cs00jec@unccvax.uncc.edu (Jim Cain v2.0.1) (11/04/90)
Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? Please help me. I've fallen, and I can't get up!!
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (11/04/90)
|MesgID: 2909@unccvax.uncc.edu | | |Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! | |You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously |considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 |machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? | |Please help me. | |I've fallen, and I can't get up!! I'm an Amiga owner, but I'll help you anyway. a) Wait until the 040 is out of beta testing at the very least; they've still got bugs to squash. b) Word is you can't even GET a NeXTStation until February- they're backlogged with orders. c) I'm no big fan of A/UX, but it looks like a more useful version of Unix than what NeXT is fobbing off. d) If you've got a Mac, you won't have to abandon all your old software; you'll be able to run it without changing machines all the time. e) Who wants to be the only person in 20 miles to own a NeXT? dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 "...when Fortran was introduced, it was claimed that Fortran would largely eliminate coding and debugging! Of course, that claim proved to be quite false" - UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE, Robert M. Fitz & Larry Crocket
bskendig@set.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (11/04/90)
In article <27337f93-fe.1comp.sys.mac.misc-1@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: >|MesgID: 2909@unccvax.uncc.edu >|You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously >|considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 >|machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? > > I'm an Amiga owner, but I'll help you anyway. And I own a Mac SE and muck with its guts from time to time; I'll see what advice I can offer. >a) Wait until the 040 is out of beta testing at the very least; >they've still got bugs to squash. Good idea -- but once the '040 is done, it's a better chip than the '030... >b) Word is you can't even GET a NeXTStation until February- they're backlogged >with orders. I suppose that would be true, although I haven't heard any estimation of the length of the backlog. >c) I'm no big fan of A/UX, but it looks like a more useful >version of Unix than what NeXT is fobbing off. On what do you base that judgement? I've never seen A/UX running, but I consider the Unix available on the NeXT to be at least as good as that I use on Suns and Irises. Besides, Apple's tactics against IBM (that a GUI on a PC is an add-on, where it's built into the Apple) can be used against it here -- if you want A/UX you have to buy it and run it on top of the Mac operating system, whereas the NeXT is built around Unix to begin with yet still offers similar (but more powerful) Macintosh-like abilities. >d) If you've got a Mac, you won't have to abandon all your old software; >you'll be able to run it without changing machines all the time. Well, I might as well keep using my Commodore 128; why have to go out and buy more powerful, more capable software for a Macintosh? ;) Really -- there comes a time when you have to decide if it's worth it to move up to a better platform. Is the NeXT really better for what you want to do? >e) Who wants to be the only person in 20 miles to own a NeXT? And if I had followed *that* reasoning, I'd be using an IBM PC right now. ;) If I had to choose a new computer right now, it would be a NeXTstation. Without a moment's hesitation. - 92 dpi, very large, 4 color greyscale screen - 68040 processor - 2.88M floppy drive (can read MS-DOS [and Mac?]) - 105M hard drive - runs Unix right out of the box - audio input - DSP built in - Ethernet built in All for, at university prices, $3200, I believe. It seems almost too good to be true. << Brian >> | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | "It's not that I don't have the work to *do* -- I don't do the work I *have*."
KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET (11/04/90)
I'm not going to talk you out of buying a NeXT, actually I think it is a good idea. I own a Mac SE with two megs of RAM and a 40 meg HD. I bought this syst em for $2800 educator price. If I had waited I could have had a low end Next S tation capable of competing with a Max IIfx for the same price. When I sell my Mac I am going to become a NeXT defector too. In fact today in the mail I rec ieved liturature on the NeXT station. Go ahead, buy a NeXT!
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/04/90)
cs00jec@unccvax.uncc.edu (Jim Cain v2.0.1) writes: >Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! >You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously >considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 >machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? >Please help me. >I've fallen, and I can't get up!! Just one reason: The scarcity of general-purpose apps on the NeXT and their abundance on the Mac.
KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET (11/04/90)
In the beginning, who wanted to be the only person in 20 miles to own a Mac?
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/04/90)
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com(Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: >c) I'm no big fan of A/UX, but it looks like a more useful >version of Unix than what NeXT is fobbing off. Where's the smiley? NeXT's Unix is a very complete implementation of 4.3 BSD Unix, one of the most stable and popular Unixes around. The kernel is Mach, one of the most advanced kernels around with facilities for things like parallel processing. Won't see that on a Mac anytime soon. As a NeXT user and a Mac owner, I can tell you that the Mac OS crashes much much more often than the NeXT's. By the way, 4.3 BSD Unix is also on the Suns and is the dominant operating system for university minicomputers. 4.3 BSD and AT&T's System V are the dominant Unixes, period. 4.3 BSD, in many people's opinion, is the more powerful of the two.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/04/90)
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com(Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: >a) Wait until the 040 is out of beta testing at the very least; >they've still got bugs to squash. Not a long wait. NeXT says it will ship in quantity one week from now. The rumored "bugs" only pertain to special features installed on the chip for Hewlett-Packard machines. These "bugs" have no significance for the NeXT computer. >b) Word is you can't even GET a NeXTStation until February-they're >backlogged with orders. >e) Who wants to be the only person in 20 miles to own a NeXT? Interesting...NeXT is backlogged with orders for their computer, but apparently these orders don't mean that many people will be using the computer? I guess NeXTs are being bought for decoration :-). Seriously, NeXT is receiving very large orders for their new machines, and I suggest you get one before you're the last on the block to get one. >c) I'm no big fan of A/UX, but it looks like a more useful version of >Unix than what NeXT is fobbing off. As I mentioned elsewhere, NeXT has one of the most stable and powerful Unixes around: 4.3 BSD. It is probably as stable as Sun's implementation of 4.3 BSD, and, IMHO, is more powerful because of the Mach kernel. >d) If you've got a Mac, you won't have to abandon all your old software; >you'll be able to run it without changing machines all the time. You'll be able to run NeXTStep, X windows, MS-DOS (with the upcoming SoftPC for the NeXT), and perhaps, if someone comes out with a Mac emulator for the NeXT, Mac applications on the NeXT. NeXTStep applications, by the way, are as easy to use as Mac applications and more powerful because of better hardware, virtual memory, true multitasking, etc. Remember that several of the engineers primarily responsible for the Mac and its nice interface designed the NeXT. So, go ahead. Get a NeXT. Don't feel guilty. You're action will be just another reason for Apple to evolve beyond the Mac and bring the prices of their high-end machines down to earth.
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/04/90)
In article <2909@unccvax.uncc.edu> cs00jec@unccvax.uncc.edu (Jim Cain v2.0.1) writes: > >Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! > >You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously >considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 >machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? > >Please help me. > >I've fallen, and I can't get up!! I've fallen too after six years on the bandwagon, but I don't feel bad about it. As far as I can see, there are now only three reasons to buy a Mac over a NeXT: (1) Must share files on a day-to-day basis with other Mac users. (2) Need out-of-the-ordinary general purpose applications not available yet on the NeXT. Note that this does *not* include word processing, drawing applications, or spreadsheets, all of which are better on the NeXT than their Mac counterparts. And even this will change, as more and more companies (like Lotus) take advantage of NeXTStep to develop their applications first on the NeXT before porting them to other machines. (3) Have a *very* limited pocketbook, and a Mac Classic or LC will have enough power for your purposes. Note that you could replace "Mac" with "IBM" in the above three and get the only reasons for buying a PC or PC compatible rather than a NeXT. (There are, of course, many reasons for buying Macs rather than PCs). I suspect you already know the reasons in favor of buying a NeXT rather than a Mac (absolutely incredible price/performance ratio, Unix with the machine, display postscript for truely WYSIWG, etc.) Of course, your plea for somebody to change your mind sounds like what you really want is an emotional reason to make you feel right about switching to the NeXT over the Mac, which you've probably loved for a long time (as I did, and still do to a certain extent). I can give one reason: When Steve Jobs was booted out of Apple by the Pepsi accountants, Apple and the Macintosh lost its heart. That heart, its culture, and the innovation it inspires is now pumping quite strongly in the NeXT. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Trying to bring light and happiness to the world. * ************************************************************************
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/04/90)
I suppose the major issue here is really
Why should we care?
If the NeXT is the best machine for your purposes, get it. If it ain't,
don't get it. I don't know your needs, so how can I possibly give you
reasons for picking one over the other? Some people want Unix, other
people don't give a rats ass about having it. If you want to run (say)
Quicken more than you want Unix, then the right answer for *you* may be
different than if your preferences are reversed. Different people have
different uses for their computer, you have to choose based on your needs.
Otherwise, I see no use for this thread other than to start up yet another
"My computer is better than your computer" debate. I think we waste
enough bandwidth with such silly debates already. I suggest that anyone
that thinks the original poster really wants us to make up his mind for
him should send their advice to him as messages. Otherwise we're going to
sit here debating which branch of Unix is better, which machine has more
applications, who has the snazziest displays, which machine "feels"
faster, and probably a million other debates that we've all seen before,
and *then* we'll debate which of the other debates are the most important
debates to win.
For me, today I find the Mac a better choice. Some other day I may find
the NeXT a better machine. If I do, I'll pick it without some silly
pretense of hand-wringing in a Usenet newsgroup. If it's better for me,
I won't *care* what anyone else thinks anyway.
I can see asking a specific question, like "I need to print newslettters,
can I do that on a NeXT?". I can't see an open debate on "Please hold me
back from buying this machine that I'm drawn to".
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USAmings@cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) (11/04/90)
Well, so far I agreed that the NeXT is a better buy than the Mac (no flame please, I don't mean that the NeXT is better than the Mac or vice versa, I just think, at that price, you get more on a NeXT than on a Mac). And if I have the money, I will surely go to buy a NeXT. However, there may be at least one reason for buying a Mac instead of a NeXT, that is color (please correct me if I am wrong). If you are want color, then you should buy a Mac, not a NeXT, because, as far as I know, the NeXT does not support color on ay of its models. I don't know about the '040 NeXT, but I assume that it won't have color either, since I never heard that NeXT has any plan on introducing color machine. Once again, if I have said anything wrong, please correct me, thanks ! Ming
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.124453.3882@cs.uoregon.edu> mings@cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes: > >Well, so far I agreed that the NeXT is a better buy than the Mac [...] > > However, there may be at least one reason for buying a Mac instead of >a NeXT, that is color (please correct me if I am wrong). If you are want >color, then you should buy a Mac, not a NeXT, because, as far as I know, the >NeXT does not support color on ay of its models. I don't know about the '040 >NeXT, but I assume that it won't have color either, since I never heard that >NeXT has any plan on introducing color machine. > > Once again, if I have said anything wrong, please correct me, thanks ! > >Ming The new 68040 NeXTs do indeed have color as an option. Quite nice color, actually, though expandability isn't as good as it could be, and you have to pay for it. For $1750 more than the basic NeXTStation (UCLA educational prices), you can get a color NeXTStation with a 16 inch monitor having 16 bits/pixel color and 1120 x 832 resolution. Unfortunately, you have to decide whether you want color right away, since the basic B/W NeXTStation is not expandable. There is also a color board and monitor for the more expensive and expandable NeXTCube, meant mainly for high-end publishing, graphics, etc. It's a $5150 (educational price again) 32 bit/pixel (on screen) 16 inch display with a blindingly fast Intel i860 RISC graphics coproccessor that lets you compress and play back full-motion video. So, in short, the new NeXTs do have pretty nice color, but the entry cost for it is higher than the entry cost for (lower quality) color on the Mac. And, of course, you can also get high-quality color on the Mac, and the Macs currently have more applications explicitly dealing with color. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Perfecting the art of arthroscopic surgery. * ************************************************************************
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/05/90)
In article <3818@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@set.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >Besides, Apple's tactics against IBM >(that a GUI on a PC is an add-on, where it's built into the Apple) can >be used against it here -- if you want A/UX you have to buy it and run >it on top of the Mac operating system, whereas the NeXT is built >around Unix to begin with yet still offers similar (but more powerful) >Macintosh-like abilities. Huh? A/UX is a full-blown operating system. You can run Multi-finder as a process under A/UX, not the other way around. As for the original question of Mac vs. Next, it still is a question of what do you want to do with it? a) If you are developing your own code and need speed, get a Next. There's no real reason not to. b) On the other hand, if you're primarily going to use commercial software, the Mac still has the advantage. Next users like to say, yes, this or that type of software is available, but at present there's only one program available. It's also first-release software so the features/interface haven't had a chance to mature yet. For example, look at word processors. On the Next, there's WriteNow. (Assuming it's similar to the Mac version), it's a very nice, easy-to-learn program, but it's not feature-laden like Word or Nisus, so if you need to produce a table or contents or an outline or some complex layouts, you can't do it in WriteNow. You can, of course, do such in TeX or FrameMaker, but those programs have a considerably steeper learning curve. Question for Next users: Is there an equivalent of Expressionist which allows one to produce equations graphically and then paste them into WriteNow? -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony) (11/05/90)
Boy, three weeks ago if anyone ever suggested I would buy any machine over a Mac, I would have thought them crazy. But this die-hard Mac user is expecting to receive his new NeXTstation within two to three weeks. At first I was just curious about the new machines, but the more I found out about them the more I was led in. It seemed to just get better and better! There are many reasons to buy one, and some not to buy. But let me address one of my biggest concerns: Limited software -- this is probably the most frequently pointed out problem. However, all machines start out with little software, and from what I've seen, I think the NeXT has more potential to grow a large software base then any other machine in history. Not only does it provide a user interface as superior as the Macintosh's, but the software development enviornment is also superb. I heard WordPerfect Corp orignally budgeted 12 months (if memory serves) to create WordPerfect, and ended up using only six. Lotus wanted to develop a new spreadsheet, and they chose NeXT to do it because they said it was the best enviornment to work in. Lotus has also said, apparently, that _all new products will be developed on the NeXT_ before any other machine because of this reason. Yes, there is lot's of Mac software out there. But there was lots of IBM software out there when Mac started. And many of us went with the new machine anyway. For many of the same reasons, I am switching to NeXT. I think as one person pointed out, I feel the heart of Apple has gone with Jobs. When Apple first started, all the way back to my first Apple ][+, the company had fresh new ideas and enthusiasm. I have felt more and more lately that this is going, and Apple has turned into a big beuacracy. The Mac IIfx quickly changed, in my mind, from a symbol of Apple inginuity to a symbol of Apple's unreasonableness, as I found out more and more. I see the innovative ideas comming from Jobs and the people he took with him when he left Apple. And one other thing I think should be pointed out: don't be turned off if you don't like UNIX. I cringe everytime I have to type "ls -l" to list my files on this UNIX host, but be aware that the NeXTstep interface is as intutive and friendly as the Mac interface, allowing you to not have to learn all the UNIX complexities, while at the same time being able to take advantage of its power. To me, I see a machine that's got almost everything, including a great price. And I do think this is a reasonable discussion for the Mac group, because I think anyone who likes and can afford a Mac, will like and be able to afford a NeXT. As a Mac user, my interest in the NeXT was started by a NeXT thread in this group. I think Mac users should get a chance to see the NeXT. Well, time to get off my soapbox and into my flame-suit. :-) Happy computing! __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.161502.5342@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes:
b) On the other hand, if you're primarily going to use commercial software,
the Mac still has the advantage. Next users like to say, yes, this or that type
of software is available, but at present there's only one program available.
It's also first-release software so the features/interface haven't had a
chance to mature yet. For example, look at word processors. On the Next,
there's WriteNow. (Assuming it's similar to the Mac version), it's a very
nice, easy-to-learn program, but it's not feature-laden like Word or Nisus,
so if you need to produce a table or contents or an outline or some complex
layouts, you can't do it in WriteNow. You can, of course, do such in TeX or
FrameMaker, but those programs have a considerably steeper learning curve.
Question for Next users: Is there an equivalent of Expressionist which allows
one to produce equations graphically and then paste them into WriteNow?
A company called Word Perfect has ported their word processor to the
NeXT. I think the gap has been filled.
WriteNow -> Word Perfect -> FrameMaker | (Quark Express?? 3.0)
-Mike
BTW. A new release of WP for the Mac is on the way. And like the
NeXT port, WP is suppose to have a real user interface.melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (11/05/90)
In article <90308.005234KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET> <KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET> writes:
I'm not going to talk you out of buying a NeXT, actually I think
it is a good idea. I own a Mac SE with two megs of RAM and a 40 meg
HD. I bought this syst em for $2800 educator price. If I had waited I
could have had a low end Next S tation capable of competing with a Max
IIfx for the same price. When I sell my Mac I am going to become a
NeXT defector too. In fact today in the mail I rec ieved liturature
on the NeXT station.
Go ahead, buy a NeXT!
Obviously you are impressed with the NeXT, but you did sell it a
little short. The NeXT is twice as fast as the IIfx. In floating
point performance it is between 5-10 times faster. The NeXT competes
in performance with Sun's SparcStation. The bridge between the
personal computer and the workstation has been built. Now, I'm
waiting for the Cray in a Cube.
On another thread, is System 7.0 being written in assembler? If so,
Apple is not going to have an easy time moving to other
high-performance architectures.
-Mikevd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/05/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 4-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT > defect.. Brian Kendig@set.Princet (2832) > If I had to choose a new computer right now, it would be a > NeXTstation. Without a moment's hesitation. > [bunch of specs deleted] > All for, at university prices, $3200, I believe. Well, yes, the hardware is incredibly impressive, but as of yet, there still isn't much software to speak of. Also, keep in mind that while these things are still being sold primarily to large organizations (primarily educational, I believe), the standard Unix pricing schemes (read: EXPENSIVE!) for software are likely to remain in effect for what software is available. > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 4-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT > defect.. Raymond group@garnet.ber (813) > Where's the smiley? NeXT's Unix is a very complete implementation of > 4.3 BSD Unix, one of the most stable and popular Unixes around. The > kernel is Mach, one of the most advanced kernels around with facilities > for things like parallel processing. Won't see that on a Mac anytime > soon. Well, whether or not A/UX is more "useful" than regular 4.3BSD is debatable. Certainly 4.3BSD is a lot more standard (though there are a few differences between Mach's BSD emulation and more standard BSDs, like SunOS or Ultrix) and easier to port to than Apple's own mix of SysV and BSD. But from what I've heard (still haven't really seen A/UX) Apple also has a lot of pretty nice extensions, like Commando and the ability to run Mac applications (not available on most Suns) in a pretty much protected environment. As to "won't see that on a Mac...", BZZZZZT. Try again. Here at CMU they have developed something called MacMach, which is basically a complete port of Mach to the Mac (most easily done here since Mach was/is developed here). Also, a third party has developed something called MachTen, which is a version of Mach which runs under the MacOS, supposedly on all machines from the Classic up. (MacMach, for the most part, goes around the OS, and you can, to a limited extent, run Mac programs from within it.) See recent posts on comp.os.mach for details. -Vince vd09@andrew.cmu.edu
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.161502.5342@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> I wrote > It's also first-release software so the features/interface haven't had a > chance to mature yet. For example, look at word processors. On the Next, > there's WriteNow. (Assuming it's similar to the Mac version), it's a very > nice, easy-to-learn program, but it's not feature-laden like Word or Nisus, > so if you need to produce a table or contents or an outline or some complex > layouts, you can't do it in WriteNow. > In article <Fazhj7$2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) correctly points out: >A company called Word Perfect has ported their word processor to the >NeXT. I think the gap has been filled. > > WriteNow -> Word Perfect -> FrameMaker | (Quark Express?? 3.0) > >BTW. A new release of WP for the Mac is on the way. And like the >NeXT port, WP is suppose to have a real user interface. Whoops. Forget out that. However, one should still check to make sure that the software one needs *is* available. I'm still not sure I could write scientific papers in WriteNow or WordPerfect on a Next because of the lack of an easy way to create equations. Again, I don't think one program fills a gap. If for some reason you don't like WordPerfect or if it doesn't do something you need it to (perhaps Word-like tables), then you don't have a choice. This will probably change in time, but one should realize that one is on the frontier with the pitfalls thereof. If one wishes to make parallels between the Mac & Next, 128K Mac <-> original cube (neat ideas, somewhat underpowered, no software) MacPlus <-> '040 workstations (hopefully will enervate the market) MacWrite <-> WriteNow (simple, but not feature laden; bundled) Word 1.0 <-> WordPerfect (first real alternative to bundled word processor) I think Next is approximately where the Mac was in 1985 when, despite its advantages over PCs in terms of interface, it wasn't clear at all whether it (or Apple) was going to survive. The Mac Plus finally provided enough horsepower to convince people it was a real computer and just not a cute toy. Hopefully, the new Nexts will do the same, but it's not a forgone conclusion simply because it has not happened yet. -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.201838.26983@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes:
Whoops. Forget out that. However, one should still check to make sure that
the software one needs *is* available. I'm still not sure I could write
scientific papers in WriteNow or WordPerfect on a Next because of the
lack of an easy way to create equations.
I think WordPerfect does do equations. Doesn't WP 5.0? Anyway, for a
large percentage of the population, equations aren't important. By
not having them in a mid-range word processor does not make word
processing on the NeXT unbearable. FrameMaker does do them and it has
an eductational price of $450. There is always TeX as you have
mentioned. I don't know much TeX, but I do know that equations are
easy --I have tried them. Just write them in TeX and paste them into
WriteNow(both of these come with the NeXT).
Again, I don't think one program fills a gap. If for some reason
you don't like WordPerfect or if it doesn't do something you need it to (perhaps
Word-like tables), then you don't have a choice. This will probably change
in time, but one should realize that one is on the frontier with the pitfalls
thereof.
WP 5.1 does do tables. The big question here is which version of Word
Perfect has been ported to the NeXT? I think that WordPerfect is
still the most feature laden word processor out there(although I do
prefer Word 4.0:-)) At least 80% of the PC market is IBM, and Word
Perfect owns that market because they had a good product when the PC
market was young, just as Microsoft owns the Mac market. Hopefully, a
couple of Mac companies will realize the opportunity the NeXT
represents: a strangle-hold on a market for being first and good.
If one wishes to make parallels between the Mac & Next,
128K Mac <-> original cube (neat ideas, somewhat underpowered, no software)
MacPlus <-> '040 workstations (hopefully will enervate the market)
MacWrite <-> WriteNow (simple, but not feature laden; bundled)
Word 1.0 <-> WordPerfect (first real alternative to bundled word processor)
The original cube is quite usable(I'm on one now). It's just slower
than I would like it to be(soon to be remedied for $1000). It is
expandle(128K Mac's problem). The machine that I am typing on has
more horsepower than a Mac IIci. There is just a price that must be
paid for bringing Postscript to the screen. Your comparisons are
somewhat accurate though, but they should be taken to mean that there
is great stuff yet to come, not that the NeXT is lacking as a
computer. The cube in its infancy(040) has more horsepower than
Apple's top of the line IIfx. The software that is coming and
here(WP, FrameMaker, Improv, Wingz, PowerStep, Oracle, Quark) rivals
the best on the Mac. When the software companies release 2.0 of their
software, you will see some great stuff(Have to settle for good at the
moment). I have all of these features now: pre-emptive multitasking,
interprocess communication, Ethernet, memory protection, virtual
memory(4GB), expandable to 64MB RAM, hardware support for sound(DSP).
And yet to come(soooon): real time animiation, 68040, 12 and 24 bit
color, and a 2.88 Meg floppy.
I think Next is approximately where the Mac was in 1985 when, despite its
advantages over PCs in terms of interface, it wasn't clear at all whether it
(or Apple) was going to survive. The Mac Plus finally provided enough
horsepower to convince people it was a real computer and just not a cute toy.
Hopefully, the new Nexts will do the same, but it's not a forgone conclusion
simply because it has not happened yet.
--
In its life cycle, the new NeXT might be back with the Mac Plus, but
in capabilities the machine beats Apple's best. When it comes time to
spend $5000 on a machine, at least look at a new NeXT.
-Mikegft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/05/90)
------- Why should you buy a Mac over a Next? You should buy whichever one you prefer and which suits your purposes better. A couple of data points in favor of the Mac, though: 1) Color: yes, color is available on the next. It is relatively expensive. And if you start with a B/W Nextstation, you're stuck with B/W. And if you get a color Nextstation, you're only going to get 12 bits of color (4 bits of alpha). On the Mac you can start with a B/W machine or an 8-bit color machine and upgrade to 24 bit color later on. A 24 bit color card for the Mac can be purchased for as little as $600 or so. 2) If you're a developer, the market for your sofware is much smaller in the Next world than the Mac world. (Now, people might say that by this argument one could develop for the IBM PC. Well, for all the cool hardware in the Next, and the super bang for the buck, a Next does not offer anything revolutionarily better than a Mac, as a Mac does to a PC. All you cubeheads can like it or lump it, but it's just true: protected memory, UNIX, etc are just not as big a jump as non-GUI to GUI). This is supposedly the reason Bill Atkinson didn't join Next, even though he was offered a position by Jobs: because he didn't want to write software for the relatively smaller number of machines Next would sell. Basically he wanted to have his work have a bigger impact. So if wider sales and/or distribution of your software is of interest to you, a Mac would seem more reasonable. 3) Apple is more likely to be in business 5 years from now than Next. Now before the cubeheads start flaming, I didn't say Next won't be here. But it is considerably more likely that Next will go out of business than Apple. Neither may go out of business, but the computer industry is volatile. This may -- or may not -- be of concern to you. So, you should really buy whatever you think is best. Next does offer more bang for the buck, hardware wise. Apple offers a huge variety of sofware, most of which is just as innovative as what is available on the Next. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski) (11/05/90)
"We don't think NeXT will have a big market share, and we allocate our market resources based on market share ...We think that the NeXT computer is an incredibly innovative machine, but our resources are commited to other players. Besides, NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop for that platform." -Gordon Eubanks, President of Symantec. (Macworld, October 1990) Enough said about the rush of developers porting to the NeXT. (Keep in mind that these opinions are not mine, but a quote taken verbatim from the magazine) Who is buying the thing anyway ? (besides University users ?) If you want to get general purpose apps, there has to be an installed base of 'general purpose users'. I don't see this happening in the near future. Look at the only authorized dealer (outside of educational institutions). Businessland. The marketing wizards who dumped their Compaq authorized dealership. Some of you might have heard of Compaq. They are the IBM compatible maker whose machines make up the majority of PC network servers. As for the idea that Jobs is 'carrying the torch' and Apple hasn't been innovative without him, he was running the company into the ground !!!!!!!!!! I think that anyone who has this idea needs to stop listening to the media hype about how great Jobs is and actually get some facts. Try reading "West Of Eden-The End of the Innocence at Apple Computer" , "Accidental Millionaire" or Sculley's own "Odyssey". I think the guy's great, but it scares me to think where the Mac might be if he was still at Apple. Finally, the comparisons between the NeXT and the Mac at its inception aren't really valid. The Mac was so radically different than the PC. The NeXT machine is actually pretty similar to the AVERAGE user. I've used a NeXT on several occasions. It's really nice. Sure it's much more powerful, and I'd love to see those features on a Mac someday (today, tomorrow, the day after, whatever) but I can wait. I'm buying an fx. Robert Sadowski -- sado@midway.uchicago.edu The University Of Chicago
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/05/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >------- >Why should you buy a Mac over a Next? You should buy whichever one you prefer >and which suits your purposes better. >A couple of data points in favor of the Mac, though: >1) Color: yes, color is available on the next. It is relatively expensive. >And if you start with a B/W Nextstation, you're stuck with B/W. And if you get >a color Nextstation, you're only going to get 12 bits of color (4 bits of >alpha). On the Mac you can start with a B/W machine or an 8-bit color machine >and upgrade to 24 bit color later on. A 24 bit color card for the Mac can be >purchased for as little as $600 or so. Not quite: a 13" 24-bit color card for the Mac is available at that price. Remember that the NeXT has a 17" screen with much higher resolution. Have you priced 16" or 19" 24-bit boards and monitors for the Mac lately? Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/05/90)
sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski) quotes the President of Symantec in Macworld, October 1990. >"We don't think NeXT will have a big market share, and we allocate our >market resources based on market share ...We think that the NeXT computer >is an incredibly innovative machine, but our resources are committed to >other players. Besides, NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop for >that platform." First, this statement was made before the September 18th rollout of the new NeXTs. Yes, the market for the NeXT looked small before then, with only about 7,000 machines sold in a year. However, it was announced on Sept. 18th that 15,000 2.0 machines had been sold in the two months prior to the public showing of NeXT 2.0. NeXT is gaining momentum in both the academic and business world. Secondly, the statement that "NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop for that platform" seems incredibly uninformed. The NeXT is the easiest and most powerful development platform around, period. Lotus says that all of their new software will appear on the NeXT before it appears on any other platform. WordPerfect allotted 18 mos. for WP on the NeXT and had their product ready for beta in 6 mos.! Programmers who've used both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, Prototyper, Think C) are almost unanimous in their strong preference for the NeXT. In general, software developers say that they realize 50% to 75% time savings when they write software on the NeXT. And they end up with nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's Interface Builder). Symantec's "resources are committed to other players." Lotus, Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect, et al, are ignoring Symantec's lead. Symantec needs to re-examine the NeXT market, or it will miss the boat completely. Interesting that this quote was made by the President of Symantec. I believe Symantec makes Think C. NeXT has Objective-C, which may be a serious contender to overthrow Think C on GUI platforms. Take words from Symantec and Microsoft (makers of OS/2, a competitor of NeXTStep) with a large grain of salt. These companies see NeXT as a threat, and precisely because NeXT does provide a more attractive alternative to their products and because NeXT now seems to be a legitimate contender against high-end PCs and Macs. sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski) also writes: >Look at the only authorized dealer ... Businessland. This is very old and, now, incorrect news. NeXT has recruited VARs and is now entering the direct marketing game. >As for the idea that Jobs is 'carrying the torch' and Apple hasn't been >innovative without him, he was running the company into the ground!!!!!!! >I think that anyone who has this idea needs to stop listening to the >media hype about how great Jobs is and actually get the facts. Try >reading "West of Eden-The End of the Innocence at Apple Computer", >"Accidental Millionaire" or Sculley's own "Odyssey". I've read West of Eden and Odyssey. The picture they paint of Jobs is a immature man lacking what it takes to make it in a business world dominated by men in blue suits. However, they also paint Jobs as a technological visionary, a man who places innovation and quality above the bottom line. He was the soul of the Mac. And I think Sculley and the author of West of Eden would wholeheartedly agree.
