the first thing they (the business types) say is, "So, can it run Lotus or Excel or SuperCalc?" One is then put in the awkward position of mumbling, "Well, not yet, but maybe someday. Want to see a balancing seal neural network or a poker demo instead, though?" Mathematica thrills the mathematicians, but it leaves the accountants cold. The emphasis on graphic and sound demos is fine and good, but there's also a *crying* need for some meat-and-potatoe programs such as honest-to-god VT100 emulator I mentioned earlier, a mainline spreadsheet program, one of the major stat packages, etc. I also wish NeXT would distribute the BSD compilers (fortran and pascal, say) with the machine! I realize the machine is still not in a production release of the OS, and is intended primarily to be a development environment, but I still can't help being sadened to see a lot of initial (potential) buyers lose interest in the machine when they see how little software is currently available. [I'm afraid the computer buying public has become rather leary of promised software after the rash of vaporware plaguing the industry as a whole.] The question I hear is, "Why should I buy a NeXT rather than a Mac II or SparcStation or one of the new low end Vaxstations?" Right now the big selling point for the machine seems to be its storage capacity, but there are only so many people who want a warehouse -- lots of people want a building *with* furnishings! I mention these views not to start a flame war, but rather in the hope that either (1) someone out there will be encouraged to develop meat-and-potatoe programs for the machine, or (2) someone at NeXT will consider these opinions when deciding where priority development support should go. Joe St Sauver
jgreely@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (07/21/89)
In article <5527@oregon.uoregon.edu> joe@oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver) writes: >Having a lot of friends who are business oriented, and, recalling (myself) >that VisiCalc is what got the whole microcomputer circus rolling in the >first place, does it strike anyone as slightly odd that there's no spreadsheet >distributed with the NeXT? Not terribly. I've seen bundled spreadsheets, and they didn't impress me. To be useful, it would have to support the current standards, and that's a major endeavor for a company who's still busy making the machine work reliably. >Maybe some of you can sympathize -- people come in and see the new >machine, and then the first thing they (the business types) say is, >"So, can it run Lotus or Excel or SuperCalc?" One is then put in the >awkward position of mumbling, "Well, not yet, but maybe someday. No, one grabs the third-party announcements, turns to the page with LOTUS on it, and lets them draw their own conclusion. Hopefully, by the time the machine is actually released, you'll be able to show them the real product announcement (or the real product!) instead. >Want >to see a balancing seal neural network or a poker demo instead, >though?" Mathematica thrills the mathematicians, but it leaves the >accountants cold. Any profession where excitement revolves around spreadsheets and COBOL deserves a little disappointment. Hard-core business people are going to be skeptical of NeXT anyway, due to the nature of the bundled software. How many of them are going to be excited about *any* of the Apps? A symbolic math package? Beta SQL with a five-machine license? Lisp? A low-end word processor? Shakespeare? Unless the bundle changes for the business environment, who will go for it? I'm *still* trying to figure out what the non-university market looks like. >The emphasis on graphic and sound demos is fine and good, but there's also a >*crying* need for some meat-and-potatoe programs such as honest-to-god VT100 >emulator I mentioned earlier, a mainline spreadsheet program, one of the major >stat packages, etc. (side note: the emphasis on demos is partially because the current machines are to help developers get a start in their environment. Looking at them as features for end-users is probably the wrong way to go about it) Square pegs, black holes. The only one I have any use for is the vt100, which I consider non-negotiable if it's going to be disguised as a Unix machine. I don't do spreadsheets, since I can do what I need faster with emacs, awk, and perl. And if I want statistics, I can either pick up any of several Unix stat packages or roll my own. >I also wish NeXT would distribute the BSD compilers (fortran and >pascal, say) with the machine! This struck me as odd for a moment, and then I thought about it. Both f77 and pascal are pcc-based, and NeXT has abandoned pcc for GNU c. That would mean either porting the backend of pcc, or adapting f77 