siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) (10/26/88)
This group might be interested in some contrarian views on the NeXT computer, from someone who turned down an invitation to the Davies Hall extravaganza -- I had a class to teach. (Much the same message was posted earlier on info-mac.) The gist is that Jobs' NeXT computer won't be MY next computer, not for a while and not for educational use anyway. And, as a faculty member very much interested in educational uses of computers, I hope my university (Stanford) won't spend very much of its academic funds buying NeXT computers in the next few years -- even though it has a million or so endowment dollars invested in NeXT. Why? 1) In 30 years at Stanford before 1984 I put perhaps $2000 into personal computer equipment: a couple of dumb terminals and modems, a Model 100 laptop, an Epson printer (oh, and a gift TRS-80 from our Dean of Engineering, which never got used for much). Since the Macintosh came out in 1984 I've probably put $20,000 of personal and personally controlled university unrestricted funds (i.e., NOT counting research contract funds) into Macintosh hardware, peripherals, and software, for personal, educational and research use. That's a LOT of money, even for a nominally ``prosperous'' senior EE professor. I have 3 Macs in my home, 2 in my office, 1 in my secretary's home, half a dozen in my research lab, maybe 100 Macs total in this building, along with 100 MB or so of personal files and applications -- plus, hundreds of hours invested getting this all working reliably and more or less automatically. I like the capabilities we now have, very much. We're supposed to start all over? Not just invest a lot of additional dollars we don't have, but learn a whole new bunch of stuff? Recable modems and printers, rewrite logon scripts, reformat databases, learn new programs? Sorry, we've got too much work to do, using what we already have. (And, I've wasted too much time in past years playing with building up what I have.) 2) More important: I've seen the MIT Project Athena style of using of computers for education: centrally developed and controlled educational softwave, runnable only on high-performance workstations, which are available only in clusters that students have to go to; and I've seen the more open Stanford approach: near-universal availability of PCs at low cost through the Bookstore's Microdisc program, multiple ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' program development efforts at many places on campus, upward evolution of a Macintosh standard through consumer choice, low-cost software distribution through Kinko's and <info-mac> and bboards and user groups, networked Macs in every other dorm room on campus, floppies handed out in class. I like the Stanford approach a LOT better. I'm not interested in workstation clusters that students have to trudge off to. I want soon ( in fact, we almost have it now) EVERY engineering student -- in fact, every student --to have an entry-level machine of the same brand as the faculty use, on their own desk, or at least on their roommate's desk. Dartmouth admitted 1100 freshman this fall. During orientation week these students took delivery of over 960 personal Macintoshes (divided 50/50 between Plusses and SEs) which they had preordered (at their own expense) through the university before coming to campus. (And as someone said, the other 140 probably already owned their own Macs.) That's the way to go! An entry-level price of around $1000, today's dollars, is about the break point for making it possible to have a personal computer on every student's desk. What does a $6500 NeXT machine (AT the educational discount) have to do with that? (Don't tell me about what something with capabilities of the current NeXT machine will cost 10 years from now; I'm interested in the next decade, not the next century.) As long as Apple has the brains to keep an affordable student-grade Mac in their product line -- and I do worry a little about that -- we should focus our efforts on learning how to do the best educational things we can do with the excellent capabilities and machines we have now (and there's a lot to be done). 3) NeXT will undoubtedly be a great machine, when it starts to come out next year. But the Macintosh is pretty good also, right now. And, Macs will continue to improve steadily with time. The same expanded memory and storage capabilities and jazzy peripherals available for NeXT, or any other machine, will be equally available for the Mac. Direct analogs of the easy-to-use educational program development tools available on the NeXT machine will be available on Macs too (some are available right now). In short, I'm not knocking the NeXT machine at all, technically or otherwise. And, I'm not a Mac fanatic pushing Macintoshes. The NeXT machine clearly has some very significant technical advances. If the computer types at Stanford decide they want to put THEIR OWN funds (personal or research or whatever) into having the latest supertoy, I don't object at all. But given the real limits on university