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/05/90)
There is only one thing that you should think about when you are looking at computers and/or are thinking of defecting from brand X to Brand Y - which do you like better? We can fill up 20 zillion newsgroups with discussions on '40 chips and I have this software and you don't, but it doesn't mean a thing if you don't like your computer. I was a die-hard Commodore guy, then I was an IBM guy for a spell, then I got my Mac, because I had used Macs for a year and loved them. There may have been a few other factors, such as soft/hardware, but the fact that I *liked* the Mac is what did it for me. This is also aplicable to the Amiga vs. Mac messages. It's obivous that Amigausers love their Amigas and want to emulate Macs, not becaue they can, but because they *want to*. It's just that they like their Amigas more. So stop all the bickering about hardware and all that and go out there and test drive an IBM, an Amiga, a Mac, a NeXT, and whatever else pleases you. Figure out which one you like, and buy it!
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.201838.26983@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes: >I think Next is approximately where the Mac was in 1985 when, despite its >advantages over PCs in terms of interface, it wasn't clear at all whether it >(or Apple) was going to survive. The Mac Plus finally provided enough >horsepower to convince people it was a real computer and just not a cute toy. >Hopefully, the new Nexts will do the same, but it's not a forgone conclusion >simply because it has not happened yet. Mentioning the Macintosh GUI does point out one thing - when the Mac came out, one main selling point was it's GUI - something that IBM couldn't match then and it only starting to match now (NO Win 3 flames, please). Now with the NeXT looking for market share, it's GUI doesn't matter that much.NeXT can't say that their machine is easier to use than a Mac or Win3 (maybe it is, I haven't used Win3). I'm not saying that interface is what makes or breaks a machine, but if the Mac didn't have a GUI, would it be here today? Not a chance. Another posting pointed out that 'general-use' programs won't get written for the NeXT unless there is a general public that uses the Next. Most of the prices we see quoted are University prices, so does anyone know what Joe on the Street pays for a Next? It's Joe that makes a computer stay around. Joe can buy an IBM clone dirt cheap and a Classic for a grand, but the thing that IBM and Mac have over NeXT is that Joe needs to spend 3-4 grand to get *started*. Imagine you are a brand new user. Will you shell out 4 grand for a computer? Heck, you might not ever spend a grand to get a Classis, for those clones are so cheap, it's not funny. So, the NeXT might be a great machine, but will it survive in the *real* world? Are there any discount NeXT software houses? That has to be the true indicator of when a computer 'makes it.' Alright, that's all. I'm putting on my asbestos underwear now, so flame away...
sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov5.064724.16646@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >(pertaining to Symantec Pres. Gordon Eubanks' statement that he will not develop for the NeXT platform) > >First, this statement was made before the September 18th rollout of the >new NeXTs. Yes, the market for the NeXT looked small before then, with >only about 7,000 machines sold in a year. However, it was announced on >Sept. 18th that 15,000 2.0 machines had been sold in the two months >prior to the public showing of NeXT 2.0. NeXT is gaining momentum in >both the academic and business world. 7,000 + 15,000 + how many have since been sold since then is still not a significant market share. How many PC's are sold each year ? Hundreds of thousands. Until I see some significant figures documented in some well known publication, I will not concede that NeXT is gaining momentum in the business world. >Secondly, the statement that "NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop >for that platform" seems incredibly uninformed. The NeXT is the easiest >and most powerful development platform around, period. I knew someone was going to single this statement out. I didn't think I would have to qualify it with the statement that Eubanks is most probably referring to NeXT's developer support, not the wonderful and powerful interface builder. >Programmers who've used >both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, Prototyper, Think C) >are almost unanimous in their strong preference for the NeXT. Prove it. Figures please. >And they end up with >nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's Interface Builder). Opinion. This point could be debated in this forum for hours. >Symantec's "resources are committed to other players." Lotus, Ashton-Tate, >WordPerfect, et al, are ignoring Symantec's lead. Symantec needs to >re-examine the NeXT market, or it will miss the boat completely. I must admit, I took this statement slightly out of context. These so-called "other players" means Windows. Given the choice between devloping for an environment that had a base of 300,000 the day it shipped and one that had (more than?) 22,000 which would you choose ? >Take words >from Symantec and Microsoft (makers of OS/2, a competitor of NeXTStep) >with a large grain of salt. These companies see NeXT as a threat. I'll take words from Symantec, the leading developer of utilities for the Mac and if not the leader, number #2 in development environments, and Microsoft, the unquestionable landslide leader in the most used business apps (word p/spreadsheets) over that of Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WP, three industry giants who have done absolutely dismal ports of their PC apps to a graphical environment. It goes both ways. You attack the leaders by virtue of their position. > >NeXT has recruited VARs and is now entering the direct marketing game. OK, maybe I'm wrong. But tell me who they are. >I've read West of Eden and Odyssey. The picture they paint of Jobs is a >immature man lacking what it takes to make it in a business world >dominated by men in blue suits. However, they also paint Jobs as a >technological visionary, a man who places innovation and quality above >the bottom line. He was the soul of the Mac. And I think Sculley and >the author of West of Eden would wholeheartedly agree. I said the guy was great and everything. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. My point still is that the business world is dominated by men in blue suits. Find someone to disagree with this statement. And then apply it to your own. 8^) -rs
dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) (11/05/90)
In article <F.*m?7$2@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <90308.005234KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET> <KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET> writes: > > > [... blah blah] >On another thread, is System 7.0 being written in assembler? If so, >Apple is not going to have an easy time moving to other >high-performance architectures. ???????? The ONLY way to go is assembler, why do you think the current systems are slow huh? If 7.0 was to be written in assembler then it would be half the size and twice the speed (if there are any REAL programmers still working for Apple). And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as hand-optimized assembler. I guess that the release date of 7.0 is delayed due to OOP... It's a nice concept but not the way to go. > >-Mike
tempest@walleye.uucp (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov5.095930.27753@cs.umu.se> dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) writes: >The ONLY way to go is assembler, why do you think the current systems are >slow huh? If 7.0 was to be written in assembler then it would be half the >size and twice the speed (if there are any REAL programmers still working for >Apple). And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as >hand-optimized assembler. I guess that the release date of 7.0 is delayed >due to OOP... It's a nice concept but not the way to go. If System 7 is to be written in assembler, its release date would be pushed back even farther. I'd say that assembler is the only way to go in certain cases; but when you consider how large a project System 7 is, a high-level language would be more beneficial in terms of getting things to work right in the first place. "REAL" programmers do not do extra work if they don't need to--they spend that extra energy doing other projects. I used to think that assembler is the "real programmers'" language. I've changed my mind after I've worked with a group of people. It's not fun reading others' code--let alone stuff that they've done in assembler. So, I'm a whimp and program in a high-level language--I still look at assembler just to keep in shape. :-) Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.064724.16646@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >First, this statement was made before the September 18th rollout of the >new NeXTs. Yes, the market for the NeXT looked small before then, with >only about 7,000 machines sold in a year. However, it was announced on >Sept. 18th that 15,000 2.0 machines had been sold in the two months >prior to the public showing of NeXT 2.0. NeXT is gaining momentum in >both the academic and business world. 15,000 * 6 = 90,000 machines per year. Macintosh, in its FIRST year, sold 500,000, and it was NOT an overwhelmingly popular machine. It was seen as making very little headway into business and only a little more into academia. Seven years later, Macs have ALMOST won the battle to be accepted as a mainstream machine. If NeXT had sold TEN TIMES as many machines, they'd be doing well. If NeXT had sold FIVE TIMES as many machines, it would be tough for them. At only 7,500 per month it will still be a bitter fight for survival at NeXT. When NeXT has an installed base of 1,000,000 is when I'm laying my money on the line. Not a minute before. I love UNIX and Mach and I think NeXTstep is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's just too shaky a company for a mainstream user. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.095930.27753@cs.umu.se> dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) writes: >The ONLY way to go is assembler, why do you think the current systems are >slow huh? If 7.0 was to be written in assembler then it would be half the >size and twice the speed (if there are any REAL programmers still working for >Apple). And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as >hand-optimized assembler. I guess that the release date of 7.0 is delayed >due to OOP... It's a nice concept but not the way to go. Aside from the problem of understanding 'no compiler NEVER', I think it should be pointed out that it depends on who is doing the optomizing. Personally, I have never managed to get anything approaching efficient code out of THINKs object library-- it seems to take about 10 lines (all of which generate code) to do one simple thing. But this could be my fault, and not something inherent in OOP. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: > 15,000 * 6 = 90,000 machines per year. Macintosh, in its FIRST year, sold >500,000, and it was NOT an overwhelmingly popular machine. It was seen as >making very little headway into business and only a little more into >academia. You would compare sales of Mercedes to Toyotas. The NeXT is a workstation, not a low or middle-range PC. Sun, by all accounts a great success, sells in the order of 100,000 workstations a year. Compare NeXT sales to machines it is competing against, like the Mac IIfx, Sun, HP, etc. By your argument, Cray is a dismal failure because they sell less supercomputers than IBM sells mainframes. Mark Wilkins continues: >If NeXT had sold TEN TIMES as many machines, they'd be doing well. If NeXT >had sold FIVE TIMES as many machines, it would be tough for them. At only >7,500 per month it will still be a bitter fight for survival. If NeXT sold TEN TIMES as much (i.e, 75,000 machines a MONTH), it would have 100% of the workstation market and a very large share of the high-end PC market. If NeXT sold FIVE TIMES as much, it would leapfrog Sun and the Mac IIfx. At 7,500 per month, NeXT is competing head-to-head with Sun and the Mac II. Mark Wilkins also writes: > When NeXT has an installed base of 1,000,000 is when I'm laying my money >on the line. Not a minute before. When NeXT has a million in its installed base, it will have about half of its target market. The lower-end Macs are out there in the millions, but has probably less than 25% of the market. Once again, the NeXT is not a PC. It is aimed at a different audience, and you must measure its success by how well it does against other machines aimed at the same audience. Saying all this, I have to add that a NeXT is now a better buy than a Mac SE/30, Mac II, IIci, IIcx, IIfx, et al. Sales of NeXTs will grow even further as the NeXT begins to incur into the mid-range Mac and high-end PC market. Now is the time to become a software developer for the NeXT. When your product is finished, the NeXT will have a large installed base.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) > Mentioning the Macintosh GUI does point out one thing - when the Mac came >out, one main selling point was it's GUI - something that IBM couldn't match >then and it only starting to match now (NO Win 3 flames, please). > Now with the NeXT looking for market share, it's GUI doesn't matter that >much. One of the factors that almost prevented the Mac from taking off was its radically different user interface. The NeXT has the advantage that Mac and Windows have paved the way for acceptance of its state-of-the-art interface. The original Mac was also crippled by insufficient memory, poor connectivity, and a difficult software development environment. The NeXT has huge memory, unsurpassed connectivity, and a software development environment that everyone will frantically try to catch up with in the near future. Questor also writes: >Joe can buy an IBM clone dirt cheap and a Classic for a grand, but the >thing that IBM and Mac have over the NeXT is that Joe needs to spend 3-4 >grand to get "started." Joe is not the target market for the NeXT. NeXT is selling to those who would otherwise buy a high-end PC, a mid/high-range Mac, or a workstation. By the way, I think the Mac is an example of a low-end NeXT. If Jobs had built his machine at Apple, the NeXT could be called Mac III or Big Mac (John Sculley actually calls it this in his book Odyssey). Funny thing is that this Mac III is cheaper than a Mac II and more powerful and innovative. Quaestor also writes: >Are there any discount NeXT software houses? That has to be the true >indicator of when a computer 'makes it.' Yes, PC Connection, Inc. (responsible for PC Connection and MacConnection) has formed NeXTConnection for the low-cost, volume-sale of NeXT software. So, the NeXT has already 'made it' by your criteria!
anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,,,) (11/06/90)
From article <1990Nov5.083738.17066@midway.uchicago.edu>, by sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski): > In article <1990Nov5.064724.16646@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>(pertaining to Symantec Pres. Gordon Eubanks' statement that he will not > develop for the NeXT platform) >> >>First, this statement was made before the September 18th rollout of the >>new NeXTs. Yes, the market for the NeXT looked small before then, with >>only about 7,000 machines sold in a year. However, it was announced on >>Sept. 18th that 15,000 2.0 machines had been sold in the two months >>prior to the public showing of NeXT 2.0. NeXT is gaining momentum in >>both the academic and business world. > > 7,000 + 15,000 + how many have since been sold since then is still not > a significant market share. How many PC's are sold each year ? > Hundreds of thousands. Until I see some significant figures documented > in some well known publication, I will not concede that NeXT is gaining > momentum in the business world. > Well, fair enough. But if you don't think 15,000 orders before the machine is even in production (!) isn't the start of momentum, I hate to think what you thought when the Mac was first rolled out. And besides, the number of PC's sold each year also greatly outpaces the number of Macs sold. >>Secondly, the statement that "NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop >>for that platform" seems incredibly uninformed. The NeXT is the easiest >>and most powerful development platform around, period. > > I knew someone was going to single this statement out. I didn't think > I would have to qualify it with the statement that Eubanks is most > probably referring to NeXT's developer support, not the wonderful and > powerful interface builder. > I have no first-hand expereince here, but I do know NeXT offers a Registered Developer's Program, which means you can get training from NeXT, 30% discounts on NeXT computers, "co-marketing opportunities", technical support via e-mail, etc. Besides, one of the reasons Apple has so much support is that it is tedious to program the Mac. If I had to choose between support and ease of programming, well, that's an easy choice! >>Programmers who've used >>both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, Prototyper, Think C) >>are almost unanimous in their strong preference for the NeXT. > > Prove it. Figures please. > >>And they end up with >>nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's Interface Builder). > > Opinion. This point could be debated in this forum for hours. > True. (But I agree :-) >>Symantec's "resources are committed to other players." Lotus, Ashton-Tate, >>WordPerfect, et al, are ignoring Symantec's lead. Symantec needs to >>re-examine the NeXT market, or it will miss the boat completely. > > I must admit, I took this statement slightly out of context. These > so-called "other players" means Windows. Given the choice between devloping > for an environment that had a base of 300,000 the day it shipped and one > that had (more than?) 22,000 which would you choose ? > Of course, by this logic, Symmantic would be more concerned with the PC market than the Mac market. There are (sadly, IMHO) a lot more PC's than Mac's out there. I think it is fair to say Symantec does more in the Mac market than the PC. >>Take words >>from Symantec and Microsoft (makers of OS/2, a competitor of NeXTStep) >>with a large grain of salt. These companies see NeXT as a threat. > > I'll take words from Symantec, the leading developer of utilities for the > Mac and if not the leader, number #2 in development environments, and > Microsoft, the unquestionable landslide leader in the most used business > apps (word p/spreadsheets) over that of Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WP, three > industry giants who have done absolutely dismal ports of their PC apps to > a graphical environment. It goes both ways. You attack the leaders by > virtue of their position. > Hmmm.... isn't Symantec the company who refuses to make a C++ compiler because C++ is "stupid"? I heard this from someone on the net who talked to someone at Symantec (Rich?), so maybe it's not true, but why is Symantec so far behind the ball here? Apple has said straight-out that C++ is the language of Mac's future. MPW C++ has been around for a while. Is Symantec not "keeping up with times"? And take a look at history here a bit. Both Lotus and WordPerfect missed the Mac boat when it started, because they were in the PC market and didn't give Mac enough credit. Now Symantec is in a similar position they were, except we're talking Mac's and NeXT's here. Notice Lotus and WordPerfect are learning from their mistakes. Guess Symantec is about to make there's. >> >>NeXT has recruited VARs and is now entering the direct marketing game. > > OK, maybe I'm wrong. But tell me who they are. > >>I've read West of Eden and Odyssey. The picture they paint of Jobs is a >>immature man lacking what it takes to make it in a business world >>dominated by men in blue suits. However, they also paint Jobs as a >>technological visionary, a man who places innovation and quality above >>the bottom line. He was the soul of the Mac. And I think Sculley and >>the author of West of Eden would wholeheartedly agree. > > I said the guy was great and everything. I agree wholeheartedly with what you > say. My point still is that the business world is dominated by men in blue > suits. Find someone to disagree with this statement. And then apply it > to your own. 8^) That's funny. Isn't Apple the company where people run around in jeans and T-shirts? Isn't it the company where their first computer came from a kid in a garage? Maybe one of Apple's problems is too many people are changing clothes..... 8^) > > -rs __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski) writes: >7,000 + 15,000 + how many have since been sold since then is still not a >significant market share. How many PC's are sold each year? The NeXT is NOT a low or mid-range PC. It is a workstation that competes against machines like the Mac SE/30, Mac II, Sun, Apollo, et al. At the rate of 15,000 sales every two months, the NeXT is head-to-head with Sun, which is a huge success by all accounts. Geez, by your argument, the Mac IIfx is a complete failure because it doesn't sell in the same numbers as a Mac Plus or a PC AT! >>I write: >>Secondly, the statement that "NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop >>for that platform" seems incredibly uninformed. The NeXT is the easiest >>and most powerful development platform around, period. >robert anthony sadowski responds: >I knew someone was going to single this statement out. I didn't think I >would have to qualify it with the statement that Eubanks is most probably >referring to NeXT's developer support, not the wonderful and powerful >interface builder. NeXT developer support is excellent. I speak from firsthand experience. Now that you qualify Eubanks' remark, I think what he was saying between the lines was that NeXT did not bend over backwards for Symantec. I can understand why. Many of Symantec's utilities and some of their other products would be irrelevant on a NeXT. The NeXT has these features built in. >>I write: >>Programmers who've used both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, >>Prototyper, Think C) are almost unanimous in their strong preference >>for the NeXT. >robert anthony sadowski responds: >Prove it. Figures please. You haven't been following this news group too closely. There was a thread recently which included discussion of the merits of the NeXT vs. Mac for software development. You will also find many ex-Mac programmers in the NeXT news group, all of whom are now singing the praises of the NeXT for programming. I have not heard one comment here or in the NeXT news group from someone who has programmed on BOTH preferring the Mac. All the comments I've seen have favored the NeXT. Of course, there have been comments from Mac programmers who've not programmed on the NeXT who've said that the Mac is great development platform. If this is true, the NeXT is an insanely great development platform. >>I write: >>And they end up with nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's >>Interface Builder). >sadowski responds: >Opinion. This point could be debated in this forum for hours. No need for debate. The distinction between NeXT interfaces and Mac interfaces is as clear to me as the difference between Mac interfaces and Windows interfaces. I own a Mac and use a NeXT. sadowski writes: > I'll take words from Symantec, the leading developer of utilities for > Mac...and Microsoft...over that of Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WP ... Gosh, you'd also take IBM's word that the Mac is an inferior machine. You'd take Ford's word that the Chevy is an inferior car. That is what you are doing when you take MicroSoft's and Symantec's word that the NeXT is not a great software platform. MicroSoft and Symantec have everything to gain from seeing the NeXT fail. They have products that compete with the NeXT, NeXTStep, and Interface Builder. You know why Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WordPerfect all produced dogs on the Mac? They tried to pack too much into their software produts for the Mac. The Mac did not have the hardware to run their feature-laden products at acceptable speeds, and the Mac did not have the programming environment to allow them to get their products in under deadline. The NeXT, on the other hand, gives these companies speed and the development environment to make killer products for the machine. sadowski writes: >I said the guy [Steve Jobs] was great and everything. I agree wholeheartedly >with what you say. My point still is that the business world is dominated >by men in blue suits. Actually, your original point was that Steve Jobs was not an innovator. Even Sculley would disagree with that. At any rate, do not hold up the books written about Apple/Jobs as objective assessments of things as they are. Most of the books were written by men in blue suits or their ghost writers. If you read between the lines, Sculley comes off looking worse than Jobs in Sculley's own book. (Sculley tries to explain some of the damaging facts against him and fails miserably in my opinion. Sculley, for instance, married the stepdaughter of the CEO of Pepsi, then divorced her in the same year that the CEO divorced his wife. Sculley worked on marketing research for Coke, without telling his employers that he was the stepson of the Pepsi CEO. Sculley cried crocodile tears when he fired Jobs--one of the most phony scenes in the book.) The business world is dominated by men in blue suits. However, if there is any justice, these men will hire computer people to make their computer- purchase decisions for them.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
>>I write: >>NeXT has recruited VARs and is now entering the direct marketing game. >OK, maybe I'm wrong. But tell me who they are. Yes, you're wrong. Here are some of the VARs announced on Sept. 18. There probably have been more added since then: ESL (subsidiary of TRW) Wheeler Hawkins TransGraphics Systems Toltec Human Services (medical) Synapsis Corporation Configurations, Inc. On the software side, PC Connection has formed NeXTConnection for low-price volume sales of NeXT software. NeXT is also in direct marketing, as I mentioned. They have made same large-sized sales to businesses and govt. agencies by selling directly.
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/06/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 5-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT > defect.. Michael Forselius@cs.umu (798) > And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as > hand-optimized assembler. Yeah, that's about right. Every compiler always generates code as efficient as hand-optimized assembler at least some of the time (translating your double negative as best I can). In fact, you could be even stronger than that. A really good compiler will generate code as good as or sometimes better than hand-optimized assembler most of the time. Compilers have gotten MUCH better in recent years, with the advent of RISC machines, on which compilers are much more important. Taking MIPS' C compiler for example, not only will it optimize as well as or better than you will (and it can take into account in performing these optimizations knowledge of the processor that the compiler writers had that you don't--these things are important!), but there is so much code and it is already well-enough optimized that it is not worth your time to do the hand-optimization. Admittedly, Mac compilers are nowhere near this level of quality, but your statement was, if not wrong, certainly off the mark. The best, most general way to write an operating system, IMHO, if you have the time/money, is to find/write a good compiler for a high level language, and write the OS in that language. The most important things that you gain are a level of ease of coding and portability (88000, perhaps?). You don't lose much. Again, Apple's compiler probably isn't good enough that it couldn't benefit from hand optimization, but I'm not going to knock them for writing the OS in C++ because they don't have a decent C compiler I'm just going to knock them for not having a better C compiler.... -Vince
kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) (11/06/90)
I didn't want to do this again, but ...... In article <1990Nov5.200703.5387@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >The NeXT is NOT a low or mid-range PC. It is a workstation that competes >against machines like the Mac SE/30, Mac II, Sun, Apollo, et al. At the >rate of 15,000 sales every two months, the NeXT is head-to-head with Sun, >which is a huge success by all accounts. Geez, by your argument, the Mac >IIfx is a complete failure because it doesn't sell in the same numbers as >a Mac Plus or a PC AT! "Geez" I know this. My point is that it's not a general business machine. That's what I said in both my posts. I made no comments as to its viability as a workstation. The IIfx is a business machine with near workstation performance. Don't tell me the NeXT is gaining momentum in the business sector without giving me some facts about how many machines are on desktops in offices (as opposed to on University desks). > >>>I write: >>>Programmers who've used both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, >>>Prototyper, Think C) are almost unanimous in their strong preference >>>for the NeXT. >>>I write: >>>And they end up with nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's >>>Interface Builder). > >>sadowski responds: >>Opinion. This point could be debated in this forum for hours. > >No need for debate. The distinction between NeXT interfaces and Mac >interfaces is as clear to me as the difference between Mac interfaces and >Windows interfaces. I own a Mac and use a NeXT. OK. I bow to you, interface king. >Gosh, you'd also take IBM's word that the Mac is an inferior machine. Nope. >You know why Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WordPerfect all produced dogs on the >Mac? They tried to pack too much into their software produts for the Mac. >The Mac did not have the hardware to run their feature-laden products >at acceptable speeds, and the Mac did not have the programming environment >to allow them to get their products in under deadline. Have you ever used any of these products ? WP is not feature-laden. Full-Impact doesn't have as many features as XL. Don't take my word for it. Read a review of these products. Feature laden ? I'll quote Eubanks again. "The average head of lettuce would make a better decision than to bring out a Mac product that's not compatible with its PC version." Seems they missed a pretty important feature. >Your original point was that Steve Jobs was not an innovator. Thanks for filling me in on what I was thinking. My original point was Jobs was a brilliant innovator who could not succesfully bring his product to market. The veredict is still out on whether this will happen with NeXT. By the way, I'm not saying that Sculley has done a better job. >The business world is dominated by men in blue suits. However, if there is >any justice, these men will hire computer people to make their computer- >purchase decisions for them. My experience with MIS people tells me otherwise. I refuse to be responsible for continuing this thread, especially since there has already been some outcry against it. So if you feel compelled to reply, do it to e-mail, and save the others the boredom. 8^) --rs I posted from a friends account, so please do not hold him responsible for anything contained above. -- Keith Cardoza E-mail : kmc4@midway.uchicago.edu =============================================================================== The University Of Chicago : "We're smart, you're dumb." 8^) Macintosh (tm) - Once you go Mac, you never go back.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/06/90)
----- In article <1990Nov6.002309.25393@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... [...] >I wrote: >>>...if there is any justice, these men (businessmen) will hire computer >>>people to make their computer-purchase decisions for them. > >keith replies: >>My experience with MIS people tells me otherwise. > >I think the NeXT will have more appeal to MIS people than the Mac II. >NeXTStep, after all, already runs on IBM machines.... Well, this has not been my experience. A fellow I know runs a large (400 machine +) MIS shop. He has developed for the Next (had one at home) and is a unix guru, but has been unimpressed with its record in the past two years. Suffice it to say that despite the new Next machines they are going totally A/UX. Now of course you can't extrapolate from this to every MIS shop, but it certainly points out that Next isn't winning over all MIS folk, even those with mucho Next experience. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
I write: >>Geez, by your argument, the Mac IIfx is a complete failure because it >>doesn't sell in the same numbers as a Mac Plus or a PC AT! (keith matthew cardoza) writes: >"Geez" I know this. My point is that it's not a general business machine. >That's what I said in both my posts. Re-read your last post. In it you compared the 22,000 NeXTs sold to the hundred thousands of PCs sold. This is a ridiculous comparison, as I pointed out. As for the NeXT being a general business machine; this is precisely what the NeXT is best suited for. Companies like First Boston, The William Morris Talent Agency, et al, have made bulk purchases of NeXT machines. Why? Because of the great software development environment: most large companies develop their own custom software. Also because of the power and ease-of-use of the computer. As with a Mac, you don't have to be an expert to use a NeXT. I believe the NeXT has a better chance of succeeding as a business machine than the Mac II. Can you say, "There ain't no Mac file server"? (keith matthew cardoza) writes: > OK. I bow to you, interface king. I'm a benevolent monarch. Go use your lesser Mac GUI in peace. I wrote: >>Gosh, you'd also take IBM's word that the Mac is an inferior machine. keith replies: >Nope. Good. It also makes no sense to take Microsoft's or Symantec's word on the NeXT, you'll have to agree. keith writes: >WP is not feature-laden. Whoa. That's not the opinion of another poster on the same subject. As for me, I'm familiar with the NeXT version of WP. And it IS feature-laden. Moreoever, my point was that a combination of lack of speed and length of development time crippled the Mac products of Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WordPerfect. Don't you basically agree? I wrote: >>Your original point was that Steve Jobs was not an innovator. keith responds: >Thanks for filling me in on what I was thinking. My original point was that >Jobs was a brilliant innovator who could not successfully bring his product >to market. I was only filling you in on what you actually wrote. Your arguments shift ground constantly. You originally argued people should not believe that Jobs was the great innovator at Apple because Jobs was actually driving the company into the ground. It was a non-sequitur that I tried to take at face value. I wrote: >>...if there is any justice, these men (businessmen) will hire computer >>people to make their computer-purchase decisions for them. keith replies: >My experience with MIS people tells me otherwise. I think the NeXT will have more appeal to MIS people than the Mac II. NeXTStep, after all, already runs on IBM machines.... keith writes: >if you feel compelled to reply, do it to e-mail, and save the others the >boredom. 8^) These Mac vs. NeXT vs. Amiga posts are probably some of the most interesting stuff around. They certainly do arouse passions. And if someone gets bored, there's always the good ole kill file. In keith's signature: >The University of Chicago : "We're smart, you're dumb." 8^) I'm a Chicago graduate. Guess that makes me as smart as you :-). >Macintosh (tm) - Once you go Mac, you never go back. Absolutely correct. You only go forward to a machine like the NeXT.
lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.191813.20961@news.clarkson.edu>, anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,,,) writes: > > Well, fair enough. But if you don't think 15,000 orders before the machine > is even in production (!) isn't the start of momentum, I hate to think what And Apple had orders for 125,000 of the new low-cost Macs.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/06/90)
(Jason W. Anthony) writes: >Well, fair enough. But if you don't think 15,000 orders before the machine >is even in production(!) isn't the start of momentum, I hate to think what (Larry Rosenstein) answers: >And Apple had orders for 125,000 of the new low-cost Macs. Good for Apple! Good thing NeXTs and low-cost Macs are not in the same market. 15,000 orders for a workstation-class machine in two months DOES represent the start of momentum. 125,000 orders for a $1000 PC may or may not represent a success story. gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >A fellow I know runs a large (400 machine +) MIS shop. He has developed >for the NeXT (had one at home) and is a unix guru, but has been unimpressed >with its record in the past two years. Suffice it to say that despite the >new NeXT machines they are going totally A/UX. Yes, NeXT's record in the business market has been unimpressive for the last two years. However, NeXT 2.0 really looks very impressive and IS attracting the attention of large businesses and government agencies. Much of the 15,000 initial orders were to these groups. One question, did your MIS friend make his decision to go with A/UX before or after checking out the NeXT 2.0 machines? And another question, what does he think of the NeXT development environment and 4.3 BSD vs. A/UX?
mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) (11/06/90)
In article <11133@goofy.Apple.COM>, lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes: > In article <1990Nov5.191813.20961@news.clarkson.edu>, anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,,,) writes: > > > > Well, fair enough. But if you don't think 15,000 orders before the machine > > is even in production (!) isn't the start of momentum, I hate to think what > > And Apple had orders for 125,000 of the new low-cost Macs. Yes, but that can safely be attributed to years of ill informed and misled consumers who were hiding in the PC market coming over to Mac now that its safe. It in no way implies that those orders are based on 125,000 well-researched opinions... although i am unsure of what the original response to the Mac 512s was... loki
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (11/06/90)
Brian Kendig writes in a message on 04 Nov 90 to Dennis Francis Heffernan: BK> if you want A/UX you have to buy it and run it on top of the BK> Mac operating system, whereas the NeXT is built around Unix to BK> begin with yet still offers similar (but more powerful) Macintosh-like BK> abilities. Actually, doesn't A/UX run all by itself underneath everything, and the Finder is simply an application which can run on top of A/UX? --Adam-- **************************************************************** * "But Windows slows performance, and its interface isn't as * * elegant as the Mac's. It's a little like listening to * * Bruce Willis play the blues: technically correct but * * soulless." * **************************************************************** * CIS: 70721,504 * * America OnLine: AdamFrix * * Internet: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG * **************************************************************** -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/06/90)
In article <505@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) writes: > In article <11133@goofy.Apple.COM>, lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes: > > > > And Apple had orders for 125,000 of the new low-cost Macs. > > Yes, but that can safely be attributed to years of ill informed > and misled consumers who were hiding in the PC market coming over to > Mac now that its safe. It in no way implies that those orders are > based on 125,000 well-researched opinions... although i am unsure of > what the original response to the Mac 512s was... loki Just because you wish to attribute it to that does not mean it is true. All the PC-owners I know are too busy chanting "Windows is just like the Mac, Windows is just like the Mac, Windows is just like the Mac" to buy a Mac Classic. The people I know who *are* buying Mac Classics are people who have wanted a Mac for awhile, but couldn't justify spending $2,000 to get in the Macintosh door. They have researched what *they* want and what *they* need, and decided on the Mac. Just because their wants and needs do not match your wants and needs does not mean that their wants and needs are not "well researched". It only means that they aren't you, or they aren't doing the things that you are. It isn't any "safer" in the Mac world today than it was on October 1st, it's just less expensive to get there. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) (11/06/90)
I was amazed to come back to c.s.m.misc to find so many responses to the one posting! I want to chip in my two bits worth: When the mac came out, I instantly liked it despite using a ][ before. I even liked the Lisa but the fact is, I never had any trouble going over from ][ to mac. It's like I haven't really left ][, sure it's been collecting dust, but with the LC, I'll be blowing that off soon. I guess the reason I like Apples in general was the fact it stood out as the alternative. It was a nice machine and it was basically started by the founders of the company. In fact my allegience (spelling?) is not so much with mac, more of Apple really, as a whole, but because of Jobs, I see no conflict with embracing NeXT either. To me, buying a computer (those who remember me for accusing me in supporting "f**k off" on the net should pay attention:) isn't so much what is impressive on paper. That's the bonus. Why did you pick mac in the first place? To me, it was being a part of the on-going revolution. I don't think Jobs had much real technical input, but I've embraced the Apple I/][, Macintosh and now the NeXT. I see no conflict whatsoever in liking all these products. When was the last time you looked at spec sheets of your partners (the ones you keep)? All you'll find in the postings is some sort of justification. I'd follow where it all started from: I'd go NeXT, but did I mention I've yet to abandon the ][? :) Go with the heart, unless it really means much, throw logic out when deciding upon a new platform. Go with the future, but link with the past, afterall, that's where most fond memories lie... I think I'm going to cry :( Cheers ;), Norton Chia **** My employers ignore me, I'm on my own when I speak out in public **** Norton Chia || My address is carsup@extro.ucc.su.oz.au Micro Support || "When are they going to put in built-in spell-chequers" *******************************************************************************
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) (11/06/90)
Can we move this discussion about the NeXt machine to another forum?
Perhaps rec.humor would be appropriate :-).
ps.
The smiley means turn your flame-throwers on "low."
--
-----
Joe Pillera ERIM
Research Scientist Image Processing Systems Division
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org P.O. Box 8618
(313) 994-1200 x2754 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8618
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely those of Joe Pillera,
and not of ERIM or its affiliates.nick@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (11/06/90)
Anybody buying NeXT's in Europe? Are they affordable? The pros/cons of NeXT vs. Mac in the US is irrelevant to the rest of us right now... ...just my two shillings and sixpence worth. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "Now remember - and this is most important - you must think in Russian."
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (11/06/90)
>(Larry Rosenstein) answers: >>And Apple had orders for 125,000 of the new low-cost Macs. > >Good for Apple! Good thing NeXTs and low-cost Macs are not in the same >market. 15,000 orders for a workstation-class machine in two months DOES >represent the start of momentum. 125,000 orders for a $1000 PC may or may >not represent a success story. I think it also representes some of the cluelessness of Apple. At the announcement of the Mac Classic, Apple management was gushing over how they'd sold more MacClassics than any other Mac in the history of the product line. If Apple had dropped the prices on their product line one to two years ago, lord knows what might have happened....
mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) (11/06/90)
In article <9530@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) wrote: > Seven years later, Macs have ALMOST won the battle to be accepted as a >mainstream machine. If NeXT had sold TEN TIMES as many machines, they'd be I read in MacUser that the Macintosh share of the office scene has declined from a high of 15% in 1988 to 9% now. This would seem to contraindicate your claim, or are these only figures for the EC? -- Mike Rogers, Box 6, Regent Hse, TCD. | WRITE (UNIT=*,FMT=*) 'FORTRAN SUCKS' mike@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie (UNIX=>AOK)| The Irish...White Niggers of the World mike@tcdmath.uucp (UUCP=>oldie/goodie)| There is no God, get real for Chrissakes msrogers@vax1.tcd.ie(VMS => blergh) | -my annoy maximum number of people .sig-
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/07/90)
In article <3818@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@set.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >Besides, Apple's tactics against IBM >(that a GUI on a PC is an add-on, where it's built into the Apple) can >be used against it here -- if you want A/UX you have to buy it and run >it on top of the Mac operating system, whereas the NeXT is built >around Unix to begin with yet still offers similar (but more powerful) >Macintosh-like abilities. Sure, you can use that tactic. All you have to ignore is facts. A/UX does not run on top of the MacOS, it is a separate operating system that is fully integrated with the Mac interface. Besides, "good UNIX" is an oxymoron. If it ain't broke, it ain't UNIX. >>d) If you've got a Mac, you won't have to abandon all your old software; >>you'll be able to run it without changing machines all the time. > >Well, I might as well keep using my Commodore 128; why have to go out >and buy more powerful, more capable software for a Macintosh? ;) So? Is there "more powerful, more capable software" for the NeXT? If so, where is it? All I have seen or heard about is a few programs that come bundled with the machine and a handful of commercial programs like FrameMaker that no one who failed to make Forbe's list of the 400 richest Americans can afford. >Really -- there comes a time when you have to decide if it's worth it >to move up to a better platform. Is the NeXT really better for what >you want to do? Right. So what is it you want to do with the NeXT? If you want a high-performance development system on which to write programs for a potential market of a few hundred users, NeXT is it. For anything else... not yet. >If I had to choose a new computer right now, it would be a >NeXTstation. Without a moment's hesitation. > >- 92 dpi, very large, 4 color greyscale screen >- 68040 processor >- 2.88M floppy drive (can read MS-DOS [and Mac?]) >- 105M hard drive >- runs Unix right out of the box >- audio input >- DSP built in >- Ethernet built in > >All for, at university prices, $3200, I believe. So, for only slightly more than a IIsi with color monitor, you get a black&white display, a nonstandard floppy drive, Stone-Age operating system, and the chance to beta-test a new CPU that will be available on accelerator boards for the Mac in less than a year. Yes, the hardware is really hot, but without software the NeXT is still an expensive high-performance sports car with nowhere to go.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov4.075323.1536@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>d) If you've got a Mac, you won't have to abandon all your old software; >>you'll be able to run it without changing machines all the time. > >You'll be able to run NeXTStep, X windows, MS-DOS (with the upcoming SoftPC >for the NeXT), and perhaps, if someone comes out with a Mac emulator >for the NeXT, Mac applications on the NeXT. NeXTStep and X-Windows are not applications programs, they're part of the environment. MS-DOS? Buying a NeXTStation is a very expensive way of getting a PC. (And remember that is still "upcoming"; there's a lot of NeXT software that's been "upcoming" for the last two years.) If the best you can say about the NeXT is that maybe, someday, it will be able to emulate the Mac, why not just buy a Mac? Also, recall that no one has succeeded in emulating anything better than (an accelerated) Mac Plus. Legal emulators require Macintosh ROMs and Apple has taken steps to make the new ROMs harder to come by. David Small, who developed the Macintosh emulators for the Atari ST, has said that it will never be possible to emulate the color Macs, even on a 68030-based Atari, because the video hardware is too different. I suspect that this will probably be true with the NeXT also. >NeXTStep applications, by the >way, are as easy to use as Mac applications and more powerful because of >better hardware, virtual memory, true multitasking, etc. Just as easy? From what I've seen, NeXTSTep applications are a lot *easier* to use. There are no manuals to read, no commands to learn, no file formats to worry about; they don't use up CPU time, require a lot of RAM, or take up no space on your hard disk. Just go down to your local software store and tell the sales clerk you want to see the Emporer's New Program. :-)
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov4.084938.22146@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: In article <2909@unccvax.uncc.edu> cs00jec@unccvax.uncc.edu (Jim Cain v2.0.1) writes: > >Oh no! Say it ain't so!!! > >You Macsters need to talk me out of this one! I'm actually seriously >considering defecting to the NeXT camp and buying one of their 040 >machines. Why should I get a IIci with A/UX instead of a NeXTstation? > >Please help me. > >I've fallen, and I can't get up!! [ ... ] Note that you could replace "Mac" with "IBM" in the above three and get the only reasons for buying a PC or PC compatible rather than a NeXT. (There are, of course, many reasons for buying Macs rather than PCs). I suspect you already know the reasons in favor of buying a NeXT rather than a Mac (absolutely incredible price/performance ratio, Unix with the machine, display postscript for truely WYSIWG, etc.) This is something I don't understand. Why would people *want* a UNIX operating system for their HOME or OFFICE COMPUTER? In a programming/technical field, sure, but UNIX is just too goddmaned much work for someone who wants to use his or her computer rather than maintain it. Maybe most of the NeXTers out there are just programmers who don't actually DO anything with their computers but program them, but most people who use computers as a tool, rather than an end (and this SHOULD be most of them; what sense is there in a technology which is used more to perfect the technology than to use it to produce something outside of its confines?) The other problem with NeXT seems to be that lack of a VARIETY fo software. Not that there isn't A piece of software to do anything standard, like word processing or spreadsheet, but that there's only ONE program to do it. What other WP packages are there for neXT besides WriteNow? What are the database options? Graphics? Animation? jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu DELPHI: JSULLIVAN | University of Southern California
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov5.064724.16646@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >First, this statement was made before the September 18th rollout of the >new NeXTs. Yes, the market for the NeXT looked small before then, with >only about 7,000 machines sold in a year. However, it was announced on >Sept. 18th that 15,000 2.0 machines had been sold in the two months >prior to the public showing of NeXT 2.0. NeXT is gaining momentum in >both the academic and business world. >Interesting that this quote was made by the President of Symantec. I >believe Symantec makes Think C. NeXT has Objective-C, which may be a >serious contender to overthrow Think C on GUI platforms. Take words >from Symantec and Microsoft (makers of OS/2, a competitor of NeXTStep) >with a large grain of salt. Interesting how you are so skeptical of what the President of Symantec says, but treat press releases from NeXT as if they were the word of God. >These companies see NeXT as a threat, and >precisely because NeXT does provide a more attractive alternative to >their products and because NeXT now seems to be a legitimate contender >against high-end PCs and Macs. Attractive to whom? I don't know anyone outside of academia who has ever bought a NeXT! All these messages keep comparing the NeXT to the Mac IIfx, but the IIfx is hardly Apple's most successful product. How does the "low-end" NeXT compare to the Mac LC or the IIsi? Without a true low-end machine, no company is going to attract the number of users it needs to survive. Even Apple finally realized that.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/07/90)
------ In article <1990Nov6.031820.9126@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... [...] > >One question, did your MIS friend make his decision to go with A/UX before >or after checking out the NeXT 2.0 machines? And another question, what >does he think of the NeXT development environment and 4.3 BSD vs. A/UX? > I believe he made the decision before the next Next's were _announced_. But since he was privy to non-disclosure Next info -- and kept in contact with Next -- I suspect he had some idea of what was coming when he made his decision. As for the other questions, I can only answer "I dunno". Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/07/90)
------ In article <1990Nov6.212848.10254@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... [...] >Never used a NeXT, eh? NeXT hides Unix under a GUI that, IMHO, is even >easier to use than a Mac's. A Unix expert would be hard pressed to >figure out that Unix was actually running under all the pretty windows >on a NeXT. If you need to do something on a NeXT that you could do on a >Mac, it is as easy or easier to do as on a Mac (with some minor exceptions: >I still prefer the horizontal menu bars on the Mac over the vertical main >menus on the NeXT). That's interesting. How easy is it to add an extra hard disk to a Next? Could someone with absolutely no computer knowledge -- or inclination to learn -- do it? How about copying from one floptical to another (yes, Macs don't have flopticals built in, but it was until recently the main "floppy" of the Next). Is it just a matter of inserting them and click-n-drag? [...] >As I said, the NeXT is a delightfully easy machine to use. You would swear >that it was a Mac with a prettier interface. Remember, creators of the Mac >created the NeXT. Or you could say that it was a good attempt at improving the Mac interface that just didn't succeed, that was far too baroque. Also, if you're referring to some of the main creators of the Mac software (which, as people have pointed out, is much of what the Mac is all about), they included folks like Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld. They had -- as far as I know -- nothing to do with Next. > >Already, much of the software on the NeXT outclass their Mac counterparts in >both power and ease-of-use. Check out the review of Lotus's revolutionary >spreadsheet Improv in the October issue of Byte. Now THAT'S a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one. I know of little on the Next _with the exception of Improv_ that _"outclasses"_ their Mac counterparts. I'm sure that such exists, just as the inverse must also surely exist. Now people can legitimately claim that the Next is a better workstation than the Mac. At present it probably is. And they can argue that it's a better business machine than the Mac; I don't agree, but at least it's not a specious argument. But to claim that the Next is a better HOME machine than the Mac for the average user is ludicrous!!! Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes about Unix and the NeXT: >Why would people *want* a UNIX operating system for their HOME or >OFFICE COMPUTER? In a programming/technical field, sure, but UNIX >is just too goddmaned much work for someone who wants to use his or >her computer rather than maintain it. Never used a NeXT, eh? NeXT hides Unix under a GUI that, IMHO, is even easier to use than a Mac's. A Unix expert would be hard pressed to figure out that Unix was actually running under all the pretty windows on a NeXT. If you need to do something on a NeXT that you could do on a Mac, it is as easy or easier to do as on a Mac (with some minor exceptions: I still prefer the horizontal menu bars on the Mac over the vertical main menus on the NeXT). What Unix does give you is the added functionality that you don't have on a Mac as of yet: i.e., virtual memory, protected memory, true multi- tasking, interapplication messaging, etc. What do all these fancy terms mean for the average user? It means that he can get more things done in a shorter period of time. The average user does not have to know what any of the Unix advantages mean; he/she can just reap their many benefits in blissful ignorance. >Maybe most of the NeXTers out there are just programmers who don't >actually DO anything with their computers but program them, but most >people who use computers as a tool, rather than an end As I said, the NeXT is a delightfully easy machine to use. You would swear that it was a Mac with a prettier interface. Remember, creators of the Mac created the NeXT. Already, much of the software on the NeXT outclass their Mac counterparts in both power and ease-of-use. Check out the review of Lotus's revolutionary spreadsheet Improv in the October issue of Byte. >Not that there isn't a piece of software to do anything standard, like >word processing or spreadsheet, but that there's only ONE program to do it. >What other WP packages are there for neXT besides WriteNow? What are the >database options? Graphics? Animation? You want wordprocessing, you have WriteNow, WordPerfect, TeX, FrameMaker, and Quark Xpress is in the works. You also have a laser printer at 400 DPI (i.e., 75% denser resolution than a 300 DPI printer) for a fraction of the price that you'll find for Mac laser printers. The NeXT laser printer LIST price is $1700-1800 by the way. You want database. You get relational databases like Sybase, Ingres, and Oracle (Oracle is in Beta, I think). You also get Informix and several different brands of flat-file databases. The Mac is NOT capable of running such high-powered databases as Ingres and Oracle effectively. There is absolutely no comparison between the NeXT and the Mac in terms of databases. The NeXT is an great database machine. The Mac just doesn't cut it in this area. No reputable programmer, database expert, or blue- suited MIS manager will tell you otherwise. As for grapics and animation, the NeXT has better hardware for both. The NeXT comes standard with a 17-inch one-million pixel monitor and has a faster processor. It also has PostScript for both screen and printing. There are several drawing programs available, and there will be more as the new color machines gain popularity. The NeXTDimension has unmatched video processing for its price. You can do on a NeXTDimension what you can do on a Silicon Graphics Iris workstation with video for half the price. A Mac equipped to do similar things would run about $20,000. An Amiga does video, but is not capable of doing it with the quality or power that the NeXTDimension provides. There are legitimate reasons for not buying a NeXT: such as a large investment in other hardware. However, Unix, wordprocessing, database, and graphics are big reasons FOR buying a NeXT.
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.212848.10254@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >You want wordprocessing, you have WriteNow, WordPerfect, TeX, FrameMaker, >and Quark Xpress is in the works. You also have a laser printer at 400 >DPI (i.e., 75% denser resolution than a 300 DPI printer) for a fraction of >the price that you'll find for Mac laser printers. The NeXT laser printer >LIST price is $1700-1800 by the way. It's about time that someone dragged this up. Sure, the NeXt printer has better resolution than Macs and it's cheaper, but the price difference is not because NeXT thinks everyone should have a laser printer, but because it is a dumb printer. It relies on the PostScript interpreter in the NeXt computer itself. All Mac laser printers have their own CPU and can be interfaced with a wide variety of machines. I'm sure by now that there is a way that you can hook the NeXT printer up to others, but I'm just saying that you can't compare NeXT laser printers to Mac laser printers because there is more inside of a IINTX than a NeXT printer. Also, the new Personal LaserWriter NT is not that more expensive than a that price for the NeXT printer.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
jtgorman@cs.arizone.edu (Quaestor) writes: >Sure, the NeXt printer has better resolution than Macs and it's cheaper, >but the price difference is not because NeXT thinks everyone should have >a laser printer, but because it is a dumb printer. It relies on the >PostScript interpreter in the NeXt computer... Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive. This is all the more reason to buy a NeXT. >Also, the new Personal LaserWriter NT is not that more expensive than a that >price for the NeXT printer. However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo.
kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their >computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive. This is all the >more reason to buy a NeXT. One of the reasons that a postscript printer costs so damn much is because the liscensing fee for postscipt that you have to pay. Putting a PS interpreter in a Mac doesn't solve the problem. The cost to put a Motorola 680x0 in a Laserwriter doesn't affect the price nearly as much as the liscensing fee. >However, it [the Personal Laserwriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer >and you can't do with it what you could >do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. You are absolutely, positively, unequivocably WRONG. -- Keith Cardoza E-mail : kmc4@midway.uchicago.edu =============================================================================== The University Of Chicago : "We're smart, you're dumb." 8^) Macintosh (tm) - Once you go Mac, you never go back.
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > jtgorman@cs.arizone.edu (Quaestor) writes: > > >Also, the new Personal LaserWriter NT is not that more expensive than a that > >price for the NeXT printer. > > However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could > do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. Other than 400dpi output, what? -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could >do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. Ehhhhhhh. WRONG answer. The Personal LaserWriter NT IS a PS printer, and because it has its own CPU, I don't lose cycles waiting for my print job.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >How easy is it to add an extra hard disk to a NeXT? Depends on the manufacturer. If you're adding a NeXT hard disk it's trivial. If you're adding a third-party drive, you may have to find or write the disktab entry for the drive. If you listen to the discussion in the NeXT news group, you may get the impression that it is complicated to add on to a NeXT. The thing is that the NeXT is an open Unix box that lets you add peripherals not specifically designed for the NeXT. So you'll see a lot of people adding all sorts of nice but nonstandard things to a NeXT: tape drives, gigabyte hard disks meant for minicomputers, etc. If you're doing that sort of thing, you do have to be familiar with Unix system administration. However, this situation is much better than the situation with the Mac, on which you cannot use hard drives at all if they were designed specifically for Mac compatibility. And hard drives for the Mac are outrageously expensive to boot. >How about copying from one floptical to another...Is it just of matter >of inserting them and click-n-drag? Yes. In general, all devices mounted on a NeXT show up as directories which you can drag around, copy from, delete, etc. And "mounting" a floptical merely means inserting a floptical into the drive. >...could you say that it [the NeXT] was a good attempt at improving the >Mac interface that just didn't succeed, that was far too baroque. The NeXT succeeded in improving the Mac interface in spades. It IS an easier and more enjoyable interface to use. This is coming from a person who has owned a Mac for four years and loved the Mac's interface. The NeXT's interface is just better. As for being "baroque," the NeXT IS easier on the eye. And everybody (Microsoft, OSF/Motif, OpenLook, and even Apple) is trying to emulate the look of the NeXT. Notice the sudden proliferation of 3-D buttons and scrollers. >..if you're referring to some of the main creators of the Mac software >...they included folk like Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld. They had -- >as far as I know -- nothing to do with NeXT. As detailed in West of Eden, Steve Jobs took 5 key people from Apple with him, including several that worked on the Mac. One was Bud Tribble, who designed NeXTStep. The Macintosh interface, by the way, is based on the stuff Steve Jobs saw at Xerox PARC. Several Xerox PARC engineers are now working at NeXT. >I know of little on the Next _with the exception of Improv_that_"outclasses" >_their Mac counterparts. I'm sure that such exists, just as the inverse >must also surely exist. You know very little about NeXT software then. Program by program, almost every NeXT application available today is as easy to use or easier to use than an equivalent Mac application. By and large, NeXT programs are also more powerful (this is what you can do with a minimal configuration of 8 MB RAM, virtual memory, multitasking, and lots of hard disk space). >...they can argue that it's a better business machine than the Mac... Except for quantity of already available software, the NeXT and the Mac really don't compare as business machines. The Mac is too limited in hardware to do the job in terms of database and networking in a large heterogeneous business environment. >...to claim that the Next is a better HOME machine than the Mac for the >average user is ludicrous!!! The only thing holding NeXT back in this arena is the starting price. However, for a home user with $3000-$5000 to spend, you can't beat a NeXTStation. I'm buying a NeXTStation for home use. As I've said before, the NeXT is as easy to use as a Mac if not easier if you are doing things that the average home user would do. However, if you want to get real fancy, you can do that too with a NeXT with a little investment in learning Unix. The average user doesn't even need to know how to spell Unix in order to get a lot out of the NeXT. I hear Steve Jobs cringes when people say "Unix box" around him. The Unix is there and anyone can use it, but it is virtually invisible to the average user of the NeXT.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
I wrote: >>...it [Personal LaserWriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do >>with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. Steve Hix writes: >Other than 400dpi output, what Let's see. Rotations and scaling without making your fonts look god-awful ugly. And anything else you can do with a PostScript printer that you can't do with the Mac's Personal LaserWriter NT. There IS a reason you know that Apple charges you so much extra for PostScript with its printers.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
I wrote: >>...it [the Personal LaserWriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer >>and you can't do with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser >>printer combo. kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) replies: >You are absolutely, positively, unequivocably WRONG. Care to elaborate? The last time I checked the NT used QuickDraw rather than PostScript as its imaging language. This means you can't rotate or scale Adobe fonts without butchering them. The NeXT laser printer is, for all intents and purposes, a PostScript printer. The only difference is that the PostScript processor is on the main board of the NeXT computer itself. Another question, so if what you say is true, why is Apple ripping off the public by charging so much more for their printers that do have PostScript on board? It seems to me that "You are absolutely, positively, unequivocably WRONG.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
Well, now at least two people have told me that the NT is a PostScript printer. I've also had two people tell me it ain't. Which is it folks? Someone have a manual handy? If it is a PostScript printer, why is it so much cheaper than the other Mac laser printers?
barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) (11/07/90)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >I wrote: >>>...it [the Personal LaserWriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer >>>and you can't do with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser >>>printer combo. >kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) replies: >>You are absolutely, positively, unequivocably WRONG. >Care to elaborate? The last time I checked the NT used QuickDraw rather >than PostScript as its imaging language. This means you can't rotate or >scale Adobe fonts without butchering them. Sorry, check again. The NT uses PostScript (and always has). The SC models use QuickDraw to do their imaging. In effect, you are absolutely, positively, unequivocably WRONG. Ron
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/07/90)
In article <39262@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: |>In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: |> |>>However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you |>>could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. |> |>Ehhhhhhh. WRONG answer. The Personal LaserWriter NT IS a PS printer, and |>because it has its own CPU, I don't lose cycles waiting for my print job. True, but the $3400, 15 MIP, 68040 NeXTStation has sooooooo many cycles to give! Can you say *fast* output when needed? :-) - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Perfecting the art of arthroscopic surgery. * ************************************************************************
claytor@tandem.physics.upenn.edu (Nelson Claytor) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could > do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. It most certainly is a PostScript printer. I am sitting here talking to one with LaserTalk, the PostScript programming tool, and it says "Adobe PostScipt version 51.8". It is 4 ppm rather than 8, but what holds you up for anything but simple text is (usually) the speed of the printer's processor rather than the speed of the engine itself. Perhaps you were thinking of the LaserWriter IISC? Nelson Nelson Claytor claytor@tandem.physics.upenn.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
Yes, I was thinking of the Laserwriter SC. gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu had written that the Laserwriter NT was cheap and comparable in price to the NeXT laserwriter. I wrongly assumed that he meant the lowest price laser printer from Apple: which turned out to be the SC. Deepest apologies to gft_robert and keith matthew cordoza. I will go and pound a little on the person who assured me that the NT was the non-PostScript printer :-). Now, if some of the Mac proponents would admit that some of there perceptions of the NeXT computer were patently wrong....