and pascal to run with gcc. Either option is messy and time-consuming, and neither language is as important to a Unix machine as a good C compiler. I imagine that when Absoft showed up interested in porting their Fortran with object-oriented extensions, NeXT jumped at it. They gain some needed third-party support, and cut development time. >I realize the machine is still not in a production release of the OS, and is >intended primarily to be a development environment, but I still can't help >being sadened to see a lot of initial (potential) buyers lose interest in >the machine when they see how little software is currently available. Anyone who makes a purchase decision based on 0.9 deserves what they get. You can't really evaluate it fairly right now, on any criteria other than "concept". >The question I hear is, "Why should I buy a NeXT rather than a Mac II >or SparcStation or one of the new low end Vaxstations?" The question you should then ask is, "What do you want to *do* with it?" If their answer is not something that is best served by the NeXT, tell them to buy the other machine. My NeXT is more fun than the Sparcstation down the hall (or wherever it's gotten to), but I know which one I'd rather do crunching with. >Right now the big selling point for the machine seems to be its storage >capacity, but there are only so many people who want a warehouse -- lots of >people want a building *with* furnishings! Then again, some of us like to grab a chainsaw and make our own. :-) "I was trying to modify the Sony Walkman into something *useful* -- throw the heterodyne into the fourth dimension -- when I lost concentration and a whole bunch of green icing fell to the ground." -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (07/21/89)
In article <5527@oregon.uoregon.edu> joe@oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver) writes (among other things): > >Having a lot of friends who are business oriented, and, recalling (myself) >that VisiCalc is what got the whole microcomputer circus rolling in the >first place, does it strike anyone as slightly odd that there's no spreadsheet >distributed with the NeXT? > >Maybe some of you can sympathize -- people come in and see the new machine, and >then the first thing they (the business types) say is, "So, can it run Lotus or >Excel or SuperCalc?" Lotus has announced that they are working on a spreadsheet product for the NeXT. According to marketing types (probably) at either NeXT or Lotus (I can't recall which, but does it matter?), it will be the be-all and end-all of spreadsheets. It also stands to reason that a product like Wingz, which is programmed from a kernel so as to simplify portability to different platforms, will find a home at NeXT some day (the company will soon be shipping Mac, A/UX and OS/2 versions). And while Bill Gates has looked down his public nose at the NeXT, Microsoft is a big company and respects the bottom line. If the bottom line gets fatter by porting Excel to the NeXT, look for a kiss-and-make-up turn to the plot. It'll all come down to how well the NeXT does commercially. John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/21/89)
In article <JGREELY.89Jul20155332@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: In article <5527@oregon.uoregon.edu> joe@oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver) writes: I also wish NeXT would distribute the BSD compilers (fortran and pascal, say) with the machine! Both f77 and [Berkeley] pascal are pcc-based, and NeXT has abandoned pcc for GNU c. That would mean either porting the backend of pcc, or adapting f77 and pascal to run with gcc. Either option is messy and time-consuming, and neither language is as important to a Unix machine as a good C compiler. Other languages will soon be available to use the GNU code generator backend. Already there are C and C++. There were reports in gnu.gcc recently of Modula-2 and Modula-3 projects. I seem to recall Pascal and FORTRAN work under way as well. This work is being done in the community at large, and the code being accepted by FSF, for the reasons J describes: GNU won't use other languages much, and Stallman prefers to spend time perfecting his C implementation. Of course, all the other languages benefit from his back-end work, but they're not the main thrust. I imagine that when Absoft showed up interested in porting their Fortran with object-oriented extensions, NeXT jumped at it. They gain some needed third-party support, and cut development time. Who knows how much time might pass between the incorporation of new language support for the GNU compiler backend, and its appearance in a NeXT product? After all, NeXT 0.9 shipped (early May 1989) with a compiler based on GCC 1.26 (from Aug 18 1988).
