cbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas) (05/24/89)
I am interested in the NeXT. What does the base $6500 system come with?
(please include bundled software).
Collin
thanks in advance.jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) (05/25/89)
In article <3256@uokmax.UUCP> (Collin Broadrick Douglas) writes: > I am interested in the NeXT. What does the base $6500 system come with? > (please include bundled software). The basic system that OSU provides comes with the following (note that your school might tack on a certain percentage for handling (OSU charged 6%). Hardware (from Appendix A of the 0.9 User Manual) + MC68030 25 MHz CPU + MC68882 25 MHz FPU + MC56001 25 MHz DSP + 12 DMA channels + etc. + 8 Megabytes RAM + 17" 2-bit (4 grays) monitor + 1120x832 + 92 dpi + 68 Hz refresh rate + 256 MB Optical Drive (removable) Software (from "Third-Party Programs and Products")* + NeXT SQL Database Server (from Sybase, Inc) won't be available till OS 1.0 + Allegro CL Common LISP (Franz Inc.) + Mathematica (Wolfram Research, Inc.) beta in 0.9 + WriteNow ("equivalent to Macintosh version 2.0") beta in 0.9 + Misc other things (Postscript writing tool, PS previewer, simple drawing application, Websters dictionary, Oxford Quotations, Interface Builder, a nice mouse based editor, Billiards, a flight simulator (Stealth), Poker, TIFF viewer, Sound demos, and lots of other demos.) + LAST AND MOST IMPORTANT: UNIX!! (this gives you such things as Emacs, cc, TeX, mail, etc, etc, etc.) I hope this has helped. I would strongly suggest going the extra distance and getting a hard disk though. An optical doesn't cut it for any serious work. Bryce Jasmer jasmerb@hobbes.cs.orst.edu
isbell@pyr.gatech.EDU ( Charles L. Isbell) (05/26/89)
In article <10809@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) writes: > ... I would strongly suggest going the extra distance > and getting a hard disk though. An optical doesn't cut it for any serious > work. > > Bryce Jasmer Not terribly long ago, I posted a question asking exactly HOW the much of an impact not having a hard drive has on the system (specifically for a single user who is doing work, rather than across a net or somesuch) and got no response. So, once again, how much of a difference does it really make? And in what ways? Anyone? Thanks Charles Isbell -- Some positions must be challenged. Georgia Tech has no opinions, just bricks. (and I don't work for them anyway.) uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!isbell ARPA: isbell@pyr.gatech.edu
liemandt@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Joe Liemandt) (05/26/89)
In article <8343@pyr.gatech.EDU> isbell@pyr.gatech.EDU ( Charles L. Isbell) writes: >In article <10809@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) writes: >> ... I would strongly suggest going the extra distance >> and getting a hard disk though. An optical doesn't cut it for any serious >> work. >> >> Bryce Jasmer > > Not terribly long ago, I posted a question asking exactly HOW the >much of an impact not having a hard drive has on the system (specifically >for a single user who is doing work, rather than across a net or somesuch) >and got no response. > So, once again, how much of a difference does it really make? And >in what ways? Anyone? > >Thanks >Charles Isbell > It depends on what you consider "work". If you are developing applications then you need a hard disk. The optical doesn't cut it for that. I am sure there are many people (students?) who were considering a Mac II, but would prefer a NeXT. They can only afford the base unit with an optical and are wondering if the optical only system is good enough. If you are in this category you have to ask yourself, what is my pain threshold? How slow can the system be without me going nuts? A couple of comparisons I would make off the top of my head would be (this is only for development work on the NeXT): Development on NeXT with only Optical = Microsoft Windows on an 8088 Apple's MPW on a floppy Mac Plus In other words: get a hard disk. But if you are just a user (i.e. WriteNow and Mail), then the optical is just fine. I hear Steve Jobs only has an optical and I would believe that. Joe Liemandt Stanford University Note: I tried to use an optical based machine for development, went nuts, and ended up buying one with a hard disk.
edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) (05/27/89)
> >It depends on what you consider "work". If you are developing applications >then you need a hard disk. The optical doesn't cut it for that. > ... > How slow can the system be without me going nuts? A couple >of comparisons I would make off the top of my head would be (this is >only for development work on the NeXT): > >Development on NeXT with only Optical = > Microsoft Windows on an 8088 > Apple's MPW on a floppy Mac Plus >In other words: get a hard disk. > ---------- Okay... Could SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT FUNCTIONS (of S/W Development, etc...) WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLY SLOW? I really don't accept the notion that S/W development is particularly more resource (e.g. CPU, disc,...) intensive than any/all application execution. After all, compilers (and Interface Builder and...) are merely applications themselves. I think that is why the original poster asked the question. ed "SCSI disks getting cheaper every day" mcclanahan
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (05/27/89)
In article <8343@pyr.gatech.EDU> isbell@pyr.gatech.EDU ( Charles L. Isbell) writes: > how much of a difference does [a hard drive] really make? And >in what ways? Anyone? I ran my machine off its optical for a few days after a little software snafu (which I do not care to discuss). What I found was the machine was reasonable if you were not using the console (i.e., not running all those huge Interface-heavy processes). On the console, things were pretty slow, but bearable for mundane things, if you are a patient kind of person. I wouldn't want to do software development with one, but for other things it was ok. Steve -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
liemandt@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Joe Liemandt) (05/28/89)
In article <-290109996@hpcupt1.HP.COM> edwardm@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) writes: >> >>It depends on what you consider "work". If you are developing applications >>then you need a hard disk. The optical doesn't cut it for that. >... > >Okay... Could SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT FUNCTIONS (of S/W > Development, etc...) WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLY SLOW? > >I really don't accept the notion that S/W development is particularly >more resource (e.g. CPU, disc,...) intensive than any/all application >execution. After all, compilers (and Interface Builder and...) are >merely applications themselves. I think that is why the original >poster asked the question. > >ed "SCSI disks getting cheaper every day" mcclanahan I disagree with with your assertion that development takes no more resources than "any/all application execution". To write a paper in WriteNow, I only need to load WriteNow, hit disk a couple times to save, and then print. To develop WriteNow, I need Edit, IB, cc, gdb all running. Loading from the optical is slow, and I have to load 4 times as much. And, by loading all of these at once, I have overloaded RAM and NeXT starts swapping. On an optical, good night. You are correct in that if you are using apps that are very disk intensive, the optical will be too slow (Databases for example). I guess a better statement would be "If you are using the NeXT for anything that is disk intensive or uses so much RAM that you will start swapping, the optical will be too slow." Development falls into the above. Joe Liemandt Stanford University liemandt@s.stanford.edu