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov7.015951.784@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Well, now at least two people have told me that the NT is a PostScript printer. >I've also had two people tell me it ain't. Which is it folks? Someone have >a manual handy? I don't have the manual handy, but since I just installed one in my office this morning, the information is pretty fresh. The Personal LW NT is a Postscript printer. The Personal LW SC is the "QuickDraw" printer. Both the Personal LaserWriters are based on a 4 page per minute Canon engine rated for (I think) 150,000 copies. The LaserWriter II SC, NT, and NTX are all based on a more powerful engine rated at 300,000 copies and a heavier duty cycle. >If it is a PostScript printer, why is it so much cheaper than the other Mac >laser printers? Because of the reasons above, and the fact that you can't upgrade the NT beyond its basic 2 meg RAM (at least at this point, with an Apple upgrade). I am also guessing that Apple is feeling the competition from 3rd party LW makers. The Personal LW NT is a nice little box, and if you do fairly complex print jobs, it will perform quite well since it is limited more by the print engine than the processor. On the other hand, since it is limited to 2 meg, you won't be downloading your whole font library to RAM. (The problem with flame wars like these is that people start fixating on the whiz-bang features of that new box without knowing what the old stuff will really do. And of course, since the new stuff is generally not at hand, some of those whiz-bang features look bigger than life.)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >(The problem with flame wars like these is that people start fixating on the >whiz-bang features of that new box without knowing what the old stuff will >really do. And of course, since the new stuff is generally not at hand, >some of those whiz-bang features look bigger than life.) I've owned a Mac SE for four years. An old housemate had a Mac SE/30. I've used everything from a 128K Mac to a Mac IIfx. I know what the old machine can and cannot do. I don't, however, keep the names of laser printers straight in my head since I have never purchased a personal laser printer. I am currently a software developer on the NeXT machine. I have seen the new machines in action on several different occasions, including an entire day spent porting our software to the new NeXTs. At any rate, the whiz-bang features of the old and new NeXTs are definitely for real. As a programming environment, the much-maligned old NeXTs were incredible. The new NeXTs seem even better. You can now dynamically load objects into Interface Builder. I find it curious that those who favor the Mac over the NeXT in this current thread have either limited or no exposure to the NeXT. Is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who has extensive experience with the NeXT and prefers the Mac to the NeXT? Second question: Is there any programmer who has worked extensively on both Macs and NeXTs who doesn't believe the NeXT has the much superior software development environment?
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
I wrote:
>You can now dynamically load objects into Interface Builder.
I meant, "You can now dynamically load objects into your program using
Interface Builder."tempest@walleye.uucp (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their >computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive. This is all the Hmm, I prefer the interpreter to be on the printer or be on a separate processor. When printing large jobs, I hear that the cube slows down quite a bit as the image is being generated and blasted out to the printer. Hey, anything that will off-load the main cpu is a plus, and I believe NeXT still thinks that way. Perhaps in the near future, they'll introduce a Postscript printer. Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
I've been posting from a friend's class account at Berkeley. I don't wish to clog up their mailbox, so could you please address all e-mail to yoo@well.sf.ca.us Young-Kyu Yoo
tempest@walleye.uucp (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.222023.8572@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >That's interesting. How easy is it to add an extra hard disk to a Next? Could >someone with absolutely no computer knowledge -- or inclination to learn -- do >it? How about copying from one floptical to another (yes, Macs don't have [...] >argument. But to claim that the Next is a better HOME machine than the Mac for >the average user is ludicrous!!! > I have to agree with gfr_robert on this one. At this point, I'm not sure how I can mount the optical disk--well, yeah, I can mount it, but where will it show up? It depends on if I'm using another OD or an MD. I need to dig up the manual and check out how it'll be done. I'll have to do it, too...for school. Copying from one OD to another without an MD is also something I need to ponder. After all, UNIX file systems aren't supposed to be unmounted, especially the swapfile. Need to dig in some more...but then, maybe NFS will save my day! Use cpio?--ugh! I've gotten over tar, so it's no sweat (it's intuitive for me). After I learn about these things, I'll go with "Raymond group". "Well, hey, you copy via ... seems simple enough for me! :-)" NeXTs are for techies and not for your average Joe. Perhaps NextStep 2.0 will change this, but I haven't had a chance to play with it. Aside from the OD (and network) issues, I would say NeXTs would make good home machines (for somewhat techies), however. Networks are like the OD...the Mac's plug-and-play; the NeXT's read before you try anything. Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/07/90)
Considering that Freedom of the Press Light v3.0 can be gotten for $56 now,
you can have a postscript print engine for your Mac (does Type 1 too...).
Jackknrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/07/90)
tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kenneth K.F. Lui) writes: >When printing large jobs, I hear that the cube slows down quite a bit >as the image is being generated and blasted out to the printer. True of the old cube. But not of the new. Printing jobs have been assigned lower priority as background tasks and the user will be free to use the computer during printing. As someone else mentions, with a 15 Mips processor, there's a lot of CPU cycles to waste. >Perhaps in the future, they'll introduce a PostScript printer. Or how about delegating the job to a separate processor that would still be on the NeXT main processor board. On the issue of the NeXT as a home computer, Kenneth K.F. Lui writes: >I have to agree with gfr_robert on this one. At this point, I'm not >sure how I can mount the optical disk--well, yeah, I can mount it, >but where will it show up. Kenneth goes on to discuss the complexities of using optical disks on the NeXT. First, the Mac doesn't offer the option of an eraseable optical as media. Secondly, if you're running your operating system from the optical, you are a glutton for punishment and deserve all the complexities that this may entail :-). At any rate, these issues are largely irrelevant because the typical home user is not going to require an eraseable/writeable optical drive. Moreover, the new NeXTs come with good ole floppy drives and not the opticals. CD-ROM drives are also now available for the NeXT. As I've argued before, the NeXT is as easy to use or easier if you are doing things you would do on a Mac. However, if you want to take advantage of a NeXT's extra power and expandability, you'll want to learn some Unix. The average user, however, will never have to say the "U" word. The NeXT is not explicitly targeted at home computer users. But this is probably due to price more than any issue of ease-of-use. At any rate, anyone who can post a note a Usenet has more than enough technical expertise to use a NeXT effectively.
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/07/90)
On 06-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user Jeff Sullivan@ISI.EDU writes: >The other problem with NeXT seems to be that lack of a VARIETY fo >software. Not that there isn't A piece of software to do anything >standard, like word processing or spreadsheet, but that there's only >ONE program to do it. What other WP packages are there for neXT >besides WriteNow? What are the database options? Graphics? >Animation? > Please, look at the Software and Peripherals Catalog from NeXT for the NeXT computer. You WILL be pleasantly surprised at the software available
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>Also, the new Personal LaserWriter NT is not that more expensive than a that >>price for the NeXT printer. > >However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could >do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. I quote from product specifications of the Personal LaserWriter NT: "Printing Protocols >PostScript, HP LaserJet Plus, and a subset of the Diablo 630 command set." On the subject of price, with my university discount, I can acquire the above mentioned PLW NT for $2111. I would say that compares favorable.
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (11/07/90)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond) writes, in part,
>First, the Mac doesn't offer the option of an eraseable optical as media.
This is incorrect. There are a number of vendors offering eraseable optical
drives for the Mac, in a wide array of sizes. For instance, Storage Dimensions
offers a drive in the 600MB-1GB range. It is eraseable optical. MicroNet also
offers similar drives. I think Jasmine does too. In fact, I have a hard time
thinking of a major Mac hard drive vendor (other than Apple) who _doesn't_ offer
an eraseable optical drive.
Lawrence Millersteets@christa.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Michael Steets) (11/07/90)
In article <9530@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: |> (stuff deleted) |> |> 15,000 * 6 = 90,000 machines per year. Macintosh, in its FIRST year, sold |> 500,000, and it was NOT an overwhelmingly popular machine. It was seen as |> ^^^^^^^^^^^ |> Where did you get this number? 500,00 was the number Steve Jobs WANTED to sell, but obviously it was totally unrealistic. I don't remember numbers from 'The Journey is the Reward', but in his first year the mac seemed not to be the great success. Real sells were about 20 Percent (+/- 10 Percent) of 500,000 (Corrections are welcome, I read the book one year ago...) ----------------- Michael Steets Informatik IV University of Dortmund D-4600 Dortmund Germany e-mail : steets@fifi.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) (11/07/90)
In-reply-to: khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 7 Nov 90 16:09:43 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!!
References: <1990Nov6.222023.8572@midway.uchicago.edu>
<1990Nov07.040655.15672@ecst.csuchico.edu>
<1990Nov7.071044.21361@agate.berkeley.edu>
<1990Nov7.160943.19804@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>could add any arbitrary disk drive, but surely that requires modifying some
>files to tell the computer what the drive can/cannot do.) For ease-of-use,
For drives that have SENSE_MODE, NeXT 2.0 software does all the work for
you......just plug in the drive. I know most Seagate (WREN) products
support this as does Quantum and Maxtor, etc. No Unix file system
knowledge required.
-Bill-
--
__________________Prof. William V. Smith____________________
EMail: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu or uunet!hamblin.math.byu.edu!smithw
SMail: Math Dept. -- 314 TMCB; BYU; Provo, UT 84602 (USA)
Phone: +1 801 378 2061 FAX: +1 801 378 2800gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu (JD144) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.071044.21361@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > First, the Mac doesn't offer the option of an eraseable optical as media. > Secondly, if you're running your operating system from the optical, you > are a glutton for punishment and deserve all the complexities that this > may entail :-). Gee, I suppose all those OD drives I see advertised are just my imagination. Apple doesn't offer it...but others do. > As I've argued before, the NeXT is as easy to use or easier if you are doing > things you would do on a Mac. However, if you want to take advantage of a > NeXT's extra power and expandability, you'll want to learn some Unix. The > average user, however, will never have to say the "U" word. But on a Mac, I don't have to learn some of anything. I just do. > > The NeXT is not explicitly targeted at home computer users. But this is > probably due to price more than any issue of ease-of-use. At any rate, > anyone who can post a note a Usenet has more than enough technical > expertise to use a NeXT effectively. You'd be surprised how many people can post to usenet, but still try and use the mouse like a remote control. :) -- Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?) =========================================================================== Hey, wanna save the world? | Got sumtin' to say? gross@umiami.bitnet Nuke a Godless, Communist, | Pick and choose! gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu gay whale for Christ. | gross@miavax.ir.miami.edu - Anonymous | jgross@umbio.med.miami.edu =========================================================================== The University of Miami has a lovely fountain.
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.071044.21361@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >The NeXT is not explicitly targeted at home computer users. But this is >probably due to price more than any issue of ease-of-use. At any rate, >anyone who can post a note a Usenet has more than enough technical >expertise to use a NeXT effectively. If you have a NeXT at home, you had better know Unix, because you are effectively system manager for that computer. When something goes wrong you need some clue about Unix to fix it. Also when you add new equipment. (Someone earlier said that one of the advantages of the Next was that you could add any arbitrary disk drive, but surely that requires modifying some files to tell the computer what the drive can/cannot do.) For ease-of-use, the Next may equal the Mac. For system maintenance, it's much more complicated. It's UNIX! and as nicely hidden as it is, it's still Unix and one shudders to think what someone who doesn't know Unix could do to it. (After all, there are Mac users who don't understand the concept of having just one system folder; what would they do to a Next?) -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/08/90)
In article <UbBvXFy00Uh7E0kCYd@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >On 06-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. >user Jeff Sullivan@ISI.EDU writes: >>The other problem with NeXT seems to be that lack of a VARIETY fo >>software. Not that there isn't A piece of software to do anything >>standard, like word processing or spreadsheet, but that there's only >>ONE program to do it. What other WP packages are there for neXT >>besides WriteNow? What are the database options? Graphics? >>Animation? >> >Please, look at the Software and Peripherals Catalog from NeXT for the >NeXT computer. You WILL be pleasantly surprised at the software >available Okay, there are two questions when asking about software: 1) Is it available? 2) How good is it? So far, Next users can only say, look in the catalog, it's available. They can't tell you how well it's implemented, the bugs, the features that it has or doesn't have, or how well it compares with competing programs (as there are no competing programs), because they haven't seen most of them yet. A few months from now, we'll start seeing posts in comp.sys.next about why Improv is garbage or how this feature is WordPerfect was conceived in hell, and at that point, one will have a better sense of the software available. -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/08/90)
>I don't have the manual handy, but since I just installed one in my office this >morning, the information is pretty fresh. The Personal LW NT is a Postscript >printer. The Personal LW SC is the "QuickDraw" printer. Both the Personal >LaserWriters are based on a 4 page per minute Canon engine rated for (I think) >150,000 copies. I think it would be a good idea to compare the two printers NeXT Laser Printer 400 dpi 8 pages per minute 300,000 page duty cycle No monthly limit $1282 (University Price) * New versions of postscript (like PostScript II) can be utilized since PostScript is in software. * Fast imaging on a 68040 in the background * Up to 64 MB RAM Apple Personal LaserWriter NT 300 dpi 4 pages per minute 150,000 page duty cycle 100 page per day limit $2121 (University Price) 2MB RAM 68020 PostScript in ROM
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/08/90)
In article <MbC3s8O00WBN81rH8S@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >I think it would be a good idea to compare the two printers Yeah, this would be more useful though if you were a little more careful in doing the comparison. >NeXT Laser Printer > >400 dpi >8 pages per minute >300,000 page duty cycle >No monthly limit >$1282 (University Price) >* New versions of postscript (like PostScript II) can be utilized > since PostScript is in software. Given that Apple offers PS version upgrades for its older printers, there is no reaon to believe that ROM upgrades won't be available for the Personal LW NT as well. The above implies that a hardware upgrade of PS might not be doable. >* Fast imaging on a 68040 in the background Hmm, I didn't know the NeXT Laserprinter had an '040. (I'm sure you wouldn't mention the processor in a computer attached to the printer because you said you were comparing the PRINTERS.) >* Up to 64 MB RAM > >Apple Personal LaserWriter NT > >300 dpi >4 pages per minute >150,000 page duty cycle >100 page per day limit I quote from the Personal LW NT manual: Minimum life expectancy is 150,000 pages, with no monthly page limit. I note here that both of our original LaserWriters (not Plus models) were upgraded to Plus status and have printed well over their rated lifespan # of copies. >$2121 (University Price) >2MB RAM >68020 12Mhz 68000 >PostScript in ROM Which includes the 11 standard PS font families and the IBM PC Graphics Extended Character Set. The ROM also includes HP LaserJet Plus and Diablo 630 emulation modes.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
I wrote:
>First, the Mac doesn't offer the option of eraseable optical media.
As people have pointed out, you can indeed get eraseable/writeable optical
for the Macs. Actually, I know that optical is available for virtually
any computer. I meant that Apple does not include the optical in any
configuration of the Mac. There is also the question of any optical
standard. There is one for the NeXT. As far as I know, there isn't
one for the Mac.knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
Questor writes that an Apple LaserWriter NT can be bought for $2111 with educational discount. Since a NeXT laser printer retails for $1795, it can be purchased for under $1500 with an educational discount. Not bad, eh?
aloh@volcano.Berkeley.EDU (Andy Loh) (11/08/90)
I personally think that the NeXT is just not practical enough for everyday use. As many people have pointed out, the NeXT's software selection is extremely limited. Most, if not all, of what is currently available either comes with the machine, or in a software supplement. With the Mac, there's a program for practically every conceiveable use. Let's see you NeXT people get an address book program or a game at the spur of the moment. With the Mac, just go down to your local software store, or call any of the mail order houses toll free for next day delivery. The NeXT simply cannot, and probably will not ever, be as practical as a Mac. As I've told a friend, the NeXT is a nice piece of hardware, with no software to boot. If all you use a computer for is word processing or spreadsheet work, then you aren't using that computer to its greatest potential. I guess if you feel like programming your own software, which is what NeXT expects you to do, since they provide the tools for it, then be my guest. Perhaps someone could start a list of the practical uses of the Mac vs. the NeXT. As for all this talk about the NeXT laser printer, isn't there some way to connect the NeXT laser to the Mac? I'm sure someone could develop the driver for it, if it hasn't been done already. Besides you could get an HP LaserJet IIP (I'm not sure of the name) for about the same price, right? Andy (aloh@ocf.berkeley.edu) Macintosh: The "Practical" Power to Be Your Best.
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.234855.11155@midway.uchicago.edu>, kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) writes: > In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > > >Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their > >computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive. This is all the > >more reason to buy a NeXT. > > One of the reasons that a postscript printer costs so damn much is because > the liscensing fee for postscipt that you have to pay. Putting a PS > interpreter in a Mac doesn't solve the problem. The cost to put a > Motorola 680x0 in a Laserwriter doesn't affect the price nearly as much > as the liscensing fee. It's bad enough to force the CPU to handle all the I/O, now you should want to load it up with PostScript processing as well? (Since the licensing costs are pertty close, you don't get a win there, and loss with the overall system throughput hit.) Notice that the NeXT offloads a lot of I/O from the CPU...they've got some saved cycles to waste. Since they already have to deal with PostScript for the screen display, the printer is a minor added cost. Putting the PS interpreter in the printer is reasonable...but a better solution might be to write your own PS clone and run that in the printer. You'll then avoid having to pay Adobe, printer price goes down. Hope the interpreter works properly, though. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.014246.29367@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > I wrote: > >>...it [Personal LaserWriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do > >>with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. > > Steve Hix writes: > >Other than 400dpi output, what > > Let's see. Rotations and scaling without making your fonts look god-awful > ugly. Where have you been for the past six month (or more)? I can do all that...have been doing it...for quite a while with a printer that is most emphatically *not* a PostScript printer. An HP DeskWriter. You just need the right software, in this case ATM. On the right paper, it is as good as from any 300dpi laserprinter with PostScript. Only thing that bugs me right now is trying to get grays out of Quark XPress to the DeskWriter. > And anything else you can do with a PostScript printer that you > can't do with the Mac's Personal LaserWriter NT. I think the NT is a PostScript printer... > There IS a reason you know > that Apple charges you so much extra for PostScript with its printers. Mostly to pay off Adobe's licensing fees. It's not because there's anything that can be done *only* by PostScript (in principle), though the PS solution might be the most convenient way to go. What next? -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) (11/08/90)
All you mac people are saying EXACTLY what my MS-DOS friends said when I
bought my first mac.
I guess you all used to be IBM lovers?
Maybe it's just jealousy. Yeah, must be.
:)
I use both mac and NeXT because their both great for different reasons.
I wouldn't want my mom to have to configure a NeXT on internet, but then
again I get bored of my Mac IIfx.
Let's drop this stupid argument.
Both the NeXT and Mac are great machines for many reasons - and besides...
NEITHER USES DOS OR WINDOWS.
:)
--
Eric S. Boltz
The Johns Hopkins University
eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edurussotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.160943.19804@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes: > >If you have a NeXT at home, you had better know Unix, because you are >effectively system manager for that computer. When something goes wrong >you need some clue about Unix to fix it. Also when you add new equipment. >(Someone earlier said that one of the advantages of the Next was that you >could add any arbitrary disk drive, but surely that requires modifying some >files to tell the computer what the drive can/cannot do.) For ease-of-use, >the Next may equal the Mac. For system maintenance, it's much more complicated. Adding disk drives was a real problem in the original cube, according to a friend of mine who has one. He has lots of trouble getting his 300MB Wren working right. (seems the disktab parameters the Wren people told him just wouldn't work, and kept eating 20MB or so) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (11/08/90)
(Okay, let's start a new direction for this thread....)
I've used a NeXT a fair bit as a non-programmer, and I've programmed the
Mac quite a bit. That should suffice for placing me in the appropriate
"what are you familiar with" category.
Now, I haven't used one of the new NeXT machines. However, the original
cube had one flaw which for me made it absolutely unusable:
The GUI was simply the most unresponsive I've ever used (and I've used
Macs, Suns, Iris's, DECWindows, Amigas, et alia). I just couldn't take
clicking on something and waiting up to a couple of *seconds* for it to
respond! Even Commodore-64 GEOS was quicker to respond to user actions!
I sincerely hope that they've fixed this on the new NeXT's. Anyone know
for sure? Even if the machine could chug out results like nobody's
business, if it couldn't keep up with ME, on MY time, then I'd go and
get a machine that *could* keep up, like a Mac.
-------
Christopher Tate |
| Sorry; it's classified. I could tell
cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | you, but then I'd have to kill you.
cxt105@psuvm.bitnet |CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (11/08/90)
Next question.... In article <1990Nov7.160943.19804@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) says: >(Someone earlier said that one of the advantages of the Next was that you >could add any arbitrary disk drive, but surely that requires modifying some >files to tell the computer what the drive can/cannot do.) Would someone who is intimately familiar with the process please describe *exactly* what it takes to add another hard drive to the NeXTstation? Say I want to add a Syquest-mechanism removable-cartridge hard drive to it -- what do I have to do? (Or CAN you add them to NeXT's...?). On a Mac, the process is as follows: 1) Plug in the drive. If you already have another external drive, this means plugging it into the end of the SCSI line. Otherwise, you plug it into the SCSI port on the back of the Mac. 2) Next, copy a particular file from the floppy that came with the drive into your System Folder. 3) Now, turn on your drive, and reboot. It's installed, and you can use it just like any other 45-MB drive. Somehow I doubt it's this easy on a NeXT.... ------- Christopher Tate | "Pardon me, but is this your bar | of soap?" cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | "Why, yes, I suppose it is...." {...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | cxt105@psuvm.bitnet | "So do we."
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >jtgorman@cs.arizone.edu (Quaestor) writes: >>Sure, the NeXt printer has better resolution than Macs and it's cheaper, >>but the price difference is not because NeXT thinks everyone should have >>a laser printer, but because it is a dumb printer. It relies on the >>PostScript interpreter in the NeXt computer... > >Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their >computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive. This is all the >more reason to buy a NeXT. > >>Also, the new Personal LaserWriter NT is not that more expensive than a that >>price for the NeXT printer. > >However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could >do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. Dear Friend - Excuse me, but the LaserWriter NT is a PostScript printer! Also, though this may have changed, I saw an incredible performance hit in printing to a NextPrinter for the original cube. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd, MS 75-8X Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.015951.784@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Well, now at least two people have told me that the NT is a PostScript printer. >I've also had two people tell me it ain't. Which is it folks? Someone have >a manual handy? > >If it is a PostScript printer, why is it so much cheaper than the other Mac >laser printers? Dear Friend - The Personal LaserWriter NT is a PostScript based printer, just like the LaserWriter II NT. The Personal LaserWriter SC, like the LaserWriter II SC, is a non-networkable, QuickDraw based printer. Before you damn the SC LaserWriter, you should see one running with Outline Fonts...a nice as postscript in many ways and faster! -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd, MS 75-8X Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.212848.10254@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > Never used a NeXT, eh? NeXT hides Unix under a GUI that, IMHO, is even > easier to use than a Mac's. A Unix expert would be hard pressed to > figure out that Unix was actually running under all the pretty windows > on a NeXT. If you need to do something on a NeXT that you could do on a > Mac, it is as easy or easier to do as on a Mac (with some minor exceptions: > I still prefer the horizontal menu bars on the Mac over the vertical main > menus on the NeXT). God, I'm going to regret having jumped into this war of words. I'm not a NeXT user or progammer, although from what I've seen and heard the NeXT looks great. I am a Mac user and programmer. I've always been curious about one thing about the NeXT: If the NeXT GUI is so great, why is it that whenever I look over the shoulder of a NeXT user on our campus, I invariably see him or her typing away the same old UNIX commands in a terminal window? Same comment applies to X-Windows for that matter. I remain completely unconvinced that any sort of GUI tacked on top of UNIX (or DOS) can every completely hide all the ugly complexities of UNIX (or DOS) underneath the GUI. Our experience here at NU is that you really do need to be a UNIX hacker to successfully install, maintain, and use a NeXT, or at least you frequently require the assistance of such a hacker. Here at NU we have a staff of NeXT experts to help people install, configure, and maintain their systems. Our Mac users don't require 1% of the technical help our NeXT users do. Another question: Have the people who think that Interface Builder is so superior to the Mac ever tried Apple's latest versions of Object Pascal/C++/MacApp/Mouser/ViewEdit/Inspector etc.? I haven't done any major projects using either system yet (hope to soon), but I've seen both and read a great deal about both, and their similarities seem much stronger than their differences. They both seem to me to be mature object-oriented development environments with good compilers, class libraries, interface construction tools, inspectors and other debugging tools, and class browsers. Is one really all that superior to the other, or are we just picking nits here? I've seen fantastic examples of how easy it is to implement full blown user interfaces on both platforms. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/08/90)
----- One other thing that should be noted about the Next is the price. Now it has better bang-for-the-buck than comparably priced Macintoshes (an $8000 '040 cube versus a $8000 '030 FX, for instance). Let's get that cleared up up front. But for all the talk about Macs being overpriced, the Next is really a computer only for the wealthy, or those lucky enough to get a university discount. Remember, if you buy a Next on the street it STARTS at $5000 (plus tax). A non-trivial amount. If you HAVE over 5 grand to spend on a computer, a Next might be a pretty good deal. A IIci or a IIfx is likely to run you as much as a Nextstation or a cube, respectively. But most people don't have $5000+ to spend on a home computer. You can get a Macintosh for as little as $1300 (I'm talking about with a HD). And you can get a color Mac with larger screen for somewhere around $2000-2500. These are of course not comparable to the Next in terms of speed or included HW. But they offer an entry into the Macintosh world for many more people than can afford a Next. There's nothing wrong with the Next costing what it does. As I said, it's a good deal. But when discussing the Mac versus the Next let's keep in mind that many people will have to pay over $5000 to get a Next -- not the $3000 so often mentioned by people in this thread -- and that the Next is essentially a machine for the relatively well off, not for the rest of us. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) (11/08/90)
>Now, I haven't used one of the new NeXT machines. However, the original >cube had one flaw which for me made it absolutely unusable: >The GUI was simply the most unresponsive I've ever used (and I've used >Macs, Suns, Iris's, DECWindows, Amigas, et alia). I just couldn't take >clicking on something and waiting up to a couple of *seconds* for it to >respond! Even Commodore-64 GEOS was quicker to respond to user actions! >I sincerely hope that they've fixed this on the new NeXT's. Anyone know >for sure? Even if the machine could chug out results like nobody's >business, if it couldn't keep up with ME, on MY time, then I'd go and >get a machine that *could* keep up, like a Mac. I can answer your question!! I have used : the orig. 030, an 030 with version 2.0 of NeXT's os and the new NeXTstation 040 running 2.0. Just changing the original cube to 2.0 yields approximately a 100% improvement in performance. The biggest problem with the original 030 speed was the fact that is used an optical disk (92ms ave. access) for virtual memory. (BIG MISTAKE). NeXT fixed this problem as well. With the 040 machines AND 2.0 you're talking about a minimum of four times the speed of the original (and as much as ten times). One reason the mac's gui is fast is because when you click the mouse EVERYTHING STOPS and the cpu only listens to the mouse. On the NeXT it not only continues to run other programs but continually draws the window (not just its outline). I had some time to mess with the 040 and gui speed was of major importance to me so here's the test I ran the following in different windows : 1. A repeating sound file of the simpsons 2. An animation of an eagle in flight 3. A mathematica animation 4. An animation of a spinning aspirin molecule **** ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY -> while moving a window! There was a some slowdown, but it was not like the 030 I tried in august 1989. (Can a mac do that?) =:) As far as the person who said that the cpu was overworked with i/o: The NeXT station has 8 (count 'em 8) i/o coprocessors as well as the 56001 DSP chip. I'll take the 040, 8 i/o, DSP over an 030/020(printer) any day!! Don't look so green guys...the mac is still great bye -- Eric S. Boltz The Johns Hopkins University eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) >If you have a NeXT at home, you had better know Unix, because you are >effectively system manager for that computer. When something goes >wrong you need some clue about Unix to fix it. Also when you add new >equipment. If you use a NeXT to do Mac things, there is no system administration involved. You plug the NeXT in and use it like you would a Mac. You don't even have to create user accounts; merely use the single "me" account that comes set up. As for when something goes wrong with the machine, pray tell what you would do with your Mac? If it's a system crash, I reboot, and rebooting is as easy to do on the Mac as the NeXT. If something happens to a file or files, I use ResEdit or Fedit on the Mac. It seems to me that knowledge of ResEdit or Fedit is as much arcana as the skill to edit a Unix system file. If something goes wrong with a disk on the Mac, I use one of the disk recovery utilities. Likewise on the NeXT. Finally, if something goes wrong with the Mac hardware, I send my machine to the shop. Opening up the Mac voids the warranty. Likewise, I would send a broken NeXT to the shop. Happily, the NeXTs I use at work have never broken down. As for adding new equipment, as someone else pointed out, NeXT 2.0 allows many peripherals, including popular hard drives, to be plug-and-play. The fact is that adding anything to a Mac is a tough job whose toughness is obscured by the fact that Mac peripherals come with the software that does the set-up for you. Why do you think that a Mac hard disk is 50-100% more expensive in many cases than an equivalent PC hard disk? The Mac hard disk manufacturer had to add special hardware and software to make his drive compatible with the Mac. As for the NeXT, peripherals designed specifically for the NeXT are mostly plug-and-play. The great advantage the NeXT has over the Mac is that you can also use peripherals NOT designed with the NeXT in mind. With some Unix, you can use all sorts of neat peripherals that would be virtually impossible or a nightmare to personally connect to a Mac. Take another example. Does a normal user know how to use a modem with a Mac without a program like Red Ryder or Microphone to connect and communicate with the modem? I think the answer is a resounding NO! On the other hand, I'm using a modem with the NeXT without the help of any outside software. I run the standard terminal emulator and use a Unix program called tip for dialing. If you don't want to use Unix, Microphone II, Communicae, HitchHiker, and other easy-to-use communication programs are already available for the NeXT.