dz@lime.ucsb.edu (Daniel James Zerkle) (07/21/89)
In article <5527@oregon.uoregon.edu> joe@oregon.uoregon.edu (Joe St Sauver) writes: >After learning that I'm not alone in yearning for a VT100 emulator, let me >follow up -- > >Having a lot of friends who are business oriented, and, recalling (myself) >that VisiCalc is what got the whole microcomputer circus rolling in the >first place, does it strike anyone as slightly odd that there's no spreadsheet >distributed with the NeXT? > >Maybe some of you can sympathize -- people come in and see the new machine, and >then the first thing they (the business types) say is, "So, can it run Lotus or >Excel or SuperCalc?" One is then put in the awkward position of mumbling, >"Well, not yet, but maybe someday. Want to see a balancing seal neural network >or a poker demo instead, though?" Mathematica thrills the mathematicians, but >it leaves the accountants cold. > >The emphasis on graphic and sound demos is fine and good, but there's also a >*crying* need for some meat-and-potatoe programs such as honest-to-god VT100 >emulator I mentioned earlier, a mainline spreadsheet program, one of the major >stat packages, etc. I also wish NeXT would distribute the BSD compilers >(fortran and pascal, say) with the machine! > >I realize the machine is still not in a production release of the OS, and is >intended primarily to be a development environment, but I still can't help >being sadened to see a lot of initial (potential) buyers lose interest in >the machine when they see how little software is currently available. [I'm >afraid the computer buying public has become rather leary of promised software >after the rash of vaporware plaguing the industry as a whole.] The question I >hear is, "Why should I buy a NeXT rather than a Mac II or SparcStation or >one of the new low end Vaxstations?" > >I mention these views not to start a flame war, but rather in the hope that >either (1) someone out there will be encouraged to develop meat-and-potatoe >programs for the machine, or (2) someone at NeXT will consider these opinions >when deciding where priority development support should go. > >Joe St Sauver You have some very good points. One of the biggest problems with NeXT is that it can't decide if it wants to be a microcomputer with a fancy graphical interface, or a minicomputer with all the UNIX goodies. If NeXT would push all the minicomputer capabilities, people would stop saying "but there's no software." In fact, there's TONS of software: If it works for UNIX, it will work for NeXT. The problem with that is that it will alienate the business world, which is familiar enough with microcomputers and mainframes, but not with minicomputers (although that will end, soon). Business users will all want to use the mouse and software that will only run under NextStep. There is NOT enough software for NextStep yet--that's certain. However, there will be (some day). IBM has licensed NextStep and plans to use it. This alone is a guarantee that it will not die. (Nobody is buying OS/2 and it is still around). Aside from that, there really is a lot of development work going on. I quote from the third-party catalog: Our customers have frequently told us that the first offerings for the Ne?XT Computer must be a suite of basic productivity and research tools. In addition, they assure us that if the quality of the offerings is high, only a handful of these applications is essential. We are therefore focusing our initial efforts to help proven developers deliver state-of-the-art versions ofthe most frequently requested applications and languages. Although we are working with many vendors in various categories, our priorities for 1989 are: o Word processing o SPREADSHEET o Database o Page layout o Fortran o Draw/paint o Communications o Statistics o Mathematics o Pascal o 2D CAD o LISP o Digital Signal Processor development tools. Anyway, the catalog says that Lotus is working on something, but it won't say what (remember what happened with 1-2-3 release 3.0?) There will be one database included with release 1.0, and other companies are selling other databases. Absoft is selling a FORTRAN compiler that is object oriented. (Object oriented FORTRAN? Will that language never die?). As for DEC terminal emulation, this company is at least working on one for the NeXT, and may be done: Scott Darling White Pine Software 94 Route 101A P.O Box 1108 Amherst, NH 03031 (603) 886-9050 I agree that the compilers should be included with the disk you get. The more development tools out there, the more likely that there will be enough software. You get a lot of goodies with a NeXT, and it is a good deal for the price, but it is nothing like inexpensive. The business community is not going to start snatching these things up unless there are at least two or three really fantastic applications for it that everybody wants. Otherwise, you're just as well off buying some UNIX box and saving a few thousand dollars. Of course, we can do our own bit by developing public domain goodies to cover until the commercial people can do it. After all, we DO have all the Objective C, debuggers, and Interface Builders we could want. -Dan
jordan@Morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) (07/25/89)
J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
Any profession where excitement revolves around spreadsheets
and COBOL deserves a little disappointment.
[ ... ]
I don't do spreadsheets, since I can do what I need faster with
emacs, awk, and perl.
If you can "do what you need" with those tools, you don't have the
needs of other users. I think the point stands that a good spreadsheet
is needed in UNIX land (and i'm not talking about sc). If I could open
an Excel window on a NeXT, I would throw my MacII out the window. I'm
a programmer, not a "business type" (where did COBOL get into this
discussion? talk about a stereotypical attitude) but I have some
serious needs that only get filled by a spreadsheet. It's an integral
part of my computing at times, and I wish it were on the same machine
that I do everything else on.
Sure, I don't use document-preparation tools all the time in my work
either, but how many of you have asked for better tools in that arena
as well? Now, TeX seems to be getting there, and there are several
decent previewers out there now, but when will we see a WYSIWYG
word-processor?
"I don't do spreadsheets, since I am used to the lack of
support UNIX gives me"
If you think about it a little bit, tbl really makes you want a
spreadsheet, pic makes you want a paint program, TeX makes you want to
use fonts on-screen, etc.
