MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) (05/28/89)
Does anybody know what is happening with NeXT? Don't they have a
commericial release date coming up REAL soon? They created
the hype, but if they don't deliver, everyone is going to forget
about them. Then again, if they release a machine without any
major software packages or that dies alot (even occassionally),
the Next could go the way of the Edsel.
A computer like this sounds pretty good doesn't it?
68030 processor (25 MHz)
68882 floating point coprocessor (25 MHz)
DSP chip
256MB erasable optical disk
(96 ms access time)
Display Postscript
400 DPI Laser Printer
Well, I guess we all know what's in the machine by now. This
machine sounded great last September, but by next September
is should read more like this:
68040 (FPU built in) (33MHz or faster, depending on
how fast you can get the cache to work)
graphics coprocessor
16 million colors simultaneously. Color printers
are starting to emerge, and not having color could
also hurt just because people like color. "Why
spend $10,000 on a computer when I could get a MAC II
for less and get color?"
DSP chip
256MB erasable optical disk (More would be nice, but
I don't think disk space is a big problem.)
( < 50 ms access time)
Oh yeah, use the new optical drives that don't
have to first erase what's on the track, and THEN
go back and write the data.
Display Postscript
400 DPI Laser Printer
Megapixel screen (94 DPI) with support for higher resolution
monitors.
3 1/2 1.44MB drive (optional) $200 -- Reads DOS & MAC disks.
DOS emulators! Mac cartridges! Bag those! But it is
IMPORTANT that business people be able to get those
LOTUS files and MS Word documents to the NeXT, inexpensively!
Picture this: Joe MIS pops a MAC diskette into the NeXT
computer and imports a Free Hand document into Illustrator 90
(Adobe now worships NeXT because they realize Apple is going
to dump Postscript as soon as QuickDraw is brought up to
speed). Joe MIS' friends are amazed because they see
the document on the screen in Postscript and it looks great,
not to mention the fact that the NeXT is so much more
responsive. Shortly there after, Joe's company decides to
buy more NeXTs to alleviate the line problem that seems
to have developed in front of the sole NeXT.
This could be the single most important advanced,
state of the art, pushing technology to the limit, piece
of hardware that is added to THE MACHINE.
I guess the biggest problem with the NeXT is where does it fit in.
A 68030 running at 25MHz leaves it underpowered in the work station
market. 88K machines are starting to appear and the 68040 and 80486
are due out this year with machines soon to follow.
Looking at the NeXT, I would think it to be a high end
Macintosh. However, a 25MHz Mac IIcx is due out in August and Apple
is closing the gap quickly. System 7.0 is a step forward in WYSIWYG
on the screen, and they already have 32 bit Quickdraw out. True
multitasking (read preemptive) is not as important as it's being
made out to be. How much more will it INCREASE the FUNCTIONALITY
of the machine? By the time the NeXT catches on, if it catches on,
Apple will have caught up; IBM won't have caught up, but they're
IBM so they don't have to. What can Steve do to make his company
to make his company succeed? Well, uh....I guess criticizing is
easier than coming up with solutions, but I'll give it a shot.
First, get the machine out as soon as possible without any serious
bugs in the OS, remembering that business people have a different
idea of what serious bugs are. A couple of major pieces of software
are definitely needed. Spinning molecules might look good, but it's
not Lotus! Could the NeXT be the machine that the people at Wingtz
should have written their spreadsheet for? After all, Lotus is what
made the IBM PC the most popular business PC in the world. It
shouldn't take more than a couple dozen great applications to turn
the NeXT into a machine that sells. Just give business people
COMPLETE solutions to their problems(spreadsheet, database, word
processing, and DTP problems :) ). This should be able to be
accomplished without the help of Bill Gates. Remember, this
is the man who told John Sculley to build an IBM compatible or
Apple would surely go under. I guess BILL is NOT much of a
VISIONARY. But he is a good business man and he will come around
if there is money to be made. Actually, I'm not sure what the
status of the NeXT is? Release date anyone? Number of complete
applications BY release date? Anyone? Anyone? All I know is
that I saw a documentary on Steve and NeXT and I think they
planned on the summer of 87 or summer of 88 as an initial release
date. What was your window guys? I think it was the summer of 87.
Which comes first OS 2's acceptence or NeXT's offical release?
Ok, one more thing and I will get back to watching these people here
learn Lotus 123 (some of these people are paying $900 for this).