resources -- and I'm absolutely amazed at the casual views expressed on this net as to how much money we big university types supposedly have to spend on the latest computers; sure doesn't look that way from inside -- I very much hope that when it comes to academic funds for EDUCATIONAL uses of computers, Stanford will put most of its currently available funds into doing bigger and better and especially much more widespread things with the good Macintosh environment we already have (such as more widespread support for program development, and getting Macintosh display units into many more of our classrooms), and not into acquiring a bunch of new, and different, supertoys just because they're the latest headline. What we've done educationally with the Mac so far doesn't nearly match what we could and should do with the superb environment that we've already invested so much in. Perhaps Steve or some other tooth fairy is going to offer me 65 K$ to buy 10 NeXT machines for my teaching needs. I think my response would be, "Thanks very much. I'll take the cash, spend part of it on upgrading our Mac environment, and the rest on meeting a lot of other unmet needs around here." Since I think this is what other schools should do also, and since I don't see where any big new funding sources are going to come from anyway, I don't see how Jobs/Perot are going to increase their wealth very much on this NeXT venture.
steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) (10/27/88)
In article <5@sierra.stanford.edu> siegman@sierra.UUCP (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >This group might be interested in some contrarian views on the NeXT >computer, from someone who turned down an invitation to the Davies >Hall extravaganza -- I had a class to teach. (Much the same message was posted earlier on info-mac.) Yes. I'd like to hear why people think NeXT won't be such a hit (I'm still waiting to use one before I pass judgement). [ Stuff about how much he has spent on computers for his office and what kind are available for his students deleted. ] >I like the capabilities we now have, very much. We're supposed to start >all over? Not just invest a lot of additional dollars we don't have, but >learn a whole new bunch of stuff? Recable modems and printers, >rewrite logon scripts, reformat databases, learn new programs? >Sorry, we've got too much work to do, using what we already have. >(And, I've wasted too much time in past years playing with building up >what I have.) I don't think that anyone (at least not anyone outside of NeXT who has a rational mind) is suggesting that you throw everything you have out and jump completely onto the NeXT boat. >2) More important: I've seen the MIT Project Athena style of using of >computers for education: centrally developed and controlled >educational softwave, runnable only on high-performance >workstations, which are available only in clusters that students have to >go to; and I've seen the more open Stanford approach: near-universal >availability of PCs at low cost through the Bookstore's Microdisc >program, multiple ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' program >development efforts at many places on campus, upward evolution of a >Macintosh standard through consumer choice, low-cost software >distribution through Kinko's and <info-mac> and bboards and user >groups, networked Macs in every other dorm room on campus, floppies >handed out in class. I like the Stanford approach a LOT better. > >I'm not interested in workstation clusters that students have to trudge >off to. I want soon ( in fact, we almost have it now) EVERY engineering >student -- in fact, every student --to have an entry-level machine of >the same brand as the faculty use, on their own desk, or at least on their >roommate's desk. Dartmouth admitted 1100 freshman this fall. During >orientation week these students took delivery of over 960 personal >Macintoshes (divided 50/50 between Plusses and SEs) which they had >preordered (at their own expense) through the university before >coming to campus. (And as someone said, the other 140 probably >already owned their own Macs.) That's the way to go! I agree that everyone having their own computer is a good idea, but you have to face the reality that not everyone in the world who graduates high school has $1500 to spend on a computer that they don't know how to use yet. At places like Stanford and Dartmouth, if a student can afford to attend the school they can PROBABLY (no sweeping generalizations here, but probably more than 90% can) afford their own computer (or their parents will buy it for them, or whatever). At public schools, there are people who work 40 hours a week (or more) just to be able to stay in school and have a place to live. These people probably don't have enough money to buy any computer (NeXT, Mac, Apple ][, Commodore VIC-20, or anything). Therefore, I don't see people being REQUIRED to own a computer happening anytime in the near future. However, I do believe a University should pick one system and go with it as a standard for their