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/08/90)
A msg from (Raymond group): > Lotus says that all of their new software will appear on the NeXT > before it appears on any other platform. This gives me great reservations since Lotus hasn't done much of anything for a long time. They are just making noise, because they sure haven't done much software wise for quite a while. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (11/08/90)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > Well, now at least two people have told me that the NT is a PostScript printe > I've also had two people tell me it ain't. Which is it folks? Someone have > a manual handy? The Personal LaserWriter NT is a networkable postscript printer. > If it is a PostScript printer, why is it so much cheaper than the other Mac > laser printers? Because the engine used is only half the speed (4 ppm as opposed to 8 ppm) of the regular LaserWriter II line. John
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.212457.8903@ctr.columbia.edu> eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) writes: >One reason the mac's gui is fast is because when you click the mouse >EVERYTHING STOPS and the cpu only listens to the mouse. On the NeXT it not >only continues to run other programs but continually draws the window (not >just its outline). I sure wish I knew how this rumor keeps spreading around. I'm not much of a mac programmer, but I don't have to be to disprove the notion that the CPU stops on a mouse click. Just start a download in the background with MultiFinder. Now click on a menu. Notice that the modem receive light does not go off? Notice that the bytes received counter keeps incrementing? If I recall correctly, dragging windows as an outline is an option you can change in the Finder. (Either that, or I have an init that lets me drag the window and not just the outline. With dozens of inits, you tend to forget what the original interface really was.)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes: >Okay, there are two questions when asking about software: >1)Is it available? >2)How good is it? >So far, Next users can only say, look in the catalog, it's available. They >can't tell you how well it's implemented, the bugs, the features that it has >or doesn't have, or how well it compares with competing programs (as there >are not competing programs), because they haven't seen most of them yet. First question: Is NeXT software available? Yes it is available. And there's already fair coverage of the major areas: word processing, database, communications, spreadsheet, et al. There are 3 word processors/desktop publishing products already in "shrink wrap." There are two relational databases already running on the NeXT (Compare this to zero true relational databases for the Mac). There are two spreadsheets, Informix Wingz and a Unix spreadsheet, already being used. Two others, PowerStep and Improv are in development. Second question: How good is the stuff? True, some areas have only one or two software packages that cover them. However, if the standard of comparison is the Mac, Sun, or the PC, it is already abundantly clear that NeXT software is better (easier-to-use and more powerful) than the software for those machines. There may be 1,000 Mac programs that can do word processing. However, if the several NeXT programs can do the job better or as well as the best of the Mac programs, why choose the Mac? I wrote: >>As I've argued before, the NeXT is as easy to use or easier if you are doing >>things you would do on a Mac. However, if you want to take advantage of a >>NeXT's extra power or expandability, you'll want to to learn some Unix. The >>average user, however, will never have to say the "U" word. gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu (JD144) writes: >But on a Mac, I don't have to learn some of anything. I just do. But you cannot do it. My point was that the NeXT lets you do things that you just can't do with a Mac, no matter what your level of expertise with a Mac. I outlined what some of those things were in previous postings. I would much rather learn a little Unix to do the special stuff than not be able to do the special stuff at all with the Mac. >You'd be surprised how many people can post to usenet, but still try and >use the mouse like a remote control :). Not too surprised...I read a posting from a guy who said that the only thing that saved the Mac was the addition of arrow keys... :-(. The nice thing about the NeXT that you can have the best of either or both worlds. You can use Unix with a command-line interface if you want. Or you can totally ignore Unix and do everything from NeXTStep. gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu (JD144) writes: >
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) write: >Say I want to add a Syquest-mechanism removable-cartridge hard drive to it-- >what do I have to do? (Or CAN you add them to NeXT's...?) Christopher goes on to outline the three steps required to install the drive on the Mac. I can't answer your answer on the specific type of drive you mention. But if the drive is at all intended for any Unix system, installing it may be as easy as the 3 steps for the Mac or even easier (step 2 may be eliminated in the case of some peripherals). Problems crop up with peripherals not intended for NeXTs because of software/ hardware incompatibilities. However, by and large, SCSI devices will work with the NeXT. And if the device-maker in question has specifically addressed the task of NeXT connectivity (as the cartridge drive you mention has addressed the task of Mac connectivity), it should be no harder to connect it to a NeXT than to a Mac. >Somehow I doubt it's this easy on a NeXT... It all depends. Some things will be harder to connect to a NeXT, some things will be easier. What the NeXT allows is the opportunity to connect more and more powerful things to it than you could connect to a Mac.
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/08/90)
Okay, one last post from me: In article <1990Nov7.191240.4645@ctr.columbia.edu> eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) writes: > >All you mac people are saying EXACTLY what my MS-DOS friends said when I >bought my first mac. Yes, it's true. But I didn't buy a Macintosh in 1984 or 1985 or 1986 either. In 1985, there wasn't enough software and it wasn't clear that Apple was going to make it. (It wasn't until the Plus and, more importantly, the LaserWriter that the Macintosh truly became a useful machine.) The Next is neat. Hopefully Next will "make it." I personally would wait and see. > >Let's drop this stupid argument. >Both the NeXT and Mac are great machines for many reasons - and besides... > > NEITHER USES DOS OR WINDOWS. >:) Agreed. I'm outta here. -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) writes: >I've always been curious about one thing about the NeXT: If the NeXT GUI >is so great, why is it that whenever I look over the shoulder of a NeXT user >on our campus, I invariably see him or her typing away the same old UNIX >commands in a terminal window? Same comment applies to X-Windows for that >matter. There are probably a variety of reasons for what you say you've seen: 1. There are some people perverse enough to prefer command-line interfaces. 2. There are some people who would like to use the full power of Unix. Like the people in group 1, these people would be extremely disappointed by what the Mac offers. 3. They may have been logged onto their university minicomputers running Unix. 4. Programmers generally like to use both the power of Unix and the power of the NeXT's GUI and program development environment. So if your NeXT lab is full of programmers, you'll probably see them running Unix in one window and hooking up program buttons with a mouse in other windows. >Our experience here at NU is that you really do need to be a UNIX hacker to >successfully install, maintain, and use a NeXT, or at least you frequently >require the assistance of a hacker. There is a very large difference between a multi-user or networked environment than the single-user home environment. If you need to maintain multiple accounts on one machine, you do need to do some system administration. However, if you use a NeXT like a standalone Mac, you don't have multiple users to take care of. The NeXT also allows more than one person to be logged onto the same machine at once. This requires some initial systems adminstration, but this is also something you can't do at all with your normal Mac. As for installation, all you needed to do with the old NeXTs was plug it in and load the disk with the OS. The new NeXTs come with the OS on the built-in hard disk. So all you have to do is plug it in. >Our Mac users don't require 1% of the technical help our NeXT users do. The thing is that many NeXT users are ex-Mac users. This means that people expect to do everything on a NeXT in the same manner as they did it on a Mac (or in Windows). It's a matter of re-training people to learn an even better system. Also, people generally use NeXTs to do more powerful things than you can do with a Mac. More powerful number crunching, programming, etc. However, a word processor on a NeXT is as easy to use as a word processor on a Mac. >Have the people who think that Interface Builder is so superior to the Mac >ever tried Apple's latest versions of Object Pascal/C++/MacApp/Mouser/ >ViewEdit/Inspector etc.? My impression was that they have (at least here on Usenet). I've only used THINK C myself on the Mac, but I have extensive experience with the NeXT programming environment and love it. >Is one really all that superior to the other, or are we just picking nits >here? I think the best criteria to determine the answer to this question is the quality of the software produced in both environments and the length of time it took to write that software. NeXT programmers agree that they save 50-75% in development time over a traditional GUI environment. NeXT software speaks for itself.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/08/90)
In article <90311.150400CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >(Okay, let's start a new direction for this thread....) >The GUI was simply the most unresponsive I've ever used (and I've used Ever used DecWindows on a diskless Vaxstation 2000 over a clogged network with the disk server being a Microvax II with a flaky disk? Yes, that's slower than a NeXT, but not by much :-). >I sincerely hope that they've fixed this on the new NeXT's. Anyone know >for sure? Even if the machine could chug out results like nobody's >business, if it couldn't keep up with ME, on MY time, then I'd go and >get a machine that *could* keep up, like a Mac. I haven't used one either, but if you put sufficient horsepower behind it, the most inefficient OS (one based on PostScript) will run quickly... -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.223221.14989@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) says: > [....] What the NeXT allows is the opportunity to connect more and >more powerful things to it than you could connect to a Mac. Justify this statement. Examples, etc.... ------- Christopher Tate | Student-Type Person | Migratory lifeform with a cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | tropism for bookstores. {...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | cxt105@psuvm.bitnet |
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/08/90)
In article <39328@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1990Nov7.212457.8903@ctr.columbia.edu> eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) writes: >Just start a download in the background with MultiFinder. Now click on a menu. >Notice that the modem receive light does not go off? Notice that the bytes >received counter keeps incrementing? Well, I have tried it, and the modem recieve light went right off (after CTS from the Mac was dropped). I don't know what you have running, but MenuSelect, TrackControl, TrackGoAway, DragWindow, etc, are major problems for the cooperative multitasking. > >If I recall correctly, dragging windows as an outline is an option you can >change in the Finder. (Either that, or I have an init that lets me drag the >window and not just the outline. With dozens of inits, you tend to forget what >the original interface really was.) You have an INIT-- if you find it out, send me the name of it. Sounds neat. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/08/90)
Norm,
This weeks Infoworld has an column that slams into Lotus for their choice
of NeXT for their latest product instead of Windows 3.0. They point out that
Lotus admits that a Windows 3.0 version will not be out in 1991 and that
whatever new features Lotus has done will likely be duplicated by Microsoft
and others on Windows and the Mac long before Lotus has versions for those
OS's. Their point is that either Lotus has the wrong product, or the wrong
time or in this case the wrong platform.
Jackjln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.230807.17914@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > 4. Programmers generally like to use both the power of Unix and the > power of the NeXT's GUI and program development environment. So if your > NeXT lab is full of programmers, you'll probably see them running > Unix in one window and hooking up program buttons with a mouse in other > windows. I also like the power of sophisticated traditional command languages when I really need them. There's absolutely no doubt that direct manipulation human interfaces (GUIs) will never be able to provide the power of complex formal traditional languages. On the Mac MPW fills this need quite nicely for me. It's even better than the usual UNIX shell languages in most ways. But you don't see me using MPW to do things like everyday file maintenance (unless I need wildcards or a fancy filter or something else special, and the need for this sort of thing is much less on the Mac than on typical UNIX systems). The NeXT users I know, on the other hand, do almost all of their housekeeping from terminal windows, and they make very little use of the much-heralded NeXT "GUI" file management tools. As far as I can tell the great majority of them might as well be using VT100 terminals or at most a cheap X terminal most of the time. Maybe our NU NeXT users are just ignorant, I don't know. > I think the best criteria to determine the answer to this question is the > quality of the software produced in both environments and the length of > time it took to write that software. NeXT programmers agree that they > save 50-75% in development time over a traditional GUI environment. NeXT > software speaks for itself. Certainly they save time over a TRADITIONAL GUI environment (non object-oriented). I wonder about the 50-75% figure (seems a bit high to me - in my Mac projects I don't devote this much time to my interfaces, and my interfaces are rather highly regarded). But the only fair comparison would be between NeXT's current professional object-oriented development environment and Apple's current professional object-oriented development environment. Is there anybody out there who has made serious use of both environments and would care to compare them? Please don't compare Interface Builder to that college lab you did way back when with MacPascal or the old non-object oriented Think products - it's not fair. I'm particularly interested in objective first-hand comparisons between the current NeXT environment and Apple's most recent release 2.0 of the MacApp system. I think that one of the problems is that with the Mac you have to pay extra to purchase programming tools and powerful development environments like MPW and MacApp, while the corresponding tools usually come with the NeXT. This gives people who aren't familiar with the tools available on the Mac the incorrect impression that these things can't be done on the Mac (for example, command languages with pipes and filters and I/O redirection, fancy shell scripts, traditional quick-and-dirty glass teletype C programs, and state-of-the-art object oriented development environments are the kinds of things I'm talking about). Don't get me wrong - I'm way too old and I've seen way too many computers and operating systems over the years to be a religious fanatic. I think the NeXT is great, especially the new faster more inexpensive models. I like the Mac too. I just see too much comparison of apples and oranges (excuse the pun) in this thread and elsewhere, and I wanted to correct this. I'd be very interested in hearing direct, fair comparisons from people who really know both sides of the story. Perhaps the NeXT environment really is significantly superior, and I'd like to know, but I haven't seen anything in this thread yet that comes close to convincing me, or is even very relevant to the real issues. The other main topic on this thread has been the issue of Mac vs. NeXT for non-hackers. I have to laugh at this one - 99% of the people I know and work with who use Macs without much help from anybody would be hopelessly lost trying to use a NeXT or any other UNIX workstation, with or without a layered GUI, no matter how good the GUI might be. The NeXT may be a wonderful workstation for programmers and scientific researchers, but it's not a machine for the masses. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
> This weeks Infoworld has an column that slams into Lotus for their choice >of NeXT for their latest product instead of Windows 3.0. They point out that >Lotus admits that a Windows 3.0 version will not be out in 1991 and that >whatever new features Lotus has done will likely be duplicated by Microsoft >and others on Windows and the Mac long before Lotus has versions for those >OS's. Their point is that either Lotus has the wrong product, or the wrong >time or in this case the wrong platform. If Lotus had tried to develop Improv on Windows 3.0, it may well have taken till 1992 to come out with a version of Improv for any machine. Moreover, it probably would have had half the functionality and even less of the looks. This is the advantage of 8 MB of RAM, virtual memory, large screen, lots of hard disk space, etc. As for whether Microsoft or other companies will come out with an Improv workalike for Windows before Lotus. I don't see how this is possible. Improv is not a traditional spreadsheet with fancy features added. It is an entire rethinking of what a spreadsheet should be. Microsoft would have to design and implement an entirely new product to match the one that Lotus has already designed and implemented and only needs to port. At any rate, if Microsoft tried to come up with an Improv workalike, Lotus would probably slap them silly with a lawsuit (an unfortunate tendency that Lotus has). Remember too that Lotus owns the PC spreadsheet market with 1-2-3. PC owners, I think would be more likely to move up to a new Lotus product (with 1-2-3 compatibility by the way) than go with another brand altogether. >Their point is that either Lotus has the wrong product, or the wrong >time or in this case the wrong platform. They've been listening to Bill Gates too long. I hear Lotus has decided to introduce all new products on the NeXT first. I think there are two reasons for this: 1) It is quicker and easier to design, implement, and then port a interface-intensive application from a NeXT to a PC than to design and implement the app entirely on the PC. 2) The NeXT with its GUI and power really showcases a software product.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
>In article <90311.150400CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >>(Okay, let's start a new direction for this thread....) >>The GUI was simply the most unresponsive I've ever used (and I've used >Ever used DecWindows on a diskless Vaxstation 2000 over a clogged network with >the disk server being a Microvax II with a flaky disk? Yes, that's slower >than a NeXT, but not by much :-). >>I sincerely hope that they've fixed this on the new NeXT's. Anyone know Yes, the new NeXTs are not only fast...they are veeerrrry fast. They are four to 10 times faster than the old NeXTs depending on what you are doing. Why talk about how slow the old NeXTs were? You might else well talk about the speed of the original 128K Mac. The topic is totally irrelevant if you are in the market for a NeXT or Mac today. >business, if it couldn't keep up with ME, on MY time, then I'd go and >get a machine that *could* keep up, like a Mac. The new NeXTs put a Mac IIfx to shame in terms of speed (twice as fast in terms of normal processing, perhaps as much as ten times as fast for floating point processing). A NeXT will keep up with you and more.
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov8.053938.16341@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >If Lotus had tried to develop Improv on Windows 3.0, it may well have taken >till 1992 to come out with a version of Improv for any machine. > I heard from a NeXT rep (hardly a disinterested party) that Lotus had tried for many moons to do Improv on OS/2 PM. They were unsuccessful. They finally punted on it and moved to the NeXT, where they got it going with comparative ease. Don McGregor mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/08/90)
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) write: >The NeXT users I know...do almost all of their housekeeping from terminal >windows...Maybe our NU NeXT users are just ignorant, I don't know. Actually, the reverse is probably true. Your NU users are too sophisticated. Academic users generally do know Unix and prefer to do things the old Unix-y way (not all academic users mind you, but many of them). My point is that the user has the option of doing it either way, and the novice user can use his system without working from the Unix shell. All NeXT would have to do to make their computer behave like a Mac is to disable the shell and prevent more than one user account from being on a machine. Now you would have a fancy Mac and could ignore Unix altogether for most things. >I wonder about the 50-75% figure (for software-development time savings on the NeXT) It's true. I'm responsible for a large commercial product on the NeXT and I would say that I saved at least 50% in development time. Moreover, our company also does custom software for large businesses, and we can do their software in 1/3 or 1/2 the time. We may all be super-geniuses, but we're not THAT smart :-). Where does this time savings come from? Not only do you save on interface time, you also save on program design and debugging time. Objective-C enforces an OOP structure on your code and is ideal for quick design and development of software in graphical, event-driven environments. Objective-C is also as easy or easier to debug than C because it nicely compartmentalizes your code. >The other topic on this thread has been the issue of Mac vs. NeXT for >non-hackers. I have to laugh at this one--99% of the people I know >and work with who use Macs without much help from anybody wuld be >hopelessly lost trying to use a NeXT or any other Unix workstation Are you comparing single-user-account Macs with multi-user/networked NeXTs? Yes, you need Unix if you're administrating a network of NeXTs. Otherwise, how is using a Mac and a NeXT that much different? Ten minutes after sitting down in front of my first NeXT, I could use a NeXT to the extent that I could use my Mac. I never even took a look at Unix that first time around. I had used Macs for several years before this and am a dyed-in-the- wool mouse and GUI man. I don't even use key equivalents for cut and paste. However, I had no problem learning the NeXT way of things very quickly. Young-Kyu Yoo Please address all e-mail to yoo@well.sf.ca.us kngroup@garnet.berkeley.edu is a friend's class account and I don't want to flood their mailbox with my mail. Thanks.
darweesh@zephyrus.crd.ge.com (Michael Darweesh) (11/08/90)
Yea, I'm sure I'm gonna regret getting involved with this discussion, but there's a point or two that I feel have been left out... When I bought an Macintosh, some of my friends/fellow students/co-workers had a Mac or were considering buying a Macintosh. Part of the reason we all bought Macs was the prices although high, was affordable even if we did have to get an extra student loan or something. Also, Macintosh has been exposed to many more people than next. Almost everyone at my high school has had an oppurtunity to use a Mac and that was 3 years ago! I don't think too many of them have ever heard of a next. Now, the next may have better "bang for the buck", but if I've never heard of the next, do you really think I'm gonna go spend a couple grand on one. Admittedly, next is trying to get thier foot in at some universities, but by then, I had already spent my money on a Mac. I was already familiar with the machine. All I knew about the next was what I read in the newspaper (until I got to college). Maybe the next is better...I didn't know that when I made my decision (it was a really expensie machine back then anyway). I didn't know Unix when I bought my Mac either... -Mike Darweesh weesh@crd.ge.com ps. typing at a mac and damn proud of it (although you can't tell from the content of the e-mail)
darweesh@zephyrus.crd.ge.com (Michael Darweesh) (11/08/90)
Yeesh!!! look at that References line.... Just thought I'd add a little fuel to this flame :-> even though I'd probably rather put it out. Remember Apple gives YOU the option of having Unix on your Mac instead of forcing it upon you. -Mike Darweesh weesh@crd.ge.com
dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) (11/08/90)
In article <cbBQbw200UgKEa9GNv@andrew.cmu.edu> vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes: >> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 5-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT >> defect.. Michael Forselius@cs.umu (798) > >> And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as >> hand-optimized assembler. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Michael speaking: Hey guys, gimme' a break will you - don't blame me for that, if you were to write this in Swedish... If you've ever waded through tons of compiler generated code then you'd know what I'm talking about, If not - come back when you have. Write a simple loop in your favorite language, dissasemble the code made by the compiler, what do you see??? Pretty bad code I suppose. Now consider that this is just ONE loop taking perhaps 10-... CLK (clock cycles) more than it has to and we loop a lot don't we? Compilers in general doesn't make especially fast code for array indexing either and ... Now cut off this discussion and move it to comp.compilers. Have a Nice Day /Michael
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.024956.160@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Well, I have tried it, and the modem recieve light went right off (after CTS >from the Mac was dropped). I don't know what you have running, but >MenuSelect, TrackControl, TrackGoAway, DragWindow, etc, are major problems >for the cooperative multitasking. I've been since informed via e-mail by someone more technically knowledgeable than myself (no too hard to do) that once the i/o buffer overflows, the download will stop. I guess I've never held the menu down long enough to see that behavior. >>If I recall correctly, dragging windows as an outline is an option you can >>change in the Finder. (Either that, or I have an init that lets me drag the >>window and not just the outline. With dozens of inits, you tend to forget what >>the original interface really was.) > >You have an INIT-- if you find it out, send me the name of it. Sounds neat. The name of the INIT is Dragger, and I think you can find it at the Sumex archives. It lets you drag windows as a full image of the window, and leaves a greyed-out version of the window in the original location. It ain't too snappy on a Plus, but runs well enough on my SE/30.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov7.212457.8903@ctr.columbia.edu> eboltz@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric S. Boltz) writes: >One reason the mac's gui is fast is because when you click the mouse >EVERYTHING STOPS and the cpu only listens to the mouse. On the NeXT it not >only continues to run other programs but continually draws the window (not >just its outline). This claim would have a lot more credibility if not for the fact that MacTutor published some code to do the exact same thing on the Mac over a year ago. >I had some time to mess with the 040 and gui speed was of major importance >to me so here's the test I ran the following in different windows : > >1. A repeating sound file of the simpsons >2. An animation of an eagle in flight Yes. Really nice. Of course, this is a port of a demo I saw running on the Commodore Amiga five years ago. (Except the Commodore demo had the screech of an eagle, which I think is a bit classier than Bart Simpson.) And yes, it could do this while multitasking. >3. A mathematica animation >4. An animation of a spinning aspirin molecule Question: was the NeXTStation *computing* the molecule in real-time or was it simply playing back a series of precomputed images (like the flying eagle or the famous Amiga bouncing ball)? >There was a some slowdown, but it was not like the 030 I tried in august >1989. (Can a mac do that?) =:) I don't deny that NeXT has a powerful machine. I do deny that they have prices that the typical user can afford. If you really want to make another convert, then swap me one of your '040 Color NeXTStations for my Mac IIsi, even trade.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov7.212944.11043@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Opening up the Mac voids the warranty. Likewise, I would send a >broken NeXT to the shop. Happily, the NeXTs I use at work have never >broken down. This is true *only* for the "compact Macs" like the Classic and SE/30. (Probably a wise policy, since those machines have the CRTs built in and thus a significant danger of electrocution even when the power's off.) The modular Macs come with manuals that give instructions on how to open the case and install boards, etc.
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (11/09/90)
>>>>> On 7 Nov 90 21:29:44 GMT, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) said: > If you use a NeXT to do Mac things, there is no system administration > involved. You plug the NeXT in and use it like you would a Mac. You > don't even have to create user accounts; merely use the single "me" > account that comes set up. The issue in system administration is not for single users. For a single user, I'm willing to believe that setting up out of the box is trivial (although adding a SCSI drive to a NeXT doesn't seem to be so easy -- I have a long file of directions from various people who claim that their way works). However, lets take two novice users and give them 5 Macs and 5 Nextstations to setup in a small network, each with one laser printer to share. How much work is it for these people to be up and running (to be fair, the mac people have to install Appleshare on one machine)? I'm not so sure that I think the NeXT will be plug and play. If you have an experienced user, might be a different story, but not two novics. > As for when something goes wrong with the machine, pray tell what you > would do with your Mac? If it's a system crash, I reboot, and rebooting > is as easy to do on the Mac as the NeXT. If something happens to a file So what does the novice user do when fsck starts to print all sorts of messages about bad cylinder groups and incorrect inode counts and bad superblocks? > shop. Opening up the Mac voids the warranty. Likewise, I would send a > broken NeXT to the shop. Happily, the NeXTs I use at work have never > broken down. This is not much of an argument. Sooner or later the NeXTs you use at work WILL break down. Things wear out and break. Law of nature. Now suppose you move to a different part of the country... Where are you going to take your broken machine to get it fixed? And how long is it going to take to get the parts needed to get you back up and running? > As for adding new equipment, as someone else pointed out, NeXT 2.0 allows > many peripherals, including popular hard drives, to be plug-and-play. > The fact is that adding anything to a Mac is a tough job whose toughness is > obscured by the fact that Mac peripherals come with the software that does > the set-up for you. Why do you think that a Mac hard disk is 50-100% more > expensive in many cases than an equivalent PC hard disk? The Mac hard disk > manufacturer had to add special hardware and software to make his drive > compatible with the Mac. As for the NeXT, peripherals designed specifically > for the NeXT are mostly plug-and-play. The great advantage the NeXT has > over the Mac is that you can also use peripherals NOT designed with the > NeXT in mind. With some Unix, you can use all sorts of neat peripherals > that would be virtually impossible or a nightmare to personally connect to > a Mac. I assume that you're making this claim because of the SCSI bus on the NeXT. There *is* a SCSI bus on the Mac as well, and many people go out and buy just plain disk mechanisms and hook the up via SCSI, and use software like Apple's HD Setup or Silverlining to format their drives. The difference in price between Mac and PC drives is the SCSI bus. Why not compare equivalent prices for plain drive mechanisms that would be used in a Mac or a NeXT? Surprise? They're both SCSI, and they both cost the same. The differences in price after that are that drive "manufacturers" add value. Sometimes that's a case and power supply, sometimes its software, sometimes it's a warranty. But if you look in the Fall 1990 software catalog, you'll see that NeXT compatible drives are also similarly priced, and for the same reasons. I fully expect that I can take the new 510MB Connor drive that all the folks in comp.sys.next are drooling about and hook it up to a Mac via SCSI, format it via Silverlinging and forget about it. Scanners are just as easy to hook up via SCSI -- to either machine. The scanner software is really what counts anyway. So what kind of peripherals does unix make so easy to connect? Everything in unix is either a block or character device, with a protocol imposed by the device driver. If you add some funky device you need a driver. What's so different about this compared to a Mac? You don't just get graphics by plugging a board into /dev/cgsix on a Sparcstation. You need OpenWindows or MIT's X. Give us one example of such a peripheral.... On the other hand, the Mac's ADB makes it easy to add new input devices to the Mac without chewing up SCSI addresses. Is this easy to do on a NeXT? > Take another example. Does a normal user know how to use a modem with a > Mac without a program like Red Ryder or Microphone to connect and communicate > with the modem? I think the answer is a resounding NO! On the other hand, > I'm using a modem with the NeXT without the help of any outside software. > I run the standard terminal emulator and use a Unix program called tip for > dialing. If you don't want to use Unix, Microphone II, Communicae, > HitchHiker, and other easy-to-use communication programs are already > available for the NeXT. All you're saying here is that a terminal emulator isn't bundled with a Mac. There are a number of freely available terminal emulators that will do just as nicely as tip or Microphone II. Don't get me wrong. I like the NeXT. In some ways, its the machine that we wish the Mac had been at its introduction. But there are also some strengths that the Mac has which yoy aren't recognizing, and some claims that you are making which appear unsubstatiated. So go ahead, talk me into buying a NeXT (for my self, and for my computer illiterate and cash-poor friends). -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
darweesh@zephyrus.crd.ge.com >Almost everyone at my high school has had an opportunity to use a Mac >and that was 3 years ago! I don't think too many of them have ever >heard of next. Um...the NeXT wasn't around three years ago. NeXT 1.0 only came out in 1989 (announced in 1988). But you're right, many more people will have used Apple IIs and Macs than NeXTs before they go to college. Hopefully though they'll get a good dose of NeXT in college. More and more universities are now buying the machines in quantity. I think one area that NeXT has fallen short in is marketing. Where are the TV ads? Where are the magazine ads nowadays? The NeXT could do with more exposure. But now that you know about the NeXT, check it out when you want to upgrade from your Mac.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
darweesh@zephyrus.crd.ge.com >Remember Apple give YOU thes option of having Unix on your Mac instead >of forcing it upon you. Actually, Apple gives you the option of BUYING Unix for your Mac. The Mac OS is free. However, Unix, because it is larger and more powerful, comes at a cost from Apple. Unix is free on the NeXT. Unix is not something forced upon a NeXT user. It is something that gives more power to the NeXT user. One could just as well argue that the Mac OS is forced upon the Mac user, unless he wants to shell out some dough for A/UX.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) >The issue in system administration is not for single users. This is what I've been saying all along. Yes, NeXT networks require some maintenance like all "Unix" networks. Single user NeXTs, however, don't call for Unix system administration. As for networks, I've never set up a network of Macs so I don't know how easy or tough it is. However, I do know that AppleTalk is the symptom of the disease that is Apple's non-standard networking scheme. If you want to hook up anything other than an Apple to a LocalTalk network, you're going to have to invest in an extra board and accompanying software. The NeXT handles both thin and twisted-pair Ethernet, the network standard for the rest of the world. >Where are you going to take your broken machine to get it fixed... To Businessland or to NeXT, depending on which is closer. By the way, NeXT boasts that because of its state-of-the-art manufacturing plant, NeXTs are the most defect-free computers around. >So what kind of peripherals does Unix make so easy to connect? >...If you add some funky device you need a driver. Precisely. Someone has written a driver for virtually everything under the sun for 4.3BSD Unix. Did you know that there is even a driver for drum memory on the NeXT! (Not that it's particularly useful nowadays.) A Mac also needs drivers for different devices. Thus, a Mac user cannot take a peripheral only originally intended for large Unix machines and connect it to a Mac without going through the pain of writing a driver. Have you ever heard of a Mac user writing a device driver? I don't think so.