How about a computer for the rest of us? I think the market for
a $1500 computer is enormously larger than one that costs $10,000.
Everyone wants a computer today, they just don't want to spend
too much money. Why not build a computer that costs $1500 and
sell 10 million of them, perhaps a lot more, instead of one that
costs $10,000 and sell 100,000? At least build a low end machine
to cover the entire market. If Apple builds their new low end
machine that is coming out next year around the 68000, then
a niche in the market might open up. The new applications that
are coming out are going to need more horsepower! Why not create
a revolution? Sell this machine:
68030 & 68882 (16 MHz)
13" Color Monitor 640x480
graphics co-processor
Need to have basic line drawing and other primitives.
16 million colors supported. 256 minimum at once.
DSP chip -- Need a good sound chip.
2 MB of RAM -- expandible to 16 Megabytes
Display Postscript -- Since you already have it, why not
stick with it.
One internal 2MB floppy.
optional external 2MB floppy
optional external optical erasable drive just like on
the high end NeXT. Say $2500
optional 17" monitor
Operating system Mach. Have to stick with this so that
the software written on the low end machine will also
run on the high end machine. However, some of it has
got to go in ROM(alot of it). Easily removable ROM's
you just plug in. Think upgradable.
Price: 1999.95 (or less). This would be the hardest thing
to acheive.
But the REWARD:
10,000,000 copies sold in five years.
Remember Beta was better than VHS, but VHS was cheaper and VHS won.
Look at the Commodore 64, it's still selling!
Well, I'd like to go, but my day is over and it's time to go home.
Would anyone else like to see a revolution?
Mikelacsap@mit-amt (Pascal Chesnais) (05/28/89)
In article <89147.153425MDM107@PSUVM> MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) wants in the next NeXT: > graphics coprocessor > 16 million colors simultaneously. Color printers I can't resist! So who has a display that can show 16 million colors simultaneously? I mean here at the lab we have a 2048 by 2048 display and certainly I would not want to look at 4 different million colors at once! Much too confusing! The highest resolution color display I have seen is a 4k by 3k LCD projection system by GreyHawk... Of course it can be argued that having a graphic coprocessor that can do 16 million colors simultaneously one might not want to display them... Then again if someone does have such a display, I'd like to hear from them. My one wish for the next NeXT add ons would have to include a video digitizer. NeXT made a machine that is neither deaf nor dumb, but is blind! pasc
seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel) (05/28/89)
In article <3804@mit-amt> lacsap@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Pascal Chesnais) writes: >In article <89147.153425MDM107@PSUVM> MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) >wants in the next NeXT: >> graphics coprocessor >> 16 million colors simultaneously. Color printers > >I can't resist! So who has a display that can show 16 million colors >simultaneously? I mean here at the lab we have a 2048 by 2048 display >and certainly I would not want to look at 4 different million colors >at once! Much too confusing! The highest resolution color display I 16 million simultaneously displayable colors means it's a 24 bitplane device. These are pretty common these days. Serious graphics people usually find 24 or more planes esential. It is important for depth cueing and antialiasing. If you saw a nice image on a 24 plane box, you wouldn't be confused, I assure you. But 24 planes at 1k X 1k is 24M bits = 3M bytes. You'll need more hardware to support all this and actually get an image on the screen in an acceptable amount of time. You won't see this in a $2000 computer in the very near future. Something to think about regarding color displays is the cost of a good monitor - You could spend a LOT of money on a color monitor that would be nowhere near the crisp appearance of the B/W display (2 planes, BTW) on the NeXT. Most of the work I do is text oriented; B/W wins hands down here because of the sharpness of the monitors. George Seibel, UCSF
rthille@ics.uci.edu (Robert Thille) (05/28/89)
I think that the joke was that to have that many colors on screen **at one time** you would have to have a huge monitor. :> Another thing that I found humorous was the idea of running a next-like system with 2 MB. "Hell, with virtual memory, we eliminated the need for any real memory at all." :>>> Besides, why buy a cheep next computer when you can get a mac plus for $999 or a ibm compatable for less... Raise the LCD!!!! Robert Thille
anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) (05/29/89)