Ignoring "those" applications is a pin-head move.edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) (07/25/89)
Daniel James Zerkle writes:
...
IBM has licensed NextStep and plans to use it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
That remains to be seen. I think the general feeling is that NextStep was
IBM's hedge against "other" Interface Builder/User Interface "standards"
(e.g. OSF/Motif).
Ed "not holding my breath" McClanahanjgreely@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (07/26/89)
In article <320@zooks.Morgan.COM> jordan@Morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes: >J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > I don't do spreadsheets, since I can do what I need faster with > emacs, awk, and perl. > >If you can "do what you need" with those tools, you don't have the >needs of other users. I'm not sure how to read that, so I'll let it go. Buried somewhere in my article was the opinion that I don't see much point to having too much bundled software, and that I don't see how useful the current NeXT bundle is going to be to people in the very fuzzy non-university market. Sort of. >I think the point stands that a good spreadsheet >is needed in UNIX land (and i'm not talking about sc). "But what does that have to do with the NeXT?" Sorry, instinct took over there for a moment :-). I can see your point, but I'll remain skeptical on the *need* part. Desired by the upwardly-mobile PC crowd, certainly. Needed? Maybe I just haven't run into the same Unix crowd that you have. >If I could open >an Excel window on a NeXT, I would throw my MacII out the window. Well, stick around. When the machine is released, we'll see what third-party software has shown up. (and will you charge admission when you pitch the Mac?) >I'm a programmer, not a "business type" (where did COBOL get into this >discussion? talk about a stereotypical attitude) but I have some >serious needs that only get filled by a spreadsheet. (COBOL came in the way it usually does, as a digression on my part. I've spent so much time working with/around it that it leaks out occasionally) I never said that spreadsheets were useless in general. I wouldn't even object if one were bundled. I'd begin to have a problem if it added substantially to the cost of the machine. >Sure, I don't use document-preparation tools all the time in my work >either, but how many of you have asked for better tools in that arena >as well? Now, TeX seems to be getting there, and there are several >decent previewers out there now, but when will we see a WYSIWYG >word-processor? There are either quite a few or none at all, depending on how you define "WYSIWYG" and "word-processor". Personally, I still lump WYSIWYG in with Hypertext as an idea whose time is iffy. I'll take TeX for most tasks, and cheerfully take advantage of on-screen previewing. > "I don't do spreadsheets, since I am used to the lack of > support UNIX gives me" Nice quote. Who's it from? It's an interesting parody of my attitude, and would be fairly accurate if you left out the word "lack". It is (in part) the *superior* support provided by Unix machines that made me quit shoe-horning problems into spreadsheets. >If you think about it a little bit, tbl really makes you want a >spreadsheet, You have a spreadsheet that supports multiple proportional fonts in a cell, centering over multiple columns, justification, and rules? How easy is it to paste the output into your document production system? >pic makes you want a paint program, No. Not if by "paint program" you mean MacPaint. Pic is a small language for drawing pictures, and is capable of some very impressive output. See Bentley's Programming Pearls books for some interesting examples of what can be done with Pic that are out of the question with a point-and-click paint program. Think of it as batch MacDraw. Kind of. >TeX makes you want to use fonts on-screen, etc. TeX makes me want to *preview* on screen. >Ignoring "those" applications is a pin-head move. (pin-head? "I'm having an EMOTIONAL OUTBURST!! But, uh, WHY is there a WAFFLE in my PAJAMA POCKET??") Why did you pick on document production tools as examples of things in Unix that are "inferior" to their PC counterparts? And why did you pick the ones you did? Similarly irrelevant wishes can be constructed around eqn, refer, bc, and other tools ("Come on, doesn't awk *really* make you want QuickBasic?"). Your comparisons seem really strained to me, and any impact your point may have had was completely lost. "No, no, he's still breathing. See how the blood bubbles out of his nose?" -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
bruceh@zygot.UUCP (Bruce Henderson) (07/27/89)
Rumor control has it that there will be a full powered spreadsheet with a nice UI available for the NeXT in 1Q fo 90. Rumor has it that it will not be a 1-2-3 type nasty item, but something more along the lines of excel. So don't give up hope! -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bruce Henderson Software Engineer zygot!bruceh@Apple.COM "Sorry, Mathematica can't goon this much" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^