mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) (03/27/89)
I thought I would be a little more explicit in my assertion that many of the desirable features of the NeXT box are making it into other commercial products very quickly. I think this is occurring because NeXT's product has seduced some interested parties and shaken up the competition. The Microsoft/OSF/Motif interface, which uses the good parts of the Microsoft Presentation Manager "look and feel" looks surprisingly like NeXT. It actually looks solid and 2.5 [sic] dimensional. I'm sure there is a better picture, but check out the March 1989 Electronics (page 92) for a picture that you might confuse with a NeXT display in aesthetic quality. Sun seems to be similarly working to move away from the "dot matrix printer" user interface on the 386i. DSPs and fast floating point crunchers like the i860 are making it into a variety of products. My understanding is that some of the mc56000 DSP boards for the Mac are under $1000, which suddenly makes the Mac very attractive for scientific data acquisition and processing. Finally, the ease of application development that NeXT claims through use of Objective-C and their (large) library of predefined objects is apparently to be matched by Microsoft, according to what I've seen. Like NeXT, Microsoft has the experience of it's first generation windowing systems to build on in constructing the object oriented second generation. And most of these NeXT features will be available without purchasing a new $8000 machine. I would say that I was sounding like early critics of the Macintosh but that I like the NeXT features and am simply seeing them as rapidly available in more standard platforms. Mike I should note that I have not done native NeXT programming - I have used it only for numeric work. -- Mike Rutenberg Reed College, Portland Oregon (503)239-4434 (home) BITNET: mdr@reed.bitnet UUCP: uunet!tektronix!reed!mdr Note: I represent no organization or person other than myself. And that's fine with me!
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (03/29/89)
In article <12192@reed.UUCP> mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) writes: >I thought I would be a little more explicit in my assertion that many of >the desirable features of the NeXT box are making it into other commercial >products very quickly. I think this is occurring because NeXT's product >has seduced some interested parties and shaken up the competition. > >The Microsoft/OSF/Motif interface, which uses the good parts of the >Microsoft Presentation Manager "look and feel" looks surprisingly >like NeXT. It actually looks solid and 2.5 [sic] dimensional. > >DSPs and fast floating point crunchers like the i860 are making it into >a variety of products. My understanding is that some of the mc56000 DSP > >Finally, the ease of application development that NeXT claims through >use of Objective-C and their (large) library of predefined objects is >apparently to be matched by Microsoft, according to what I've seen. Where is Display PostScript? Where is the "mainframe-on-a-chip" architecture? Where is the Digital Librarian? Where is Mach? The thing that impressed me the most about the NeXT machine was not the surface-level features, but the complete system design from bottom to top. Not only is there a DSP chip, but the system architecture is strong enough to make it useful to you. It runs Mach (Unix), not multi-finder or OS/2. It has Display PostScript built in on the ground floor, not added as afterthought. Everything is carefully designed and integrated. You can invoke Webster's dictionary from within a word processor. You can play tunes while you edit. Look at Microsoft Windows, which is a "feature imitation" of the Macintosh interface. Is it as good? Is it integrated into the machine itself? Do all programs run under it? I think that you cannot simply copy what NeXT has done and run it on an existing machine. Glenn Reid (personal remarks, not company position)
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (03/29/89)
>I think that you cannot simply copy what NeXT has done and run it on an >existing machine. Don't you mean an existing OS? It should port easily to a Sun3 or a Mac II raw hardware. Since it is basically Unix, even a 386 PC or ... might be relative possible.