classes. This should be reevaluated as time goes by, however, and as new technology comes along, consideration should be given to changing from one technology to another. >An entry-level price of around $1000, today's dollars, is about the >break point for making it possible to have a personal computer on >every student's desk. What does a $6500 NeXT machine (AT the >educational discount) have to do with that? (Don't tell me about what >something with capabilities of the current NeXT machine will cost 10 >years from now; I'm interested in the next decade, not the next >century.) As long as Apple has the brains to keep an affordable >student-grade Mac in their product line -- and I do worry a little about >that -- we should focus our efforts on learning how to do the best >educational things we can do with the excellent capabilities and machines >we have now (and there's a lot to be done). I forsee NeXT machines being used in CS departments (and in almost any Engineering department) when they first come out. Some Computer Centers may devote enough resources to set up a NeXT lab, but I suspect that initially most of the systems bought will go into research labs and faculty offices, where (theoretically) more software will be developed and more devotees will appear. Once people have an idea of HOW to make use of them, more people will start buying them. That will (again, theoretically) lead to higher sales volume (and hopefully lower prices). However, what would have happened if we had all stuck with IBM 360's or PC's (or whatever), where would we be now???? Someone has to start using new technology for it to catch on (and become profitable for the makers). Someone has to take the first step. And Universities will be the ones to do that (we'll have to be since we're the ones that Jobs is targeting the systems at). I don't think everyone will have a NeXT at home, one in their office, etc. How many people who have Sun workstations have them at work and home??? They are still very popular. >But given the real limits on university resources -- and I'm absolutely >amazed at the casual views expressed on this net as to how much money >we big university types supposedly have to spend on the latest >computers; sure doesn't look that way from inside -- I very much hope >that when it comes to academic funds for EDUCATIONAL uses of >computers, Stanford will put most of its currently available funds into >doing bigger and better and especially much more widespread things >with the good Macintosh environment we already have (such as more >widespread support for program development, and getting Macintosh >display units into many more of our classrooms), and not into >acquiring a bunch of new, and different, supertoys just because >they're the latest headline. I agree that you can't be buying everything that is new and fun, just because it's the latest toy. But (as I said before), someone has to take the first step (a leap of faith, if you will) and commit to using a machine for something if they are to ever to become wide-spread. I think Universities should commit some portion of their funds to "New Technology". Not necessarily something that everyone is going to use for labs, but on machines that, while they may not be the most widely used machines in the world currently, have the potential to be big players in the future. This will allow development and experimentation. >What we've done educationally with the Mac so far doesn't nearly match >what we could and should do with the superb environment that we've >already invested so much in. Perhaps Steve or some other tooth fairy >is going to offer me 65 K$ to buy 10 NeXT machines for my teaching >needs. I think my response would be, "Thanks very much. I'll take the >cash, spend part of it on upgrading our Mac environment, and the rest >on meeting a lot of other unmet needs around here." Since I think this >is what other schools should do also, and since I don't see where any big >new funding sources are going to come from anyway, I don't see how >Jobs/Perot are going to increase their wealth very much on this NeXT venture. And people said that Apple would never make it either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | Computer Systems Lab | Dumb Mailers -> ..!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!steve | | Cal Poly State Univ. |------------------------------------------------| | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | This space intentionally left almost-blank. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (10/27/88)