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/09/90)
On 07-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user John Norstad@casbah.acns writes: >I'm not a NeXT user or progammer, although from what I've seen and heard >the NeXT looks great. I am a Mac user and programmer. I've always been >curious about one thing about the NeXT: If the NeXT GUI is so great, why >is it that whenever I look over the shoulder of a NeXT user on our campus, >I invariably see him or her typing away the same old UNIX commands in a >terminal window? Same comment applies to X-Windows for that matter. I >remain completely unconvinced that any sort of GUI tacked on top of UNIX >(or DOS) can every completely hide all the ugly complexities of UNIX (or >DOS) underneath the GUI. Our experience here at NU is that you really do >need to be a UNIX hacker to successfully install, maintain, and use a >NeXT, or at least you frequently require the assistance of such a hacker. >Here at NU we have a staff of NeXT experts to help people install, >configure, and maintain their systems. Our Mac users don't require 1% of >the technical help our NeXT users do. Most of these people are problably working away on a VAX or something. That is the most common thing I do on my mac, type unix commands into a terminal emulator. Or they might find that they are more proficient with unix commands than they are with a mouse. (I've seen several posts on this bboard asking for a command line interface for the mac!) But if you are not doing work that requires unix ( such as word processing, page layout, spreadsheet, etc.) then you will never have to see a command line. You see, there are two different type of programs on NeXT. You can think of NeXT as being a beautiful damsel with respect to NeXTstep applications, and a brutal beast when using generic unix programs. It is the best of both worlds. The UNIX interface is there just for the people who WANT to use it.
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) (11/09/90)
>>>>> On 8 Nov 90 17:59:11 GMT, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) said: > This is what I've been saying all along. Yes, NeXT networks require some > maintenance like all "Unix" networks. Single user NeXTs, however, don't > call for Unix system administration. As for networks, I've never set up > a network of Macs so I don't know how easy or tough it is. However, I do > know that AppleTalk is the symptom of the disease that is Apple's > non-standard networking scheme. If you want to hook up anything other than > an Apple to a LocalTalk network, you're going to have to invest in an extra > board and accompanying software. The NeXT handles both thin and twisted-pair > Ethernet, the network standard for the rest of the world. Part of the reason for the "disease that is Apple's non-standard networking scheme" is so that setting up a network of Macs is easy. By the way, that particular disease is hardware independent. It runs just as nicely under thin net or twisted pair ethernet. You can plug in a card and it just works. Trivial network config required. > Precisely. Someone has written a driver for virtually everything under the > sun for 4.3BSD Unix. Did you know that there is even a driver for drum > memory on the NeXT! (Not that it's particularly useful nowadays.) A Mac > also needs drivers for different devices. Thus, a Mac user cannot take > a peripheral only originally intended for large Unix machines and connect > it to a Mac without going through the pain of writing a driver. Have you > ever heard of a Mac user writing a device driver? I don't think so. Actually, I have heard of Mac users writing device drivers. I'm still waiting for you to give an example of one peripheral that you can hook up to your NeXT today, that can't also be hooked up to a Mac. RA81's and RAID's excluded of course :-). If you can hook it up to your NeXT via SCSI, a Mac user can hook it up to a Mac via SCSI. All you've claimed is that someone will have to write a device driver, but that's true for both sides. So name your peripheral. If you can't name one, then your claim doesn't hold much weight, because it doesn't provide the user any additional functionality. If a new peripheral comes along, for which there is a SCSI interface but no drive, both NeXT and Mac users will have to get device drivers written, so your point is also moot. You also forget that adding totally new device drivers requires a kernel rebuild on many versions of UNIX. Has NeXT made that possible? There's also the hacking on /etc/config and the requisite mknod's to be done. Is that easier than dropping a file into the system folder? You and I might not blink, but your average user might. Ted -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: twl@cs.brown.edu | Ted "Theodore" Leung BITNET: twl@BROWNCS.BITNET | Box 1910, Brown University UUCP: uunet!brunix!twl | Providence, RI 02912
wag1@cbnewsl.att.com (d.wagley) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov7.185237.27278@agate.berkeley.edu>, aloh@volcano.Berkeley.EDU (Andy Loh) writes: > > I personally think that the NeXT is just not practical enough for everyday > use. As many people have pointed out, the NeXT's software selection is > extremely limited. Most, if not all, of what is currently available either > comes with the machine, or in a software supplement. With the Mac, there's > a program for practically every conceiveable use. Let's see you NeXT people > get an address book program or a game at the spur of the moment. With the > Mac, just go down to your local software store, or call any of the mail order > houses toll free for next day delivery. The NeXT simply cannot, and probably > will not ever, be as practical as a Mac. As I've told a friend, the NeXT is > a nice piece of hardware, with no software to boot. Seems I remember hearing this same argument from the DOS people when I bought my mac. Anybody remember when Macpaint and MacWrite were just about the only software around for the Mac? Doug
wag1@cbnewsl.att.com (d.wagley) (11/09/90)
In article <TWL.90Nov8121433@boojum.cs.brown.edu>, twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: > So what does the novice user do when fsck starts to print all sorts of > messages about bad cylinder groups and incorrect inode counts and bad > superblocks? Does the Next machine dump this information to the screen by default? If I remember right (and somebody correct me if I don't, it's been a while) the AT&T Unix PC hid all of that from the user. If there was a file system problem, it went off and fixed it without dumping the fsck output to the screen. The point is that it wouldn't have to. Doug
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: >...[the Mac] runs just as nicely under thin net or twisted pair ethernet. >You can plug in a card and it just works. So how much does this card cost for the Mac? On the NeXT, all the connectors, processors, and software to run Ethernet are there for free. Also, how functional is a network of Macs? Can you have a decent Mac file server? Can you login to another Mac on the network or run a program off another Mac (i.e., run it on the processor on the other Mac)? I'm not familiar with Mac networks, so I'll let Mac network experts answer these questions. >I'm still waiting for you to give an example of one peripheral that you >can hook up to your NeXT today that can't also be hooked up to a Mac... >If you can't name one, then your claim doesn't hold much weight, because >it doesn't provide the user any additional functionality. Actually, if I can't name one it's because I have all the peripherals I need on the NeXT at work, and much of it came bundled with the machine: 660 MB hard disk, 330 MB hard disk, and floptical drive. My boss also bought a floppy and a scanner. So, I've never gone shopping for peripherals. The experts have said, however, that you can attach more SCSI devices to a NeXT because there are more device drivers available for 4.3BSD Unix. I'll throw the question out to Mac users: what SCSI devices haven't you been able to attach to a Mac? I'll try to find out if those devices can be attached to a NeXT. I want to add that I am in no way, shape or form a Unix expert. However, I still get great benefits out of a NeXT and can program on it to boot. So Unix novices take heart, the NeXT is a machine for you too!
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
I wrote: >...all the connectors, processors, and software to run Ethernet are there >for free [on the NeXT]. Actually, you have to buy the wire and the T-connector. The entire set is $75. The processors, softare, and the other connectors are there are for free though.
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.195530.17113@cbnewsl.att.com> wag1@cbnewsl.att.com (d.wagley) writes: >Seems I remember hearing this same argument from the DOS people when >I bought my mac. Anybody remember when Macpaint and MacWrite were just >about the only software around for the Mac? Yes, you did hear it then. I've been in the Mac world from the beginning because a friend from high school got a Mac 128K in 1984 and we spent HOURS with MacPaint and MacWrite and the old ImageWriter doing all kinds of silly things. However, I would not have purchased one. Even now, I would be willing to spend a lot of effort learning to use a NeXT just as I did with the Mac before. But I wouldn't buy one. Perhaps those of us who follow the logic above just aren't risk-takers, but suppose that you bought a new type of car and the air conditioning system was vaporware, its release set for third quarter '91 and probably dependent on the car's success? Sure you could get where you're going, and if it's a car equivalent of a NeXT you might even be able to cruise at 180 mph with a perfect ride for under $8,000 investement in your automobile. However, those summer days get awfully hot here in California. :-) So don't think that because we don't want one for our very own we hate the NeXT. It's just too much a risk. Maybe next year, or the year after, it won't be. I'll be quick to put my money down as soon as NeXT turns a profit, myself. But by then, something new and risky will have come along, Jobs will be starting "LaST, Incorporated" after being ousted from NeXT when Michael Eisberg (formerly of Disney) becomes CEO, and this same battle will be fought all over again. But the it will be YOU in our place. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes:
Then it will be YOU in our place [defending an obsolescent computer]
I can't speak for anyone else, but it was not that many years ago when I
loudly defended the Mac against friends and enemies with IBM PCs. I
argued that there was all the software available to do what most people
wanted to do with a Mac. And this is even more true of the NeXT today.
Ten years from now I'll probably be defending a wristwatch supercomputer
against the old hand-held supercomputer. I believe in the power of new
and innovative technology. And I believe the NeXT will succeed as the
Mac did.sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.171937.14007@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >darweesh@zephyrus.crd.ge.com >I think one area that NeXT has fallen short in is marketing. Where are the >TV ads? Where are the magazine ads nowadays? The NeXT could do with more >exposure. It did look pretty slick in the Paula Abdul video (the NeXT, that is).
rcbaem@rwa.urc.tue.nl (pooh 'Ernst' Mulder) (11/09/90)
well well well, at last I decided to add my 0.02 worth...
When I bought my Mac (which was a very logical step for me, for
I was an Apple ][ user...) some years ago the only programs available
were MacPaint, MacDraw, MacWrite and an early version of Word.. This
wasn't much, but when I saw a Mac for the first time in my life, back
in 1984, I was impressed and fell in love with it. This was the user
interface I'd always dreamed of.
Since then the Mac grew common and lots of programs became available.
Still, considering, I only use a very small number of programs. How
is this with other people?? Mostly a programming environment, a
word processor, a game every now and then, a small draw program
(who needs MacDraw II and other such beasts anyway?)...
Later I got to know Unix, and use it a lot. My roommate has a Unix
box (Archimedes) for himself, and at our University there're many
Unix workstations. I found that, however nice and beautiful the
Mac is, programming is made for Unix, and vice versa. When
programming any application I use this Archimedes. The power
of Unix is in its utilities. Common things like tar, sed, awk, grep,
make, vi make working with it a sheer delight. I prefer vi above
any Mac text-editor you can mention. Not because it's easy to learn,
but because it's much more flexible and faster once you got to know
it. Gnu Emacs as a platform beats any Mac programming environment
I know...
When I compare a Unix box with the Mac I conclude
) For writing essays, creating documents, drawings etc.. the Mac
is much easier and intuitive than any Unix (X) application I've
seen. Therefore I can't see the use of a Unix box with any
windowing system when the user can't get access to Unix itself.
You're far better out using a Mac.
) When programming, editing, doing file and system management,
writing scripts, doing network communications, source tree
management... The Mac doesn't perform well in most of these
areas. I'd prefer Unix above the Mac. Ever tried source tree
management from the Finder? Ever written a script to perform
daily tasks on a Mac? Ever tried to backup a section of your
filing system using a Mac? In other words I hate the Mac for
not having a cli.
What I (and many other people I know) would like is a Mac alike
system on a Unix backbone. A Mac IIfx with A/UX would be fine,
but as most of you know is quite unaffordable. All stories I
hear on the NeXT make me believe this is quite the system I'm
waiting for. I wish I had the money to buy one.
ANOTHER point. Many people here claim Unix is not for the
rest of us. Why so? What are _you_ doing on the Mac? Using a
word processor all day long? If you program a lot, then
you'd probably use Unix too, if your computer ran it. If
you are constantly logged in on a Unix host using a terminal
emulator on the Mac, youd probably use Unix too if you had it.
DON'T get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't like the Mac. I'm just
trying to argument why I'd want a NeXT. Neither do I think that
Unix is the ultimate operating system. It has it's flaws
(especially system V :) and could be improved.
I think both systems have their uses, and it would be a
Good Thing to be able to use both on one machine. A Mac
running A/UX would do this, but so would the NeXT.
pooh
PS: if Apple ][ -> Mac is a logical step, then why isn't
Mac -> NeXT a logical step too?
PPS: maybe it's more than 0.02, considering the length of what
I've just written...mckenzie@elaine11.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.175911.16932@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>So what kind of peripherals does Unix make so easy to connect? >>...If you add some funky device you need a driver. > >Precisely. Someone has written a driver for virtually everything under the >sun for 4.3BSD Unix. Did you know that there is even a driver for drum >memory on the NeXT! (Not that it's particularly useful nowadays.) A Mac >also needs drivers for different devices. Thus, a Mac user cannot take >a peripheral only originally intended for large Unix machines and connect >it to a Mac without going through the pain of writing a driver. Have you >ever heard of a Mac user writing a device driver? I don't think so. > C'mon - let's get real here. How many Unix USERS have written a device driver? This is at best a non-trivial task. I happen to have been involved in writing drivers for both kinds of systems, and I would rate the difficulties as approximately equal - it really depends heavily on the complexity of the device. As for 'peripherals originaly intended for large Unix machines', very few personal computer owners want or need such things, even if they could afford them. How many NeXT users have or will have refrigerator-sized high-speed 6250bpi magtape drives at home, for example? (Or even 8mm Exabytes or HP plotters, for that matter.) Administering a BSD Unix system is a complex pain in the &*%*! (At least if you want to provide of any of the more 'advanced' services available - e-mail routing and remotely-mounted file systems are two good examples.) Just ask any system administrator. A NeXT is only going to be easy to run to the extent that it hides BSD from its owner. David McKenzie mckenzie@portia.stanford.edu
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.175911.16932@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >If you want to hook up anything other than >an Apple to a LocalTalk network, you're going to have to invest in an extra >board and accompanying software. The NeXT handles both thin and twisted-pair >Ethernet, the network standard for the rest of the world. If you want to hook anything other than a UNIX box to an Ethernet network, you're going to have to invest in an Ethernet board and accompanying software. Of course, LocalTalk boards/connections are cheaper than Ethernet. >To Businessland or to NeXT, depending on which is closer. By the way, >NeXT boasts that because of its state-of-the-art manufacturing plant, >NeXTs are the most defect-free computers around. You know, this is getting boring. First you tell us that companies that develop for the Macintosh have no credibility when they comment on the NeXT. Then you repeat statements like this which come right out of NeXT, Inc. press releases. Could NeXT itself possibly have a vested interest in its own survival? Could it perhaps be less than totally objective? For that matter, could you, as a third-party developer for the NeXT, have the same conflict of interest you accuse others of? Could you give us verifiable facts to back up some of your claims? Actual, published benchmarks in independent magazines such as Byte instead of vague claims about NeXT being "ten times faster for floating-point," which, no matter how often you repeat them, do not carry very much weight. The addresses of actual stores where one can buy the machines instead of vague references to the new dealer network. Point-by-point, feature-by-feature comparisons of Mac and NeXT software instead of handwaving claims that NeXT is "clearly superior."
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
mckenzie@portia.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) writes: >How many NeXT users have or will have refrigerator-size high-speed >6250bps magtape drives at home, for example? (Or even 8mm Exabytes >or HP plotters, for that matter) Actually, I know at least several people who have Exabytes hooked up to their NeXTs. I've heard of at least one who wanted to connect a HP plotter to his NeXT. Don't know about those magtape drives though. Of course, the average home user is not going to need or want such fancy or large media. However, with the NeXT, the option is there and relatively easy. >Administering a BSD Unix system is a complex pain in the &*$*! How many home users are going to administer a network of NeXTs? Or add peripherals beyond the amazing stuff that already comes with the NeXT or can be bought from NeXT and connected easily? System administration is trivial if you're a home user and maintain only one user account. Remember, the NeXT is not a Sun or any other Unix box. The NeXT is truly easy to use. However, the power of Unix is there if you want to get down and dirty and do the extra-powerful stuff.
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.175911.16932@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) says: >Precisely. Someone has written a driver for virtually everything under the >sun for 4.3BSD Unix. Did you know that there is even a driver for drum >memory on the NeXT! (Not that it's particularly useful nowadays.) A Mac >also needs drivers for different devices. Thus, a Mac user cannot take >a peripheral only originally intended for large Unix machines and connect >it to a Mac without going through the pain of writing a driver. Have you >ever heard of a Mac user writing a device driver? I don't think so. This is true. Essentially, the only things you can connect to a Mac are things which are *designed* to be connected to it. However, you can hook up most anything to a Unix machine. HOWEVER, this is beside the point. If you want to hook up anything to a NeXT that isn't one of the "plug-and-play" devices (the way all Mac peripherals are), you've got to do some (possibly very heavy-duty) messing around with the guts of Unix. Something most Mac users, at least, are simply incapable of doing. In essence, both the Mac and the NeXT limit you to devices specifically designed for their respective platforms, UNLESS you happen to be a Unix guru of sufficient skill to monkey around with the guts of your NeXT's operating system. If NeXT is trying to hit the same market as Apple, the belief that some large percentage of their customers are going to be able to do this is ludicrous. This is a null argument. You can't expect customers to be able to deal with the "power of Unix," so why is it so important that it's there? If NeXT is targeting the same audience as Apple, competing with them for the same customers, then they're going to have to face the fact that they've got an over-developed machine. Most of these people don't NEED Unix, they don't WANT Unix, and they aren't qualified to DEAL with Unix. So why give it to them? If you're competing with the workstation market, like Sun, DEC, HP, et al., then having these sorts of capabilities (like Unix, built-in EtherNet, etc.) is great. But once again, that's not the point of this thread -- once upon a time, this discussion was over whether or not a gentleman should buy a NeXTstation over a Mac IIci + AUX. Having AUX makes the Mac a Unix machine too, with the same set of advantages as the NeXT's Unix. But a Mac with AUX can run both Unix software and Mac software. The NeXT can only run Unix software. Sure, you sacrifice some speed for the flexibility, but the only one who can REALLY decide whether or not that's bad is the person who asked the question in the first place. ------- Christopher Tate | "In a fit of perverse brilliance, Carl the | repairman mistook a room humidifier for a cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | mid-size computer, but managed to get it cxt105@psuvm.bitnet | to connect to the network anyway."
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/09/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 8-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT > defect.. Raymond group@garnet.ber (1178) > Why talk about how slow the old NeXTs were? You might else well talk > about the speed of the original 128K Mac. We talk about how slow the old NeXTs were because that's the only thing many of us have to go by. I am in this group; I have seen 68030 NeXTs but none of the 040 versions. It is a little bit exaggerated to say this is like talking about the 128K Mac's speed. After all, the NeXT is several years newer than the 128K Mac. And the 128K Mac actually wasn't all that bad, except for the limited memory and the 400K disk drives. As my contribution to this thread, I'd like to see the first Mac 040 accelerators, and compare *them* to the NeXTs. (Anyone know when we will be seeing these things?) -Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes; >We talk about how slow the old NeXTs were because that's the only >thing many of us have to go by. But why should it matter now? You know the new machines are very fast. You know they are faster than any Mac likely to be on the market in the next six months. At any rate, when you do play with a new NeXT, you will be very pleasantly surprised. It is a speed demon. The system software by itself (without the new hardware) speeds up some operations by a factor of two (operations like program loading), and the hardware improves things by a factor of three or four on top of that. As for PostScript, since Post- Script is floating-point intensive, you see'll even greater improvement because the floating point processor on the 040 is about 10 times faster than the old one! >I'd like to see the first Mac 040 accelerators, and compare *them* to the >NeXT At what price? You'd need a Mac IIfx with an 040, 8 MB RAM, and 105 MB hard disk, all at a price of $5000 retail to approach the price/performance ratio for a NeXT. There will be faster Macs, which will be followed by even faster NeXTs, and so on. But until Apple starts pricing its high-end Macs much better, the NeXT will certainly be the better buy.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/09/90)
------ In article <1990Nov9.002046.17847@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... >vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes; >>We talk about how slow the old NeXTs were because that's the only >>thing many of us have to go by. > >But why should it matter now? You know the new machines are very fast. You >know they are faster than any Mac likely to be on the market in the next >six months. Six months, huh? Quite impressive indeed. [...] >>I'd like to see the first Mac 040 accelerators, and compare *them* to the >>NeXT > >At what price? You'd need a Mac IIfx with an 040, 8 MB RAM, and 105 MB hard >disk, all at a price of $5000 retail to approach the price/performance ratio >for a NeXT. Complete BS! First of all, a IIfx '040 would be more comparable to a cube, given expansion options, etc. So let's start from a base of $8000. Second, 8 MB on the Mac != 8 MB on the Next; that is, the Next NEEDS more memory to run it's OS, etc. How much does a Next need to boot? A Mac will only need 2MB with System 7.0. Second, a 105 MB on a Next is more or less equivalent to a 30MB HD on a Mac, given the size of the required OS files on the Next. Second, a 25MHz '040 Mac would run rings around a Next in terms of "speed", the same way the IIci runs rings around the '030 cube. Why? All the overhead the Next has to do: Display Postscript, etc. > >There will be faster Macs, which will be followed by even faster NeXTs, and >so on. But until Apple starts pricing its high-end Macs much better, the >NeXT will certainly be the better buy. I agree with you there, at least bang-for-the-buck-wise. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
CST105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >In essence, both the Mac and the NeXT limit you to devices specifically >designed for their respective platforms, UNLESS you happen to be a Unix >guru of sufficient skill to monkey around with the guts of your NeXT's >operating system. Not quite true. The new NeXTs will be able to take care of any device it can recognize. The manufacturer of the device does not have to design his product specifically for the NeXT. At any rate, devices written for Unix platforms should be relatively easy to connect to a NeXT. And the chances are that the original manufacturer has already written the device driver for you or that some Unix hacker has done it some time ago elsewhere. For instance, if the device happens to be a hard disk, you will almost certainly be able to get the disktab entry from the manufacturer or from elsewhere and wouldn't have to write it on your own. >You can't expect to customers to be able to deal with the "power of >Unix" Home computer users already deal with the "impotence of MS-DOS" and other command-line interfaces. At any rate, the home computer user doesn't have to deal with Unix on the NeXT if he/she doesn't want to. However, just a small investment in learning Unix will go a long way on the NeXT.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christoper Tate) writes: >... a Mac with AUX can run both Unix software and Mac software. The >NeXT can only run Unix software. Another common misconception about the NeXT. The NeXT runs both NeXTStep software and Unix software. NeXTStep software is the stuff with the real nice graphical interfaces. NeXTStep, on the NeXT, runs on top of Unix. However, it can run on top of almost anything. There is a version that runs on top of OS/2 and another that runs on IBM's AIX Unix. It could even run on the Mac if Apple cared to license it from NeXT and spruced up their hardware to handle it. At this point, Mac software doesn't run on a NeXT. And NeXTStep software doesn't run on a Mac. In February, there will be a product available to let you run MS-DOS software on a NeXT. And perhaps there may eventually be a Mac emulator for the NeXT. At any rate, the software already available for the NeXT is great stuff, and generally more powerful and at least as easy to use as equivalent Mac products. Of course, there are many more Mac products; but if I want quantity I would buy an IBM-compatible or an Apple II.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/09/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >six months, huh? Quite impressive indeed. Actually, six months is my optimistic estimate of when System 7.0 will be done. The 040 machines may or may not be announced until later. Who knows how long you'll have to wait for a faster Mac. >At what price? > You'd need a Mac IIfx with an 040, 8 MB RAM, and 105 MB hard >>disk, all at a price of $5000 retail to approach the price/performance ratio >>for a NeXT >Complete BS! Nope. A NeXT with an 040 may draw its screen slower than a Mac with an 040. However, you get the advantage of a consistent PostScript model for both screen and printing on the NeXT. For things like number crunching, the NeXT will be just as fast as a Mac with an 040. 8 MB RAM is 8 MB RAM. You can run larger programs faster on the NeXT because of the extra memory. You also get virtual memory, allowing your programs to be almost arbitrarily large. >...a 105 MB on a NeXT is more or less equivalent to a 30MB HD on a Mac, >given the size of the required OS files on the NeXT. Untrue. The NeXT system only occupies 30-40 MB of the 105 MB drive. The other stuff on the drive is bundled goodies like WriteNow, Digital Webster, Chess, et al. Thus, you have 65-75 MB free if you move the bundled software to secondary media. This brings us to another point. A $5000 NeXT comes with software that would normally retail for over a thousand dollars. You don't get this software with a Mac IIfx. When all is said and done, the main advantages a $12,000 Mac IIfx has over a $5000 NeXT is color, the ability to run Mac software, and expansion slots. A $5000 NeXT has the advantage in terms of bundled software, built-in Ethernet networking capability, two serial ports plus printer port (as opposed to two serial ports for the Mac, I believe), a standard Unix, Display PostScript, nicer GUI, and the list goes on and on. Note that these are today's prices. And note that the Mac IIfx has a processor twice as slow as a NeXT today. Who knows? The price of the Mac IIfx may go up even further with the addition of the 040 chip. Of course, this would probably be economic suicide on Apple's part.
rcbaem@rwa.urc.tue.nl (pooh 'Ernst' Mulder) (11/09/90)
Am I the only one who notices, or is there a difference between the usual useless and stupid "my computer is better than yours" type of discussions (flames?) that occur when someone mentiones Amiga, ST or MS Dos (sorry for doing so :) and this NeXT vs Mac discussion? The first type runs something like this: "My Mac is muuuch muuuch better and you're a stupid yerk.." The current discussion runs a little bit different: "My Mac is muuuch muuuch better and you're a stupid yerk.. unless you are able to talk me into wanting a NeXT." just observing :) pooh
mings@cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) (11/09/90)
In article <TWL.90Nov8121433@boojum.cs.brown.edu> twl@cs.brown.edu (Ted "Theodore" W. Leung) writes: <<< STUFF DELETED >>> >The issue in system administration is not for single users. For a >single user, I'm willing to believe that setting up out of the box is >trivial (although adding a SCSI drive to a NeXT doesn't seem to be so >easy -- I have a long file of directions from various people who claim >that their way works). However, lets take two novice users and give ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >them 5 Macs and 5 Nextstations to setup in a small network, each with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >one laser printer to share. How much work is it for these people to >be up and running (to be fair, the mac people have to install >Appleshare on one machine)? I'm not so sure that I think the NeXT >will be plug and play. If you have an experienced user, might be a >different story, but not two novics. <<< MORE STUFF DELETED >>> Oh, come on, be more realistic ! May I ask how many times you will see a NOVICE user setting up a network ? I don't know how hard in networking Macs or NeXTs, but I do know that it is not an easy job for a novice user to set up any kind of network. Giving examples for arguments is good, but please be more realistic ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ming Yau So | ***** University of Oregon | I speak for myself. | BECAUSE Internet: mings@cs.uoregon.edu | I only know what I think. American Online: Ming So | ***** ______________________________________________________________________________
APPLEREP@MTUS5.BITNET (11/09/90)
STOP! STOP! I CAN'T STAND IT ANY MORE! I WANT TO READ STUFF ABOUT MACS!
I'M GOING IIIINNNNNSSSSAAAANNNNNEEEE! I'M GONNA FIND THE MACHINE THAT
COORDINATES THIS WHOLE MESS AND NUKE THE MOTHER! AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHH!
AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHH!