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (03/30/89)
In article <700@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: > >I think that you cannot simply copy what NeXT has done and run it on an >existing machine. > BUT - you can license it, if you are IBM. I've heard rumors of an RT with AIX/NeXTStep in a month or so. Anyone know anything about this? ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard University of Colorado "Serendipity empowers" fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu
mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg) (03/30/89)
What the heck - I feel like a little technical jousting (in good spirits because it was a wonderful day here today with sunshine and neat hail)... First I should indicate that I have the most respect for the what NeXT has managed to put together. They have taken a number of separate technologies, have blended them using their considerable talent and sweat into a neat little box. I want to write fun explorational educational physics simulations for the NeXt box (as well as a personal phone-mail system). But I don't have one because it is: (1) clearly not a machine for individuals (as NeXT will tell you) (2) not available, even to individuals who can afford it How I evaluate the machine is what interfaces or resources it provides me as a (1) programmer and (2) user. The former comes from NeXT, the later is what I can purchase from Egghead discount software in two or three years. In article <700@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >Where is Display PostScript? Where is the "mainframe-on-a-chip" >architecture? Where is the Digital Librarian? Where is Mach? Display postscript is really quite nice, but as a programmer I'm not currently willing to pay $8000 for it. Most of the stuff I want to draw is easily expressed using a Macintosh's Quickdraw or in the Windows/PM API. Some of it would be a bit more uniform and fun in display Postscript, but then it *might* also be a little slower. The "mainframe-on-a-chip" architecture, as you so appropriately quote it, is apparently a big multiported dma chip (with some channel controller features?), and is a way that NeXT is choosing to optimize their IO. I won't see it as a programmer or as a user. As long as my machine has fast IO, be it an OS/2 box or whatever, I'm not too concerned that it has a "mainframe-on-a-chip" architecture. Some of the 386 boxes, suns, and other machines seem to be able to move things around pretty quickly. I would encourage somebody to benchmark a NeXT and a Sun/3 doing IO to some combination of optical, SCSI, and nfs "disks" so that it is will be easier to evaluate this feature. I suspect their implementation of the laser printer interface (requiring lots of bits from memory) is one of the things that makes this custom chip necessary. Mach is a cool kernel. OS/2 kernel looks *surprisingly* like it in some ways. I would be very surprised if you don't see similar features from Sun and Apple. Threads everyone?! Tell me more about the digital librarian. In what ways it it unique? How will it make me more happy? >The thing that impressed me the most about the NeXT machine was not the >surface-level features, but the complete system design from bottom to >top. Not only is there a DSP chip, but the system architecture is >strong enough to make it useful to you. It runs Mach (Unix), not >multi-finder or OS/2. It has Display PostScript built in on the ground >floor, not added as afterthought. Everything is carefully designed and >integrated. You can invoke Webster's dictionary from within a word >processor. You can play tunes while you edit. The "complete system design" of the NeXT box is very nice. And I agree that everything seems to be carefully designed and integrated. I disagree however that other systems are at any disadvantage because they were shipping while NeXT was maturing. Each design philosophy has different strengths. The DSP does not run Mach. Imagine an OS/2 based 386 box with an i860 coprocessor also running OS/2 (in a role similar to the DSP). That would be significantly faster (w/ floating point), more uniform to program, and could be added to the system by those people that really want it. The example is not an exact analog to the NeXT box but then the point is to do interesting things with computers rather than build NeXT clones. Also -- modular systems make it a lot easier to add something like display postscript and reduce the necessity of having had it on the CPU since day 1. It is not clear to me that the programmer's interface to NeXT display postscript need be any different than the interface to OS/2 display postscript. >Look at Microsoft Windows, which is a "feature imitation" of the >Macintosh interface. Is it as good? Is it integrated into the machine >itself? Do all programs run under it? I am not sure totally what to make of this. Not all "NeXT" programs run under NeXT step - especially sun binaries or anything which is pure unix. Similarly "Windows" has programs that run under it and programs that don't. >I think that you cannot simply copy what NeXT has done and run it on an >existing machine. Many of the good ideas visible in NeXT are not only ripe, but being picked by other companies. If I can get 90% of a NeXT box in a GOOD $600 software package, I will go for it. Assertion: NeXT and its "alternatives" are both systems of the future. Neither of them exist to any full degree, except in press releases, and both will mature in about two years. For 1989, most of us are stuck with DOS, MacOS, and type-at-it unix. I just wish my Mac Plus was getting quicker. Actually, one of the nice things about programming on the Mac Plus is you can be always reamazed at how much faster and more colorfully the program you are writing can run on a Mac II. Mike -- Mike Rutenberg Reed College, Portland Oregon (503)239-4434 (home) BITNET: mdr@reed.bitnet UUCP: uunet!tektronix!reed!mdr Note: My written word represents no known organization or person.