In article <5@sierra.stanford.edu> siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: > 2) More important: I've seen the MIT Project Athena style of using of > computers for education: centrally developed and controlled > educational softwave, runnable only on high-performance > workstations, which are available only in clusters that students have to > go to; and I've seen the more open Stanford approach: near-universal > availability of PCs at low cost through the Bookstore's Microdisc > program, multiple ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' program > development efforts at many places on campus, upward evolution of a > Macintosh standard through consumer choice, low-cost software > distribution through Kinko's and <info-mac> and bboards and user > groups, networked Macs in every other dorm room on campus, floppies > handed out in class. I like the Stanford approach a LOT better. You'd really love a visit to Drew University. They are very small (1800 students in their College of Liberal Arts, 100 students grad, 200 students in the Theological School... about 2200 students total). They were the first liberal arts school to include a PC with every tuition. I'm in their college of liberal arts now. It's pretty nice to have a 1:1 PC:student ratio. Students take their computers with them after graduation. All this at a liberal arts school? Yes. As of a couple months ago they are now all networked together to a really big mail-server (VAX 6220). The picture will be a little more complete when the library automation software comes in this spring and 100% of the students will be able to do research from their dorm rooms. It's nice to have a 19.2Kbps connection that I can use while I'm in bed. All this at a liberal arts school? Yes. The educational impact is great. Chemisty Lab manuals are handed out on disk (WordPerfect format). Spanish Drill&Practice software is handed out on disk. Teachers hand out special info via email. Students and faculty communicate with news-like software. Assignments are handed in via email. Phone bills from the campus-wide phone system are handed out via email (ugh! I don't think I'll be checking my email this week; they're due out very soon :-) All this at a liberal arts school and it works? Yes. (so far!) Tom "not speaking for the school" Limoncelli -- Tom Limoncelli -- Student Network Supervisor Drew University, Box 1060, Madison NJ 07940 -- 201-408-5389 new->> tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet -- limonce@pilot.njin.net "The opinions expressed are mine... just mine." "Network Theory? Just say node!"
schanck@perch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck) (10/27/88)
In article <5036@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> steve@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) writes: >place to live. These people probably don't have enough money to buy any >computer (NeXT, Mac, Apple ][, Commodore VIC-20, or anything). Therefore, Ahh, but have you heard of Apple's Student Loan-to-Own program? Offered in conjunction with a bank in D.C. It allows a student to borrow up to I forget how much, and defer paying the principle for up to 4 years (or when you graduate, I would assume). During those 4 years, you only pay interest, with a rate calculated from the T-Bill rate. As I understand it, it is a true loan; that is, you could apply, get the check, and by, say, an IBM PC (an example!!!). You can pay it all off at any time, and such. Seems to me we could really fox Apple and get a loan sponsered by Apple and buy a NeXT!!!!! :-) >| Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU Chris -=- "There is really no point in a .signature, is there?" "I mean, all the good ones have been done, right?" --- Christopher Schanck, mammal at large. schanck@flounder.cis.ohio-state.edu
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/28/88)
/ comp.sys.next / steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) / Oct 26, 1988 / >[...] what would have happened if we had all stuck with IBM 360's >or PC's (or whatever), where would we be now???? Exactly where most of the world IS now: stuck with IBM 360's (and their upward compatible descendants) and IBM PC's (and their upward compatible descendants). Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) (10/28/88)
One thing to keep in mind, is that someone doesn't appreciate new
capabilities until they use them for awhile. There are still quite
a few people who are not sold on the concept of "multitasking"
(used in an imprecise way). I, for one, find Macs perfectly
awful to use now, since I have a form of multitasking on my Amiga
at home. I am not saying the Mac is not as good a machine; I am
saying that I find I can get things done faster (writing mostly)
at home, then I can on a Mac here at work, because my work habits
have changed with the capabilities of the machine I use most.
The Macintosh, in its current incarnation, has peaked. Apple
will have to offer something more than a faster Mac that has color
to regain my interest. This is from a person who despised personal
computers until he had used a Macintosh, when 128k was all there was.
And price certainly will be a factor. It's a jungle out there.
I am waiting with interest for the much rumored new finder/system
for the Mac. Hopefully they will get Multifinder right this time.
Then, let's see if they can add voice mail via Appletalk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hal Meeks "Don't you wonder sometimes,
netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet about sound and vision?"
hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu --David Bowie