{standard disclaimers apply}ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/10/90)
In article <rcbaem.658102975@rwa.urc.tue.nl> rcbaem@urc.tue.nl writes: >well well well, at last I decided to add my 0.02 worth... > ) When programming, editing, doing file and system management, > writing scripts, doing network communications, source tree > management... The Mac doesn't perform well in most of these > areas. Really? As a programming environment, my Mac IIsi greatly outperforms the UNIX-based supercomputers I use at work. > I'd prefer Unix above the Mac. Ever tried source tree > management from the Finder? No, I use Think Pascal, which handles this automatically and invisibly. > Ever written a script to perform > daily tasks on a Mac? Yes, I have, back when I used MPW. There are also utilities like Macromaker and, if I am not mistaken, there will be a scripting language built into System 7. > In other words I hate the Mac for not having a cli. Ignorant child! Most people who want a programmer's CLI on the Mac simply buy one, like MPW or the Aztek C-shell. Most programmers, however, prefer the Macintosh-like environment of Think Pascal or C, which outsell MPW and Aztech by a wide margin. >ANOTHER point. Many people here claim Unix is not for the >rest of us. Why so? Memory requirements. Performance. Ease-of-use....
barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) (11/10/90)
mings@cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes: >Oh, come on, be more realistic ! >May I ask how many times you will see a NOVICE user setting up a network ? >I don't know how hard in networking Macs or NeXTs, but I do know that it is >not an easy job for a novice user to set up any kind of network. >Giving examples for arguments is good, but please be more realistic ! I think you are pointing out a flaw in Apple's marketing. Setting up a small network of Macintoshes IS easy (almost trivial) and cheap, too. As a training exercise for new sales reps at Apple they are given some Macs and cables and asked to set it up. They can and do. Large enterprise wide nets are another story, but that's not the point. Ron
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/10/90)
----- [...] > >Nope. A NeXT with an 040 may draw its screen slower than a Mac with an 040. Q.E.D. And since the Mac is having to spend less time NOT running Postscript, it can do other mosre useful things. >8 MB RAM is 8 MB RAM. 8 MB RAN on a Next is equivalent to 8 MB RAM on a Mac in terms of functionality? Well, even rabid Next supporters will admit that this isn't so. I mean, how much memory does Mach and Postscript take up? I'll wager rather more than the 1.? MB System 7.0 will take (yes, you need a 2 MB Mac to run it, but that doesn't mean it takes the full 2MB). It's a small point, true, but at least try to stick to the facts. Well, I'm outta here. When you started resorting to non-factual claims, there ain't much point in further discussion. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (11/10/90)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >[...] > I think one area that NeXT has fallen short in is marketing. Where are the > TV ads? Where are the magazine ads nowadays? The NeXT could do with more >[...] Look in MacWEEK, MacUser and some of the others. The ads are there, they just don't flood the readers with them. John
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/10/90)
> The other main topic on this thread has been the issue of Mac vs. > NeXT for non-hackers. I have to laugh at this one - 99% of the people > I know and work with who use Macs without much help from anybody > would be hopelessly lost trying to use a NeXT or any other UNIX > workstation, with or without a layered GUI, no matter how good the > GUI might be. The NeXT may be a wonderful workstation for programmers > and scientific researchers, but it's not a machine for the masses. > > John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services I agree with this completely, No matter what you do, eventually somewhere along the line if you "own" the machine, you are going to have to get down & dirty in the OS (Unix) of the NeXT, and there is no way that Joe Average user is going to be able to figure out how to make effective use of many things under Unix. Whereas the Mac can have its problems that take some time to figure out, its no where near as complicated as Unix, it is not and never will be for the masses, no matter what you slap in front of it. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >when you start resorting to non-factual claims .... Non-factual? Say that that System 7.0 takes about 1 MB of the 2 MB of RAM that comes standard. Say that the NeXT has a whopping 4 MB of overhead (it's probably less than this), this still leaves 4 MB free on a minimally configured NeXT as opposed to a 1 MB for a Mac. And the disadvantages of the large overhead on the NeXT, IMHO, are outweighed by the advantages of Display PostScript and the hidden but ever-present power of Unix. Would you argue that the extra overhead the Mac has compared to an MS-DOS machine outweighs the advantages a Mac OS has over MS-DOS. I don't think so. Likewise, I think that Display PostScript and Unix more than make up for the extra overhead on the NeXT. The NeXT also has virtual and protected memory. Meaning you can run arbitrarily-sized applications and run more than one of them at a time without fear of crashing one program with another. As for your accusation that I made any non-factual claims. This is kind of funny from the guy who told me that a LaserWriter NT was comparable in price to a NeXT laser printer, and then allowed me to take the flack because I assumed you were talking about the non-PostScript laser printer for the Mac, the ONLY Apple Laser printer comparable in price to the NeXT's. The SC, by the way, retails for $200 more than the NeXT laser printer. The NT costs almost twice as much as NeXT's laser printer. You have made same valid arguments. However, most of your views on the NeXT are uninformed. You may know your Macs, but you do not know the NeXT. I will probably never be able to change your misperceptions of the NeXT. However, if you would care to use and/or program on a NeXT for a while, you will see what all my words are attempting to describe.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodyear) writes: >No matter what you do, eventually somewhere along the line if you "own" >the machine, you're going to have to get down & dirty in the OS (Unix) >of the NeXT. So, have you owned a NeXT? (and I mean for personal use and not as a node in a network) I ask because several people have voiced their opinions based on their experience with "Unix boxes" other than the NeXT. The NeXT is not a typical Unix box. It hides Unix from the user, whereas other Unix boxes just put windows around Unix command-lines for the most part. Do you ever have to mess with the guts of a Mac OS? If so, is this any easier than messing with the guts of Unix? Most users don't have to do any of this. If something gets really messed up with the OS, you just reload the OS or get some professional software package or an expert to take care of the problem for you. This is true on the Mac as well as the NeXT. I've been a Mac user for 4 years, but I wouldn't have a clue what to do if the Mac OS got screwed up. I don't even know how to access the Mac OS. On the other hand, accessing the NeXT's OS is trivial. As for adding hard disks and other devices for the NeXT, it is plug-and-play if the device was made for the NeXT or for 4.3BSD (for the most part). Likewise, for the Mac. It is true that most NeXT owners WILL use Unix. However, this is because they'll want to do things that you wouldn't be able to do on a Mac or because they want to do things without having to buy commerical software as you would have to do with a Mac (of course, there is pirating, but I won't go into that).
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/10/90)
------ In article <1990Nov9.224209.18758@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>when you start resorting to non-factual claims .... > >Non-factual? Say that that System 7.0 takes about 1 MB of the 2 MB of RAM >that comes standard. Say that the NeXT has a whopping 4 MB of overhead >(it's probably less than this), this still leaves 4 MB free on a minimally >configured NeXT as opposed to a 1 MB for a Mac. I have no idea what you're ranting about. You said that that 8 MB on a Next is functionally equivalent to 8 MB on a Mac. That is not true. If the Next takes -- as you say -- 4 MB and the Mac takes, say, 1.5 MB, then there are respectively 4 and 6.5 MB left over. And that was all I was saying: that comparably equipped Macs and Nexts (RAM and HD) are not really comparable, since the Next uses more overhead in RAM and HD. > And the disadvantages of >the large overhead on the NeXT, IMHO, are outweighed by the advantages of >Display PostScript and the hidden but ever-present power of Unix. That's your opinion. There are certainly advantages to Display Postscript, but there are disadvantages too (the chief being speed). Also, in the not-too-distant future QuickDraw is likely to incorporate all (or perhaps more) of the functionality of DPS. The "hidden but ever-present power of Unix" really only brings major advantages to those who need to take advantage of it (although I would say that protected memory brings advantages to even the most naive user). >As for your accusation that I made any non-factual claims. This is kind of >funny from the guy who told me that a LaserWriter NT was comparable in price >to a NeXT laser printer, and then allowed me to take the flack because I >assumed you were talking about the non-PostScript laser printer for the Mac, >the ONLY Apple Laser printer comparable in price to the NeXT's. The SC, by >the way, retails for $200 more than the NeXT laser printer. The NT costs >almost twice as much as NeXT's laser printer. Mellow out. There were several people posting from the U of Chicago, and I think you've mixed me up with someone else. I don't recall getting involved in the laser printer aspect of this flame war. I do recall seeing someone attributing to me something about the topic you mentioned, although I'd never written it. Didn't seem important to correct it at the time. Perhaps I should have to avoid this. [...] >However, if you would care to use and/or program on a NeXT for a while, >you will see what all my words are attempting to describe. Hey, if you're willing to give one away, I'm game. :-> Seriously, given the volume of your postings, I think you're taking this all to seriously. The Next is really cool, and so is the Mac. The Next is taking the innovative lead for now, and likely the Mac (or whatever Apple comes up with to come after the Mac) will surpass the Next at some point. I remember when the Next first came out everyone on the net was saying "Sell your Sun stock! Sun is dead!". Well, Sun isn't dead, and may in fact do better than Next. Just shows you you shouldn't write off any company too quickly. And Apple is no exception. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >I have no idea what you're ranting about. You said that 8 MB on a NeXT >is functionally equivalent to 8 MB on a Mac. That is not true. Actually, my point was that 8 MB on a NeXT would be more than functionally equivalent to 8 MB on a Mac! The overhead on a NeXT is not there just to take up space; it actually does things that the Mac doesn't do. It gives you Display PostScript, it gives you Unix with multitasking, virtual memory, and protected memory. You could put 64 MB on a Mac and you still wouldn't be able to do all of this. A fairer argument on your part would be to point out that NeXT applications are generally larger than Mac applications and need more space to run efficiently. However, you did not mention this point. I wrote: >>...if you would care to use and/or program on a NeXT for a while, >>you will see what all my words are attempting to describe. >Hey, if you're willing to give one away, I'm game. :-> Seriously though, doesn't the U. of C have some NeXTs by now? If not, get on their case to order some. Don Crabb seems to be a fan of the NeXT, and I don't think he would mind having a few for his division. >...given the volume of your postings, I think you're taking this all too >seriously Being sick for the last couple of days, I've had a LOT of free time on my hands. At any rate, I love to talk/write about the NeXT. After all, the NeXT is the source of my livelihood and it is a wonderful machine. At any rate, why don't we agree to disagree. If two U. of C. people devote all of their energies to flaming each other, how can they take on the rest of the infidels :-) :-). The Few. The Proud. The Maroons.
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov9.230811.20858@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodyear) writes: >>No matter what you do, eventually somewhere along the line if you "own" >>the machine, you're going to have to get down & dirty in the OS (Unix) >>of the NeXT. > >So, have you owned a NeXT? (and I mean for personal use and not as a node >in a network) I ask because several people have voiced their opinions >based on their experience with "Unix boxes" other than the NeXT. The NeXT >is not a typical Unix box. It hides Unix from the user, whereas other >Unix boxes just put windows around Unix command-lines for the most part. Raymond, wake up and smell the coffee, come out from behind the workstation and notice that there are people around you that are not going to comprehend using Unix, even with a Next front end on it. And though I have seen and not used the Next extensively, there are going to be times that you are going to have to know what in the world Unix is all about to make use of the machine on a day to day basis should you own one. Networked or not.. >Do you ever have to mess with the guts of a Mac OS? If so, is this any >easier than messing with the guts of Unix? Most users don't have to do >any of this. If something gets really messed up with the OS, you just >reload the OS or get some professional software package or an expert to >take care of the problem for you. This is true on the Mac as well as the >NeXT. I've been a Mac user for 4 years, but I wouldn't have a clue what >to do if the Mac OS got screwed up. I don't even know how to access the >Mac OS. On the other hand, accessing the NeXT's OS is trivial. Since I use Sun's at work and Mac's elsewhere much more than I use the Sun's, IMHO trying to solve problems with the Macintosh are much much simpler than diving into the complexities of Unix to fix problems. Sure perhaps you have to replace the System sometimes to solve some problems, I've seen them replace the contents of Sun HD's to solve intermittant strange problems from the backups. You just keep forgetting that diving into Unix is not for Joe Average user.. Replacing a bad system file, or locating a bad INIT, or installing fonts and DA's is a simple task on the Mac. Some users have to be shown "once" thats as far as it goes in most cases. > >It is true that most NeXT owners WILL use Unix. However, this is because >they'll want to do things that you wouldn't be able to do on a Mac or >because they want to do things without having to buy commerical software >as you would have to do with a Mac (of course, there is pirating, but I >won't go into that). Neither will I. Pirating software is yet another useless discussion. However just the fact that a Next owner will "need" to know Unix prevents a large number of people from ever thinking about getting one. Many of the people on the net think nothing of zipping into work and plopping in front of their Unix Workstation and going to town, there are millions of other people that will never have the remotest inclination to do that, no matter how cheap, merely because once they try to comprehend Unix, that will be the stopper. Where on the other hand, the Mac is easy to use, they don't need to have any significant comprehension of the Mac operating system to get down to doing the work they bought their Mac for in the first place. I've also noted all the issues of VM and Protected memory, while these would be nice additions to the Mac, of which VM is already a part of the higher end Mac's with 030's, protected memory is still down the road, however I suspect that you can still crash a Next. I've seen the Sun's here crash, so protected memory or not, you can still Crash the Cube under the right circumstances unless you think its impossible.....oh well, nuff said.. (to much probably) -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov9.224209.18758@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: |> Non-factual? Say that that System 7.0 takes about 1 MB of the 2 MB of RAM |> that comes standard. Say that the NeXT has a whopping 4 MB of overhead |> (it's probably less than this), this still leaves 4 MB free on a minimally |> configured NeXT as opposed to a 1 MB for a Mac. And the disadvantages of |> the large overhead on the NeXT, IMHO, are outweighed by the advantages of |> Display PostScript and the hidden but ever-present power of Unix. All right, fine. But how much does the minimally configured NeXT cost? I dunno, but I can pick up a MacClassic for $750. Furthermore, if I have that much money to spend on a NeXT, I'll pick up a IIsi or a IIci, have TrueType (which will *kindof* be like Display PS) and yes, I'll make sure I have well over 4 MB free after loading System 7. And I'll have my laser printer and my hard disk. Now I'll stay out of this thread! Josh Hartmann josh@athena.mit.edu
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
Here we go again. We're back to misconception #1 about the NeXT: the NeXT is a typical Unix box. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not like the Sun or any other Unix box, because the NeXT HIDES Unix from the user. Norm Goodger writes, >Raymond, wake up and smell the coffee, come out from behind the workstation >and notice that there are people around you that are not going to comprehend >using Unix. True. But that's why the NeXT is so great. You would swear that it was a Mac with a larger screen and nicer looking interface. To browse through files, you can use a window that strongly resembles a Mac desktop, or you can use a file directory that is kind of the way you do things on PCs. The point I've made over and over again is that the NeXT allows you to TOTALLY ignore Unix if you want to. Sit a Unix expert in front of a NeXT and he/she would be hard pressed to figure out Unix was running under NeXTStep. Think of it this way. Do you have to know low level Mac OS to use a Mac? Absolutely no. Unix on a NeXT is like the Mac OS on a Mac. It is in the background and away from the sight of the user. The nice thing about the NeXT though is that, if you WANT to, you can access Unix through a nice shell and use it. >...just the fact that a NeXT owner will "need" to know Unix prevents >a large number of people from ever thinking about getting the machine A NeXT owner will NOT "need" to know Unix. However, perhaps because people have the misconception that the NeXT is like a Sun or some other Unix workstation, they may not give the NeXT a fair shake. It is now very clear to me why NeXT does not attend many Unix expos. NeXT has been unfairly branded as a Unix box by many people, and NeXT is trying to combat this gross misperception. Think hard about this: NeXTStep (NeXT's user environment) does not have to run on top of Unix. It already runs on top of OS/2. It could conceivably run on top of the Mac OS.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
I wrote: >>...this still leaves 4 MB free on a minimally configured NeXT as opposed >>to a 1 MB for a Mac... josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann) writes: >All right, fine. But how much does the minimally configured NeXT cost. >I dunno, but I can pick up a MacClassic for $750. It may not be clear from my quote, but the Mac we were discussing was a Mac IIfx. I was arguing that a Mac IIfx gussied up to the tune of $12,000 was not as good a deal as a NeXTstation for $5000. As for a Mac IIsi or Mac IIci, hard disk, laser printer, and >4 MB of RAM, I don't know the cost of such a package, but bear in mind that you can get a NeXT for $3000-$3500 with an educational discount. Toss in a laser printer for $1200-$1300 (with educational discount) and you have a machine with a 400 dpi postscript laser printer, 105 MB hard disk (with 30 to 60 MB free), lots of bundled software, 8 MB RAM, Unix and true multitasking, built-in Ethernet, a Digital Signal Process (for compact disc quality sound), etc. Thus, for as little as $4200-$4300, you can get a machine that is arguably more powerful than a $12,000 Mac IIfx!
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (11/10/90)
I have seen a lot of messages in this thread that state that the NeXT hides UNIX so well that users will never see it. As a (Sun) UNIX user, I find this very hard to believe. For example, I spent _hours_ bringing a friend's Sun back from a crash the other day (night, actually). Something weird happened, and when the machine came back up and fsck'd, it trashed some files in /etc. Then it started acting _really_ flakey, of course. So... we had to dig into the manuals, pull out the tape sets (SunOS 4.0, then the 4.0.3 update tapes--two sets of tapes) and have at it. I managed to get to the point (maybe in single-user mode, maybe under the miniroot) that I could tar things off, then we spent a half hour, or so loading the OS from the tapes. Unfortunately, we had misread, and loaded the _update_ tapes, not the base installation tapes. After flailing around for a while, we finally got the OS 4.0 loaded, then updated to 4.0.3. I'm no UNIX novice, either, having used UNIX for 10 years now, and having been system administrator for a bunch of Suns at work. Imagine what a novice would have gone through! I assume that the NeXT is _much_ easier to use than a Sun, but still, I cannot imagine it being as easy as a Mac. On the Mac, the entire OS fits on four diskettes. If you have a problem, you can boot off of a single diskette and run various programs to try to fix your HD. If that is unsuccessful, you run through four diskettes and about 15 minutes to reinstall things (longer if you format the HD). I cannot believe that the NeXT has UNIX on a single diskette, or even 4 diskettes, so there is an obvious problem with systems that only have diskettes (and the new ones will have the optical disk as an option, so many people will have only diskettes). So could a NeXT be as easy to resurrect as that? Actually, if a system file gets munged on the Mac, you probably only have to copy the System and Finder onto it to get yourself back up. But a UNIX system needs files in /etc, in /lib, in /, ... not so easy. This may also have nothing to do with the discussion, but my friend (or one of the people working for him) managed to turn accounting on... That was a time-bomb ticking away, eating up disk space until he finally crashed. If I hadn't helped him, he would have never figured out what was hogging his disk space. There are a lot of things in UNIX that can get "turned on" like this, whose side-effects are unfathomable to novices. Of course, these things don't get turned on by themselves, but still... -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/10/90)
In an earlier posting I wrote something to the effect that NeXTStep runs on top of OS/2. Actually, NeXTStep runs on top of AIX Unix on the PS/2 machines. OS/2 is a competing OS for the PS/2. Thus, NeXTStep currently runs on top of various Unixes. However, I don't believe this has to be the case. Another operating system with the proper functionality could have NeXTStep run on top of it.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov9.231258.20579@midway.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > ------ > In article <1990Nov9.224209.18758@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... > [...] >>However, if you would care to use and/or program on a NeXT for a while, >>you will see what all my words are attempting to describe. > > Hey, if you're willing to give one away, I'm game. :-> Seriously, given the > volume of your postings, I think you're taking this all to seriously. The Next > is really cool, and so is the Mac. The Next is taking the innovative lead for > now, and likely the Mac (or whatever Apple comes up with to come after the Mac) > will surpass the Next at some point. I remember when the Next first came out Oh, I can believe that when Apple comes with a 68040 machine (with a sky-high price probably) they are in some respects better than the old cube. But NeXT might have a 68050 machine for the same price then... :-) Actually NeXT seems very cabable of making their system better all the time - just think of the 1.0 system software versus 2.0 system software and old cubes versus the NeXTstation (and their prices). > everyone on the net was saying "Sell your Sun stock! Sun is dead!". Well, Sun > isn't dead, and may in fact do better than Next. Just shows you you shouldn't > write off any company too quickly. And Apple is no exception. > But NeXT seems to be the company that does the best work NOW. And I won't base my choice of computer on what a company (or other companies) might possibly make after an year or two (and since NeXT has shown very good continuing development I doubt they will loose the grip anytime soon). > Robert > Jouni
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov9.195958.15383@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >----- >[...] >> >>Nope. A NeXT with an 040 may draw its screen slower than a Mac with an 040. > >Q.E.D. And since the Mac is having to spend less time NOT running Postscript, >it can do other mosre useful things. Gosh, I remember people saying things like: The IBM PC/AT 386 at 16 mhz runs so *much* faster than the Macintosh because the Macintosh has so *much* overhead redrawing it's windows and the graphics, that the processor only spends 10% of it's time doing number crunching. (No, I didn't make this up; this was JPL's reason why they desided to implement my simulator on a 386sx with 640K of memory than a Mac IIfx.) -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/11/90)
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: >I have seen a lot of messages in this thread that state that the NeXT hides >UNIX so well that users will never see it. As a (Sun) UNIX user, I find >this hard to believe. The NeXT is not a Sun. The NeXT was built with a different philosophy. In fact, my impression is that Steve Jobs does not like Unix and only used it because you could not get equivalent functionality with any other OS. The NeXT does hide Unix. Unless you are a superuser or go to the trouble of selecting the Unix Expert option, you cannot even see, let alone access the standard Unix directories from the desktop. To browse files, you use a desktop with an icon metaphor, like the Mac, or browse menus, like a PC. You should never have to know that an "ls" command even exists. Printing, file management, searching for text strings, et al, are all done from menus, like the Mac. You should never HAVE to know "grep." Cutting and pasting within and between applications is a snap, even between text stored in varying formats (ascii, RTF, postscript, etc.). >...I spent _hours_ bringing a friend's Sun back from a crash the other day >[followed by a story of a Sun OS nightmare] I've had to use fsck once in my NeXT life. It found the problem and solved the problem (some kind of media error). When something goes wrong with the system, we reboot, or, in extreme cases, reload the operating system (we had to do this once with a beta version of the 2.0 system). Of course, we use the optical drive to load the system, and it will undoubtedly be a pain to reload the entire OS from floppies. However, with the 2.88 MB' floppies, only 10-15 diskettes would be needed to hold the OS (as compared to 4 floppies for the Mac). I don't know how many floppies it would take to hold the Sun OS. >...if a system file gets munged on the Mac, you probably only have to >copy the System and Finder onto it to get yourself back up. But a UNIX >system needs files in /etc, in /lib... Since file-copying is done with a Mac-like mouse-dragging metaphor. All this would only entail dragging the appropriate files or directories from the floppy or optical to the appropriate directory on the NeXT.Of course, there more are more files to worry about on a NeXT. But if you're feeling lazy, you can graba an entire directory and plunk it onto your NeXT. Finally, I want to mention that although it is possible for a novice user to mung up the system, the NeXT makes it hard to do so. As I mentioned, the typical user can't see let only access the standard Unix directories (/etc, /lib, et al) or files (any of the dot files, et al). To do some real damage, a novice user would have to fire up a shell, su to root, and then play with Unix system files or programs. Only a user with some prior knowledge of Unix would be able to do this.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/11/90)
nick@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >I would buy a NeXT as my next computer if > (i) I could find one. I think there's a single dealer in the UK... Businessland is the UK dealer for NeXT. There is also a NeXT U.K. No Businesslands in Scotland? > (iii) I could get support/maintenance. Businessland or NeXT should be able to take care of this for you. > (iv) I could run top-notch MIDI sequencing software... There is some public domain stuff currently available and some very good commercial products are coming out in First Quarter 1991. FirstChair by Imagine, Inc. and MusicProse by Coda are two products in development. > (v) It provided a good environment for developing and working with > MIDI applications I don't know about MIDI tools. There is, however, the DSP chip (for CD quality sound and music) and DSP port. There are also a Sound object and a Music object in the AppKit for programmers. > (vii) I could move material between home and work easily The new NeXTs come standard with 2.88 MB floppies, compatible with 700K and 1.4 MB MS-DOS formats. You can also upload and download software with a modem. > (viii) NeXT stood a good chance of being in business for a while. NeXT is heavily capitalized and should be around at least a couple of years even if they don't sell any machines. However, I'm optimistic that they'll sell a large number of their new NeXTs.
cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov9.030400.29870@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >At this point, Mac software doesn't run on a NeXT. And NeXTStep software >doesn't run on a Mac. In February, there will be a product available to let >you run MS-DOS software on a NeXT. And perhaps there may eventually be a >Mac emulator for the NeXT. What about a Next emulator for the Mac? Naaah....
cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley) (11/11/90)
In article <2924@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > there is no way that Joe Average user is going to be able to > figure out how to make effective use of many things under Unix. It seems that, all too often, the capabilities of computer users are underestimated. No one likes to think of himself or herself as an ``average'' user, and, apparently, many of us have a perception of the average user as an impatient semi-anthropoid with a ten-second attention span. Give the people some credit! There are quite a few intelligent users in the world who are willing to make an investment of their time in learning about a new technology -- if they perceive that they will benefit from it. -- chris The term "user" has acquired a pejorative tone among computer professionals.
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov7.160943.19804@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes: >In article <1990Nov7.071044.21361@agate.berkeley.edu> >knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >>The NeXT is not explicitly targeted at home computer users. But this is >>probably due to price more than any issue of ease-of-use. At any rate, >>anyone who can post a note a Usenet has more than enough technical >>expertise to use a NeXT effectively. > >If you have a NeXT at home, you had better know Unix, because you are >effectively system manager for that computer. When something goes wrong >you need some clue about Unix to fix it. Also when you add new equipment. >(Someone earlier said that one of the advantages of the Next was that you >could add any arbitrary disk drive, but surely that requires modifying some >files to tell the computer what the drive can/cannot do.) For ease-of-use, >the Next may equal the Mac. For system maintenance, it's much more complicated. >It's UNIX! and as nicely hidden as it is, it's still Unix and one shudders >to think what someone who doesn't know Unix could do to it. (After all, there >are Mac users who don't understand the concept of having just one system >folder; what would they do to a Next?) This is just not true. I have had Mac's, PS/2's, GS's, and now a NeXT cube at home. The cube was purchased from NeXT with the understanding that the 040, floppy, System2.0,etc...be included in the price. It was an academic puchase. The system has a 330meg HD and an OD drive. It is currently running 1.0A. It took 30 minutes from boxes to my desk and running. This has been the approximate time with every system I've had. My knowledge of Unix is next to nothing by design( i.e. I could pick it up of I had to and I did have an HP Integral for 6 years). The NeXT for me is simply a much more powerful Mac, at a better price and is exciting. Over time I may pick up Unix things here and there, but I don't really see the need to get into systems administration, as I may very well be the only person on the system( but I did set up 2 other accounts- and built the HD, all without reading the manual). You are underestinating people. And also underestimating the problems involved with the Mac should you set up your system in a way which leads to init conflicts,etc... The bottom line is that both the Mac and the NeXT are nice computers. I used Macs for 6 years. I was never able to do anything really complicated with them due to the OS, and frankly they just bore me now. The NeXT has some excitement in it. I guess if you're into Word, Systat, Excel, FileMaker,etc...and all those wonderful canned programs which put you into a straightjacket, then stay with the Mac. I have a hard time taking the Mac as a serious computer( other than a terminal/wp) now after arguing in favor of it for a long time. I suspect even OS/2 would allow you to do more things. An OS that does not have piping and preemptive multitasking should not be the primary OS for $10,000 computers. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov11.034700.12729@blackbox.lonestar.org> cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley) writes: > >What about a Next emulator for the Mac? > >Naaah.... Well, if Nextstep is as portable as they say it is, surely a version of Nextstep for A/UX or the unreleased, much rumored, Mac version of Mach is not inconcievable. (unless, of course, IBM says No...) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/12/90)
On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user Ron Barr@Apple.COM writes: >mings@cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes: > >>Oh, come on, be more realistic ! > >>May I ask how many times you will see a NOVICE user setting up a network ? > >>I don't know how hard in networking Macs or NeXTs, but I do know that it is >>not an easy job for a novice user to set up any kind of network. > >>Giving examples for arguments is good, but please be more realistic ! > >I think you are pointing out a flaw in Apple's marketing. Setting up a small >network of Macintoshes IS easy (almost trivial) and cheap, too. > >As a training exercise for new sales reps at Apple they are given some Macs >and cables and asked to set it up. They can and do. > >Large enterprise wide nets are another story, but that's not the point. So where is the difficulty in connecting a small NeXT network? From what I understand, all it entailes is wireing all the machines together with phone wire (10 base-T Ethernet). Then you can start using the great mail program, share printers, nfs filesharing, etc.