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (03/30/89)
In article <245300010@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Don't you mean an existing OS? It should port easily to a Sun3 or >a Mac II raw hardware. *** Rumor on *** NeXT has had their own hardware since last fall. They've been developing software for a lot longer than that. I think that makes it quite clear just how portable the software must be. And did you ever wonder why software for the "special goodies" on the NeXT, like the DSP and the sound has been a little slow coming? Maybe because that's the only part of the software they had a hard time writing on another piece of hardware. *** Rumor off *** -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: dorner@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (03/31/89)
In article <688@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: In article <245300010@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: Don't you mean an existing OS? It should port easily to a Sun3 or a Mac II raw hardware. NeXT has had their own hardware since last fall. They've been developing software for a lot longer than that. I think that makes it quite clear just how portable the software must be. It all started on Sun-3s, and only migrated to the wire-wrap NeXT boards early last summer. And most of the software people had Sun-3s on their desks through July, until Manufacturing was able to provide enough cubes to populate the offices. Suns were still the prevalent NFS servers for a very long time, and may still be. next.com (the inbound mail gateway machine, "moat") was until very recently a Sun running NeXT's Mach, and likely still is. It's hard to tell, since relay.cs.net (NS and SOA for next.com) doesn't advertise HINFO records for it. Perhaps that's why Jobs doesn't want to release source: people could make use of the NeXT NiFTIeS without buying so much NeXT hardware. Their existing workstation investment wouldn't be obsolete quite so quickly. As it is now, NeXT machines are islands unto themselves, almost the classical personal computer, only incidentally interacting with the rest of the machines around them. If NeXT's user-level software could be run on other machines, there wouldn't be so much incentive to buy NeXT hardware. But I digress...
jgreely@diplodocus.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (04/02/89)
In article <BOB.89Mar30124012@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >Perhaps that's why Jobs doesn't want to release source: people could >make use of the NeXT NiFTIeS without buying so much NeXT hardware. Color me radical, but I'm more impressed by the hardware. "You should put NeXT's OS on your Suns!" "Why?" "It runs Mach!" "But I have users who want to buy Sun-specific binaries." "It uses Display PostScript and NextStep!" "But I have 3 different brands of workstations, and they all run X11. All my users are used to it." "It's got Mathematica, SQL, Common Lisp, and the complete, indexed works of Shakespeare!" "So my COBOL students should be duly impressed?" "It has Webster's Ninth Dictionary, and the Oxford Book of Quotations!" "Good. Their comments will be more erudite. By the way, how well does all this stuff network?" "It has NFS!" "So does Sun. Does it support Secure NFS?" "Not yet, but it will!" "You didn't answer my question before. Does all of this fancy text-retrieval stuff network, or do I waste X meg for each workstation?" "Of course! You can mount them across NFS!" "...As long as they're read-only, you mean. By the way, can I access all of these nifty window programs from across the network?" "Of course! It supports telnet and rlogin, just like *any* Unix system!" "Not what I asked. Can I run a windowed application on another workstation, and have the windows appear on *my* screen? Like X does?" "Uuhhhh, not yet." "How much memory do I need? Would I have to upgrade all of my suns to 8 meg?" "At least. 12 would be better, especially if you don't have good-sized swap disks attached to each workstation." "So, are you selling RAM or hard disks?" "Both. How did you guess?" >As it is now, NeXT machines are islands unto themselves, >almost the classical personal computer, only incidentally interacting >with the rest of the machines around them. Too true. Sometimes I feel that the reason I've got one on my desk is that no one else wanted it (sometimes I'm right, too). I like the machine, but the Gee-Whiz (excuse me, GeE-WhIZ) features do nothing but suck cycles. I'd run without the window system occasionally, but the puny little console is a fairly dumb terminal, and doesn't fill enough of the screen (translate that: I *like* Sun consoles; they let me use the machine's resources more fully, and I can rest my eyes). Etc, etc. My biggest problems with the software are related to the user interface. There is some very good thought in the system, and the implementation is, in general, very well done. Pity I don't fit their model of a user. Take the Dock (please!): I can have up to twelve applications available at the touch of a button. Just like pop-up menus in X, right? Wrong. Double-click that button, and you launch an application. Do it again and you foreground the previously launched copy. Want more than one Terminal at a time? Put more than one on the Dock. Put three Terminals and a Clock on the Dock, and you don't have room for everything else. Add those damn pop-up, pull right menus obscuring the upper left corner, and you start to see where it breaks down for me (hint for the annoyed: many applications allow you to set the location of the permanent menu. Set its coordinates to something large and negative, and you'll never see it again). >But I digress... Me too (oh, you noticed that, did you?). -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (04/03/89)
People are so hyped about this machine that I can't resist. The thing that really disgusts me about the NeXT machine is that it is so damned slow. For $10,000 I can buy a VT3100, DEC's new MIPS box, which simply blows the doors off of this thing. Jon