In article <89147.153425MDM107@PSUVM> MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) writes: >are coming out are going to need more horsepower! Why not create >a revolution? Sell this machine: > > 68030 & 68882 (16 MHz) >[description of the cheap machine of the future/present deleted] > Operating system Mach. Have to stick with this so that > the software written on the low end machine will also > run on the high end machine. However, some of it has > Price: 1999.95 (or less). This would be the hardest thing > to acheive. Gee, this sounds a lot like the NeXT generation of Amiga. It's supposed to run a UNIX spin-off, but I'm not sure which one. Bummer is that Commodore's not much better than Xerox at marketting. >Would anyone else like to see a revolution? Most of a revolution is the hype associated with it: if people don't believe it, it doesn't exist. Good hardware/software platforms exist, but don't always make it big: eg. the early Xerox stations. Less wonderful systems with good marketting people, etc. often do: witness the original Apples, IBM PC's,... Gotta cut this short... Anand. -- "Surely you're not happy: you no longer play the game." {arpa | bit}net: anand@vax1.acs.udel.edu iyengar@eniac.seas.upenn.edu uucp: !$ | uunet --- Lbh guvax znlor vg'yy ybbx orggre ebg-guvegrrarq? ---
nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) (05/30/89)
The revolution is over. NeXT blew it. It just isn't enough better to compete with the big players. It's very like the Amiga in that regard; technically neat, initially shipped with very flakey software, and lacking both serious applications and a dealer structure capable of supporting it. John Nagle
carlos@tybalt.caltech.edu (Carlos Salinas) (05/30/89)
In article <89147.153425MDM107@PSUVM> MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) writes: > 256MB erasable optical disk (More would be nice, but > I don't think disk space is a big problem.) > ( < 50 ms access time) > Oh yeah, use the new optical drives that don't > have to first erase what's on the track, and THEN > go back and write the data. While we're at it, why not have an optical drive which reads not only optical disks but also CD roms and ordinary CDs (why not?). CD roms should be faster than optical and would be ideal for large applications and databases. > 3 1/2 1.44MB drive (optional) $200 -- Reads DOS & MAC disks. Good point, until they are truly obsolete, NeXT should support them. > Mike Carlos Salinas ps. Would have written more, but VI is one the worst excuses for an editor that I have ever seen.
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (05/31/89)
In article <11899@well.UUCP> nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes:
The revolution is over. NeXT blew it. It just isn't enough better
to compete with the big players. It's very like the Amiga in that regard;
technically neat, initially shipped with very flakey software, and lacking
both serious applications and a dealer structure capable of supporting it.
John Nagle
Reminds me of something I learned from /usr/games/fortune a while back:
"Positive is being mistaken at the top of your voice."wetter@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/31/89)
] The revolution is over. NeXT blew it. It just isn't enough better ]to compete with the big players. It's very like the Amiga in that regard; ]technically neat, initially shipped with very flakey software, and lacking ]both serious applications and a dealer structure capable of supporting it. > AHEM. First of all, the NeXT machine hasn't shipped, all of the current reports are about BETA-TEST software. Hence the name Release .9 Secondly, support comes from your university computing center just like it does for PC's and Macs. If you buy one from Businessland, you pay more and you get support from them instead. Pierce P.S. Once the 1.0 actually ships, feel free to bitch about NeXT all you want. Disclaimer: I've played with our campus's THREE NeXT machines and was obviously brainwashed by some strange instrument in the box. -- wetter@csvax.caltech.edu | wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu | pwetter@caltech.bitnet |----------------------------------------------------| | This Rent For Space -| |____________________________________________________|
mccalpin@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (John McCalpin) (06/06/89)
In a long, rambling article <89147.153425MDM107@PSUVM> MDM107@PSUVM.BITNET (Michael Mellinger) writes: >....True multitasking (read preemptive) is not as important as it's being >made out to be. How much more will it INCREASE the FUNCTIONALITY >of the machine? Real multi-tasking makes the difference between a toy and a computer. -- John D. McCalpin - Dept of Oceanography - Florida State University mccalpin@masig1.ocean.fsu.edu mccalpin@nu.cs.fsu.edu mccalpin@fsu (BITNET or MFENET) SCRI::MCCALPIN (SPAN)
bakken@arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (06/10/89)
In article <10831@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> carlos@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Carlos Salinas) writes: >While we're at it, why not have an optical drive which reads not only >optical disks but also CD roms and ordinary CDs (why not?). CD roms >should be faster than optical and would be ideal for large applications >and databases. The last time I checked (about 4 months ago), CD ROM drives had 400-500 millisecond access time. That's *SLOW*!!! It would be nice to be able to hook one on a NeXT, though, to get at some large databases. -- Dave Bakken bakken@arizona.edu uunet!arizona!bakken