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/04/89)
In article <41358@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, jgreely@diplodocus.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: > Color me radical, but I'm more impressed by the hardware. Nice hardware, though that OD is a botch. > "You should put NeXT's OS on > your Suns!" > "Why?" > "It runs Mach!" > "But I have users who want to buy > Sun-specific binaries." So buy Suns and run Sun/OS. Myself, I'm more impressed by Mach than anything else. Hardware gets obsolete a lot faster than software, and UNIX is long overdue for a revolution. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (04/06/89)
In article <700@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: > >Where is Display PostScript? Where is the "mainframe-on-a-chip" >architecture? Where is the Digital Librarian? Where is Mach? Now that we're on the subject of Display Postscript, perhaps you folks could enlighten me (or maybe I can enlighten you)... it seems that having a postscript interface is not enough. The question should also be, "can you program the interface using postscript in the same manner that Sun NeWS can be tailored with the postcript language?" From what I've seen, NeXT offers a postscript DISPLAY and printing capability, but all of the smarts are embedded within Objective C. Depending on what you're doing this may or may not be a disadvantage. It would see, however, to be a significant difference between Sun's and NeXT's philosophy of doing things within the interface and when developing interfaces. Or maybe I'm stupid. Anyway, the world seems to be buying into X Windows wholesale so maybe someone should be porting X to the NeXT and driving the DP display with X. Sine Visa Ars Nihil Est - John T. Nelson
muller@munnari.oz (Paul Muller) (04/06/89)
I feel fairly strongly about the NeXT and what it stands for, which is funny, as I have never used one (being in Aus, I don't think they are even thinking about selling them here... :-( ) but maybe I have just become brainwashed by all the mag articles.... The thing that strikes me as important about the NeXT is that Steve could have quite easily called on some industry heavyweights to add punch to his creation, but it seems he has chosen not to. Can anyone from Microsoft, Lotus , Ashton-Tate, Borland tell me if the company has been given a 'freebie' to get some software action going? I would guess not, looking at Steves decision to go University only smells to me as though Steve is trying to give some bright new talent (like himself and Wozniac) a go at making the industry more interesting, which God knows it needs, DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT OS/2 ANYMORE? I think that IBM come out with some nice hardware (mainly compatible mfrs), boring, fast, nice. Apple have done a nice thing with the Mac, fast, clean, and much more interesting than IBM stuff. There are other mfrs, but they can't stand a chance against the big two in the micro game, and let's face it, not even Sun has the volume of these guys, different markets, but with the speeds of the lower end stuff creeping up, I wouldn't let marketing people try and calm me if I was in Sun's shoes. Now Jobs has a GREAT machine, fast, new, interesting (read:buggy!) and just happens to be a new face that may just pump some much needed chaos into the game. This may be a rather naive view, and if you are buying hardware in the next (NeXT?) year, my sympathies, but I do feel that the NeXT is more than good enough to do the Job (ha!) and could well get some Uni students playing some nice tricks in a California garage somewhere, they could call themselves Grape or something juicey....... (sorry :-( ) paul Please note that everything I said above was a product of my mind and therefore subject to the natural disaster act. For assistance recovering from reading the above call a local emergency service of your choice.
ali@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ali T. Ozer) (04/08/89)
In article <41358@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely writes: > "Not what I asked. Can I run a > windowed application on another > workstation, and have the windows > appear on *my* screen? Like X > does?" > >"Uuhhhh, not yet." You can run an application on one NextStep machine and have the windows appear on another simply by specifying the destination host with "-host". Ali Ozer
fischer@iesd.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (04/11/89)
In article <7470@zodiac.UUCP> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: >Anyway, the world seems to be buying into X Windows wholesale so maybe >someone should be porting X to the NeXT and driving the DP display >with X. Not so fast. There's quite an activity in the NeWS camp. You can have NeWS for MS/DOS (yuck), OS/2 (yuck/2), Mac, and, of course, UNIX. NeWS ports are coming out very fast, they seem to be easy to do. That could be *very* important. Just wait 'till the X11/NeWS server is out :-). /Lars -- Copyright 1989 Lars Fischer; you can redistribute only if your recipients can. Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/13/89)
In article <1698@iesd.dk>, fischer@iesd.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: > In article <7470@zodiac.UUCP> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > >Anyway, the world seems to be buying into X Windows wholesale so maybe > >someone should be porting X to the NeXT and driving the DP display > >with X. > Not so fast. There's quite an activity in the NeWS camp. You can have > NeWS for MS/DOS (yuck), OS/2 (yuck/2), Mac, and, of course, UNIX. There's one for the Amiga too, though I don't know if it's available yet. I have just started working with X-windows, by the way. I have one word for it... YECHHHH. Surely an 80386 can do better than the 68000 in my Amiga at home, but it's soooo slow. And it's not even programmable. Oh for a NeWS/Display Postscript merge. NeWS/NeXT. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.