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/12/90)
On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >>Nope. A NeXT with an 040 may draw its screen slower than a Mac with an 040. > >Q.E.D. And since the Mac is having to spend less time NOT running Postscript, >it can do other mosre useful things. But there is no Mac 040, there has been no announcement of a Mac 040, and there are no solid rumors of a Mac 040. Where is the logic in comparing something that doesn't exist with something that is going in production next week? From past experience, I would be surprised if we saw a Mac 040 within the next year. By that time, NeXT may have 60 MHz NeXTstations on the market. The fact is, NeXT is YEARS ahead of Apple in technology. No one can deny this. Apple not only has CPU inferiority, but SCSI (5MB/s compared with 2MB/s), DMA (IIfx DMA won't even be supported in 7.0), DSP, video, networking.... I could go on forever about hardware without mentioning the superior software on the NeXT. (When will Apple have a standard dictionary, something everyone complains about On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >I mean, how much memory does Mach and Postscript take up? I'll wager rather >more than the 1.? MB System 7.0 will take (yes, you need a 2 MB Mac to run it, >but that doesn't mean it takes the full 2MB). It's a small point, true, but at >least try to stick to the facts. This is like saying DOS is better that System 6.0.7 because DOS needs less RAM. If you want to use less RAM, then why don't you run Mac OS 4.0? Get a clue! Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at least try to stick to reality.
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/12/90)
On 10-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user Josh Hartmann@athena.mit writes: > >All right, fine. But how much does the minimally configured NeXT cost? > >I dunno, but I can pick up a MacClassic for $750. > >Furthermore, if I have that much money to spend on a NeXT, I'll pick up a IIsi >or a IIci, have TrueType (which will *kindof* be like Display PS) and yes, I'll > make sure I have well over 4 MB free after loading System 7. And I'll have my >laser printer and my hard disk. > Oh, Oh, how can you say this and be serious? You are saying a computer is a computer is a computer. I dunno, but I can pick up an IBM compatable $250. You CANNOT compare minimal Macs and NeXTs when the minimal NeXT is far better than the maximal Mac. Do you understand this point?
khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) (11/12/90)
Okay, sticking my head in the middle of a flame war again: In article <gbDOVgS00UhW41Onl=@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. >user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >>I mean, how much memory does Mach and Postscript take up? I'll wager rather >>more than the 1.? MB System 7.0 will take (yes, you need a 2 MB Mac to run it, >>but that doesn't mean it takes the full 2MB). It's a small point, >true, but at >>least try to stick to the facts. > >This is like saying DOS is better that System 6.0.7 because DOS needs >less RAM. If you want to use less RAM, then why don't you run Mac OS >4.0? Get a clue! You probably missed the previous posts in which gft_robert was trying to make a relatively minor point that if a Mac and a Next both have 8 meg, then the Mac will have more real memory to run applications because the Next OS is larger. Of course, the Next has virtual memory, so this is really really a small point. Anyway, he's only saying the MacOS is smaller not better, which sometimes is useful (saying being able to boot up on a floppy when the hard disk crashes). Hardly something deserving of being flamed for. > >Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged >project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years >ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money >in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at >least try to stick to reality. Oh please, let's do stick to reality. Apple originally said that it was aiming for a summer 1990 release. It wasn't a firm date, more to inform developers what features were being planned so that they could make the appropriate modifications to their software. So if the current goal of summer 1991 is realistic, then the project will be one year "late", not 2 1/2 as you imply. Next does not have a sparkling reputation of delivering on time, either. For example, the original cube was about a year late (perhaps you remember the jokes that NeXT should really have been named NeVR?) and shipped with beta system software for some time. -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
rusotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Well, if Nextstep is as portable as they say it is, surely a version of >Nextstep for A/UX or the unreleased, much rumored, Mac version of Mach is >not inconcievable. (unless, of course, IBM says no...) I'd love to see NeXTStep for the Mac. However, I don't see Apple promoting a product that is in competition with its own OS. People might say, "Gee, this is even better than the Mac's OS. Why don't I just go buy a NeXT?" Another problem is that a Mac configured to run NeXTStep as nicely as the NeXT does would be very expensive. A Mac would need a 17" screen with Megapixel resolution to make the display look as nice as a NeXT. A Mac would require 8MB or RAM and lots of hard disk space to get the kind of performance out of NeXTStep you can get on the NeXT. Display PostScript may also be necessary for drawing, although TrueType claims PostScript compatibility and may fit the bill. You could argue that that these arguments apply to IBM as well as to Apple. However, note that IBM is selling NeXTStep for its RS/6000s, which are too pricey to compete directly with the NeXTs. IBM has a version of NeXTStep running on PS/2 machines; however, they have decided not to sell it to the public because of performance problems on the relatively underpowered (relative to the NeXT, that is) PS/2. At least, that's there official explanation. It may be that IBM realizes that the NeXT now represents a serious threat to their PS/2 machines.
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/12/90)
In article <QbDOnOe00UhWI1OqZr@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: > Oh, Oh, how can you say this and be serious? You are saying a computer > is a computer is a computer. I dunno, but I can pick up an IBM > compatable $250. > > You CANNOT compare minimal Macs and NeXTs when the minimal NeXT is far > better than the maximal Mac. Do you understand this point? If your bank account reads $2000, then you *will* compare the minimal Mac with a minimal NeXT. And the minimal NeXT is guareeteed to lose. If you don't have the money for the machine, you can't buy it. Unless you're the government... Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/12/90)
In article <gbDOVgS00UhW41Onl=@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: > Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged > project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years > ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money > in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at > least try to stick to reality. Seems to me that NeXT missed a few of it's deadlines too. At least I *thought* I saw Jobs in some program several years ago where he claimed that NeXT was right around the corner, and that was awhile before NeXT 1.0 came out. And when 1.0 came out, it wasn't quite the machine he had originally claimed to be making. It's nice in many ways, of course, but if you're concerned about sticking with reality then you should have a less selective memory about which companies have made what promises. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: >If your bank account reads $2000, then you "will" compare the minimal Mac >with a minimal NeXT. And the minimal NeXT is guareeteed to lose. If you >don't have the money for the machine, you can't buy it. What's your point? The NeXT is not intended for people with only $2000 to spend. Neither is the Cray, a VAX, an RS/6000, or a Mac IIcx. I guess a computer company without some sort of machine for under $2000 should get out of the business altogether? Compare the NeXT to any Mac in its price range or higher. The Mac is truly guaranteed to lose. By the way, for $3000, you can get a NeXT from some universities. Perhaps save up for a couple of months and bring that $2000 computer budget up to the NeXT range.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
Kenneth Chang writes: >Oh please, let's do stick to reality. Apple originally said that it was >aiming for a summer 1990 release. It wasn't a firm date, more to inform >developers what features were being planned so that they could make the >appropriate modifications to their software. So if the current goal of >summer 1991 is realistic, then the project will be one year "late", not 2 >1/2 as you imply. Yes, let's stick to reality. John Sculley stated on Compuserve last week that there is no unofficial or official release date for System 7.0. This may very well signal that even the Summer 1991 speculation has no basis in fact. The summer 1990 release that you talk about, I heard, was actually the revisement of an earlier estimate of late 1989. Thus, in the Summer of 1991, System 7.0 may well be over 1.5 years late. The funny thing is, System 7.0 will not be functional or as nice-looking as the NeXT's already shipped OS. Apple is really dragging its anchor in this puddle.
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov10.022306.6551@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > As for a Mac IIsi or Mac IIci, hard disk, laser printer, and >4 MB of > RAM, I don't know the cost of such a package, but bear in mind that > you can get a NeXT for $3000-$3500 with an educational discount. Toss > in a laser printer for $1200-$1300 (with educational discount) and you > have a machine with a 400 dpi postscript laser printer, 105 MB hard disk > (with 30 to 60 MB free), > lots of bundled software, 8 MB RAM, Unix and true multitasking, > built-in Ethernet, a Digital Signal Process (for compact disc quality > sound), etc. Thus, for as little as $4200-$4300, you can get a machine > that is arguably more powerful than a $12,000 Mac IIfx! (was that the price for the color NeXT, or the grey-scale NeXT?) While a NeXT is a nice machine in several respects, there is a certain degree of trickery in the above comparison. While quoting NeXT prices, we hear about the "with education discount" costs. When putting up the price of the Mac IIfx, we get a price which is apparently unconnected to any educational discounts. Which is not to say that a IIfx with an education discount is going to beat that $4200 price quoted for the NeXT. On the other hand, it is "a little" less than $12,000. On our price list for RPI, an IIfx with 80 meg drive (which would probably have 75 meg free), 4 meg memory, 13" color monitor, 8.24 display card, 6 expansion slots, and the Extended Keyboard II totals up to just about $7295. Buy 4 more meg of IIfx memory (to get you to 8 Meg), and you're still under $7500. If you go with a Laserwriter SC (quickdraw), add $1315. If you go with the NT (postscript), add $2165. So you're talking more like $8,800-$9,700. Not peanuts, but not $12,000 either (and the difference between it and $12,000 isn't peanuts either). If you disagree, please send $2300 to me, and I will gladly admit you are right and send you a bag of peanuts in exchange. Send $3200 and I'll send *two* bags of peanuts (what a deal!). Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: >While a NeXT is a nice machine in several respects, there is a certain >degree of trickery in the above comparison. While quoting NeXT prices, >we hear about the "with education discount" costs. When putting up the >price of the Mac IIfx, we get a price which is apparently unconnected to >any educational discounts. No trickery intended. I just forgot to take the educational discount for the Mac IIfx into account. But now that you mention it, a $12,000 Mac IIfx (with educational discount) is still not quite a match for a $4300 NeXT (with educational discount). Here's why. You give an educational price of about $9700 with the LaserWriter NT. (The SC will not let you do PostScript without additional expenditures for software. A NeXT laser printer is a PostScript printer for all intents and purposes when you're using a NeXT computer.) You have to add in the cost of AUX, which I think is $500 retail, so maybe $200-$300 educational. This brings us to $10,000. Now, factor in the cost of a good word processor (they don't bundle MacWrite any more, do they?), an incredible spreadsheet, a dictionary, Mathematica, chess (something I couldn't do without), and loads of other professional and professional-quality software that comes bundled with the NeXT. This would probably take the entire cost of the Mac up beyond $12,000. Of course, the Mac has HyperCard. However, a NeXT product called HyperCube, which will let you use HyperCard stacks while providing a lot of other nice functions not available on the Mac, will be available early next year for an undisclosed price. However, say that a student had to pay a whopping $500 for this product. You would still have an under $5000 NeXTStation comparing more than favorably to a $12,000 Mac, both at educational prices. One of the few disadvantages a <$5000 NeXT would have is its lack of color, as I mentioned in my other posts. However, it has a Megapixel 4 graytone 17" display that helps to compensate. Moreover, programs written for color NeXTs will run without modification on gray NeXTs. The colors used are automatically mapped to appropriate grays. This is one of the nice features of PostScript.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
In a previous post, I compared <$5000 NeXT to a >12,000 Mac. I forgot to mention that the NeXT comes with the 040. The Mac IIfx in question has an 030. So, if you had $5000, would you buy less than half of a Mac IIfx or a NeXT with twice the power and a lot of other things going for it? If you had $12,000, you could buy a NeXTDimension (at educational prices) with color (taken care of by an i860 chip rated at 80 MFLOPS!) and the ability to do video with realtime video compression (another special chip is dedicated to this task). Now, would you want that $12,000 Mac IIfx?
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/12/90)
------ In article <1990Nov12.004321.21385@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... [...] >Yes, let's stick to reality. John Sculley stated on Compuserve last week >that there is no unofficial or official release date for System 7.0. This may >very well signal that even the Summer 1991 speculation has no basis in fact. Yes, and it may signal that System 7.0 will have protected memory, preemptive multitasking, etc. Sheesh. It doesn't "signal" anything. If you want to put a negative spin on it, that's your right, but please don't clutter up this newsgroup with it. [...] > >The funny thing is, System 7.0 will not be functional or as nice-looking as >the NeXT's already shipped OS. Apple is really dragging its anchor in >this puddle. Given your admitted ignorance of the Macintosh I would be very suprised if you were well-informed about System 7.0's full range of capabilities. Just out of curiosity, does the Next OS support "subscribe and publish"? Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov12.002503.20363@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > What's your point? The NeXT is not intended for people with only $2000 > to spend. Neither is the Cray, a VAX, an RS/6000, or a Mac IIcx. I > guess a computer company without some sort of machine for under $2000 > should get out of the business altogether? Well, I was replying to someone who was replying to a third person. That original person mentioned that they could get a Classic for $800 (or whatever it was). They couldn't afford a NeXT (maybe I'm assuming). The guy in the middle said "How can you compare a Classic to a NeXT", totally ignoring the question of what anyone could afford. My point is that for some of the people on this newsgroup, the NeXT can not be afforded. All the talk about how great it is is meaningless to someone who can not afford it. That is true no matter how many articles you post (which seems to be about half the articles in this thread, gee doesn't anyone miss you back in comp.sys.next?) No where in my post (that you are replying to) did I in any way imply that NeXT should or would go out of business because it didn't have a $2000 machine. I just said that if you can't afford it, then you can't afford it. Apparently this is too obvious a statement for you. > Compare the NeXT to any Mac in its price range or higher. The Mac is > truly guaranteed to lose. It hasn't lost in my comparisons, not yet at least. When it's my checkbook, it's my comparisons that count. Not yours. Do I get anything from your guarantee? Or is it just more advertising? On the other hand, at the very least I hope that NeXT keeps the pressure on. If they don't win when it comes time to upgrade the computer I currently own, I suspect that they'll at least put some more pressure on the prices of Macs. But I don't plan to upgrade my machine this month, or December, or even in spring '91. Whenever I'm ready (read: whenever I get the $$$ saved up), I'll be able to make the decision for my own circumstances. I'll take comments from comp.sys.next into consideration, but it's quite possible that I'll ignore NeXT ramblings in this newsgroup. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov12.023659.28296@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > So, if you had $5000, would you buy less than half of a Mac IIfx or a > NeXT with twice the power and a lot of other things going for it? I'd buy a Sun Sparc Station. Given that RPI just bought something like 150 of these babies, if I'm going to go for a Unix box then I might as well go for the one I'll use at work. RPI is also getting a number of RS/6000's (which are way out of my price range). When the bidding for this took place, we did not consider NeXT (even though we knew about the new machines). We did consider Mac IIfx's, except that the bids from Sun and IBM made better sense. This will be my last article in the running debate with Mr. CantReadTheNewsgroupName. (probably to the relief of everyone who has been seeing my articles). Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
I wrote: >>Yes, let's stick to reality. John Sculley stated on Compuserve last week >>that there is no unofficial or official release date for System 7.0. This may >>very well signal that even the Summer 1991 speculation has no basis in fact. gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu replies: >Yes, and it may signal that System 7.0 will have protected memory, preemptive >multitasking, etc. Sheesh. It doesn't "signal" anything. If you want to put >a negative spin on it, that's your right, but please don't clutter up this >newsgroup with it. You may not like to face the facts, but a statement from a CEO that there has been no date set for release of a product is a BAD sign. The kind of sign that sends stock prices down. Moreover, although you are probably not aware of this fact, Sculley also stated that the features for System 7.0 have been frozen. There will not be any additions (i.e., no preemptive multitasking). It's just taking them this long to implement and debug the features they've already promised. Try to put a positive spin on that! I wrote: >>The funny thing is, System 7.0 will not be functional or as nice-looking as >>the NeXT's already shipped OS. Apple is really dragging its anchor in >>this puddle. gft_robert replies: >Given your admitted ignorance of the Macintosh I would be very suprised if you >were well-informed about System 7.0's full range of capabilities. My admitted ignorance of the Mac? I like to think that I know more about the Mac than the average Mac user, having owned a Mac SE for several years and being a programmer. However, I don't know the Mac inside/out as many on Usenet seem to know it. I am learning a lot of new facts about the Mac from this discussion. At one time or another, I have read or heard about most of the features that will be in System 7.0. My usual reaction was, "Big deal. The feature is already there on the NeXT and is more fully implemented than it will ever be on the Mac." >Just out of curiosity, does the Next OS support "subscribe and publish"? My memory is fuzzy, but is this the feature that lets applications talk to and use each other? That feature is indeed on the NeXT and in very common use among existing NeXT applications.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: >I just said that if you can't afford it [a NeXT], then you can't afford it. >Apparently this is too obvious a statement for you. It is actually too obvious. Why make the statement, it is already understood. I thought you were actually trying to make a non-trivial point. >I'll take comments from comp.sys.next into consideration, >but it's quite possible that I'll ignore NeXT ramblings in this newsgroup. See you over there. You have the perfect right to ignore what you wish. However, why not try to learn wherever you can? I'm learning new stuff about the Mac, and I'm sure you've found out a few things about the NeXT. >I'd buy a Sun Sparc Station. Given that RPI just bought something like >150 of these babies... The Sun is to the NeXT what an IBM-compatible is to a Mac, but that's another flame war.... >When the bidding for this took place, we did not consider NeXT (even though >we knew about the machines) RPI's loss. But sad to say, many universities are Sun shops and have the mistaken impression that a NeXT is like a Sun, but only slower. The new NeXTs, however, are just as fast or faster (for $5000), and you really can't compare NeXTStep to Sun and OpenLook. By the way, the designer of OpenLook now works for NeXT. He apparently believes that OpenLook should have been more like NeXTStep. For $5000, you can buy a Sun, but it would be useless without a network. For $5000, you can be a great standalone NeXT.
mfi@serc.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov12.014727.13809@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >------ >In article <1990Nov12.004321.21385@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... >[...] >>The funny thing is, System 7.0 will not be functional or as nice-looking as >>the NeXT's already shipped OS. ... > >Just out of curiosity, does the Next OS support "subscribe and publish"? THis brings up a serious question as to wether there are any functions that 7.0 provides that NeXT doesnt. Here is a quote form the 15page pamphlet on the NeXT station. "Applications can actually cooperate with each other-...-Your Illistration program can make sure the layout is updated with the most recent version of the art." This implies some sort of dynamic update facility. Does anyone know if this is ever actually done my Apps? Any other 7.0 features that are unique? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from a west Texas farmer "status quo is Latin for the mess we're in."
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/12/90)
I wrote something to the effect that Sculley has announced that there is no official or unoffical release date for System 7.0. So as not to give the wrong impression, I do want add that Apple hopes to have System 7.0 ready during the first six months of 1991. Sculley, however, said Apple would not commit or promise any date. On another point, several people have written about one or two features available in System 7.0 not yet available in NeXTStep. Keep in mind that NeXTStep 3.0 may very well be out by the time System 7.0 is finally released. 3.0, I hear, will really be something to see. By the way, the current NeXTStep has features that System 7.0 only aspires to, like pre-emptive multitasking.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov10.022306.6551@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >It may not be clear from my quote, but the Mac we were discussing was a >Mac IIfx. I was arguing that a Mac IIfx gussied up to the tune of $12,000 >was not as good a deal as a NeXTstation for $5000. But... read this very carefully, please... I don't know a single person who believes that the Mac IIfx is a good deal. Comparing one overpriced machine to another does not prove that the first machine is not overpriced. You are starting to sound like a developer who is desperately afraid that there won't be enough NeXT users around to buy his program when he gets it done. I don't blame you. I like the NeXT hardware and would like to see it succeed, but realistically that isn't goign to happen unless NeXT lowers the price to get it into the hands of more users. >As for a Mac IIsi or Mac IIci, hard disk, laser printer, and >4 MB of RAM, >I don't know the cost of such a package, but bear in mind that you can get >a NeXT for $3000-$3500 with an educational discount. Toss in a laser >printer for $1200-$1300 (with educational discount) and you have a machine >with a 400 dpi postscript laser printer, 105 MB hard disk (with 30 to 60 >MB free), lots of bundled software, 8 MB RAM, Unix and true multitasking, >built-in Ethernet, a Digital Signal Process (for compact disc quality >sound), etc. Thus, for as little as $4200-$4300, you can get a machine >that is arguably more powerful than a $12,000 Mac IIfx! No, I cannot. Neither can most users. Who are all these students who are in the enviable position of deciding whether to buy an overpriced Mac IIfx or an overpriced NeXT cube? Not the same ones who complain about the government cutting back on student aid, I hope!
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/13/90)
In article <gbDOVgS00UhW41Onl=@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged >project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years >ago and won't be out for another year. "Soon to be available for the NeXT..." "Will be out shortly..." "Has been announced..." "Is right around the corner..." Do these phrases sound familiar? It seems the NeXT fans have a double standard here. They accept every software announcement for their favorite machine as gospel truth, but assume that Apple and its third-party developers are completely incapable of delivering anything they promise. Maybe there are some great new packages coming for the NeXT, but software development for the Mac isn't standing still, either. BTW, System 7.0 is already in beta release. Since NeXT has a history of shipping machines with beta software, by NeXT standards System 7 is already available for the Mac.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov12.002503.20363@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: >What's your point? The NeXT is not intended for people with only $2000 to >spend. Neither is the Cray, a VAX, an RS/6000, or a Mac IIcx. I guess a >computer company without some sort of machine for under $2000 should get out >of the business altogether? Yes, that's exactly the point. High-end machines are exciting and sexy, but unless you also have low-end machines to attract enough users to attract enough software developers to bring down software prices to attract even more users and developers to sell more machines, you aren't going to survive. Apple learned that lesson -- almost too late. >Compare the NeXT to any Mac in its price range or higher. The Mac is truly >guaranteed to lose. That's why Apple introduced the new low-cost Macs -- and why NeXT should do the same thing if it wants to survive.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (11/13/90)
In article <108294@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: So? Is there "more powerful, more capable software" for the NeXT? If so, where is it? All I have seen or heard about is a few programs that come bundled with the machine and a handful of commercial programs like FrameMaker that no one who failed to make Forbe's list of the 400 richest Americans can afford. What kind of software? Have you been paying attention? The companies that are writing or have written software for the NeXT have been mentioned. Should I make a list of companies so everyone can call for themselves. And $500 for a spreadsheet or word-processor is the going rate. Buy your NeXT before Dec. 31 and get Lotus Improv free :-). >Really -- there comes a time when you have to decide if it's worth it >to move up to a better platform. Is the NeXT really better for what >you want to do? Right. So what is it you want to do with the NeXT? If you want a high-performance development system on which to write programs for a potential market of a few hundred users, NeXT is it. For anything else... not yet. If companies only looked at market share, then this would be a DOS world. Companies can use the NeXT as a development platform for their NeXT generation of software, then port down to the Mac and Windows 3.0 :-). Maybe Improv will make it to the Mac someday. >If I had to choose a new computer right now, it would be a >NeXTstation. Without a moment's hesitation. > >- 92 dpi, very large, 4 color greyscale screen >- 68040 processor >- 2.88M floppy drive (can read MS-DOS [and Mac?]) >- 105M hard drive >- runs Unix right out of the box >- audio input >- DSP built in >- Ethernet built in > >All for, at university prices, $3200, I believe. So, for only slightly more than a IIsi with color monitor, you get a black&white display, a nonstandard floppy drive, Stone-Age operating system, and the chance to beta-test a new CPU that will be available on accelerator boards for the Mac in less than a year. Yes, the hardware is really hot, but without software the NeXT is still an expensive high-performance sports car with nowhere to go. Ok, Apple has a low-cost color machine out for a little over a month and Apple users are getting cocky already. Read the article to which you replied. The floppy reads and writes DOS diskettes, and therefore is a standard floppy drive. The black&white monitor that you refer to is a 17" high resolution(92 or 94 dpi) monitor(just like he said). It fact it costs over $700(edu). The NeXT Station actually cost $2300(about the price of an SE/30 earlier this year). For fun, why doesn't someone compare Apple's prices one year ago with NeXT's prices today? Businesses can buy a machine as fast as Apples next generation machine for the price of Apple's mid-range machines. I wonder if NeXT gives a discount to businesses that buy NeXTs in quantity? Think companies will snag them up. Most business men use Lotus and Word Perfect, so the transition should be easy. -Mike
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/13/90)
Whoa! I haven't read so many misinformed statements about the NeXT from one person since Bill Gates gave his last interview :-). I'll try to tackle as many of them as I can, but it's going to to be gargantuan typing job. ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >You know, this is getting boring... Au contraire, it's just heating up. And if you are bored, why are you making so writing so many posts on this topic? >First you tell us that companies that develop for the Macintosh have >no credibility when they comment on the NeXT. Not true. Several Mac developers are also NeXT developers. I merely argued that if a company has a hardware or software product in competition with NeXT or NeXTStep (incl. Interface Builder, et al), they are not going to be objective in their opinions. >Then you repeat statements like this which come right out of NeXT, Inc. >press releases. Could NeXT itself possible have a vested interest >in its own survival. First, what fool would think a company like NeXT would announce in a press release that certain software companies had no credibility re the NeXT? Just a rhetorical question. Secondly, I would not trust what NeXT says about its competitors. Likewise, I don't trust what its competitors say about NeXT. But, apparently, you have no qualms about doing this. >...could you, as a third-party developer for the NeXT, have the same >conflict of interest you accuse others of? Now, how did you know I was a third-party developer for NeXT? Could it be that I actually told everyone here that I was? Yes, it was! I don't claim to be the paragon of objectivity; no one is. However, when someone makes negative or positive comments about a product, that person's biases should be up front for everyone to see. So I told everyone that I was a NeXT developer. However, I don't think MacWorld told anyone about Symantec's possible conflict of interest when they published the statement from Symantec's president. Nor did the New York Times say anything about Bill Gate's conflict of interest when they quoted him on the NeXT. So what's the basis for your bias?
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/13/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >So? Is there "more powerful, more capable software" for the NeXT? >If so, where is it? All I have seen or heard about is a few programs... Thank god that the NeXT community does not limit itself to the software YOU've heard about. Likewise, I don't think Amiga users would take it to kindly if I said that since I don't know about more than a couple of programs for the Amiga, therefore there isn't software available for the Amiga. The NeXT has access to software in virtually every major area, except CAD/CAM and accounting (but this too will change). Check out the Fall catalog of NeXT products. Many products are already shipping or planned to be shipped by the time the new machines are available in quantity (quantity shipments start in a week). >So what it is it what you want to do with the NeXT? If you want a >high-performance development system on which to write programs >for a potential market of a few hundred users, NeXT is it. As a NeXT software developer, I want to do with a NeXT what Informix, WordPerfect, Ashton-Tate, Lotus, DataViz, Software Ventures, et al, want from a NeXT. We all want to write killer software in record time with a potential market of millions, counting NeXTs as well as Macs and PCs, since it is often quicker to write an application on the NeXT and port it to another platform than to write it on the target platform's own programming environment. >...for only slightly more than a IIsi with color, you get a black&white >display, A NeXT compares more than favorably to a jazzed-up Mac IIfx. You think there is any comparison at all with a Mac IIsi? Without regard to the prices of the machines, the NeXT is better than a Mac IIfx is much much better than a Mac IIsi. Taking prices into account, the NeXT is a much much much better deal than either machine. That ole "black&gray" display that you talk about is 17", 4 graytones, and has a resolution of 1120x832. It has a mic and microphone jack like the Mac IIsi's. Apple took their cue from NeXT on this one. >nonstandard floppy drive 2.88MB compatible with both 700K and 1.4 MB MS-DOS formats? I guess next you'll be telling us that there are many more Macs out there than MS-DOS machines. >Stone-Age operating system 4.3BSD Unix with a Mach kernel? Mach with facilities for parallel processing. Unix, the direction everyone in the higher end market seems to be going. How about NeXTStep that runs on top of the Unix? You won't find a combo nearly as high-powered as the Mach, 4.3BSD, and NeXTStep combo on your Mac. >the chance to beta-test a new CPU that will be available on accelerator >boards for the Mac in less than a year Nice of you to put a positive twist on the fact that Apple is being awfully slow in announcing let alone releasing an 040 product. Who knows, NeXT could have a product running on the next generation IBM RISC chips before the rumored 040 Mac materializes. >If the best you can say about the NeXT is that maybe, someday, it will >be able to emulate the Mac, why not just buy a Mac Give us a break. As backward it is to run MS-DOS software on a machine as high-powered and easy to use as a Mac, it would be almost as backward to run Mac software in an environment that can do so much more like the NeXT. >Just as easy? From what I've seen, NeXTStep applications are a lot "easier" >to use. There are no manuals to read, no commands to learn, no file >formats to worry about.... Just go down to your local software store and >tell the sales clerk you want to see the Emporer's [sic] New Program. :-) An Emporer? Sounds kind of painful :-). Now, if you were trying to say "Emperor," I get your point. It's unfounded though. Just check out the latest catalog and look for products with current availability. There are a good number of them. I'll tell you what, send me e-mail and I'll try to arrange for us to send you demos of our own NeXT software.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/13/90)
In article <108620@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >No, I cannot. Neither can most users. Who are all these students who >are in the enviable position of deciding whether to buy an overpriced >Mac IIfx or an overpriced NeXT cube? Not the same ones who complain >about the government cutting back on student aid, I hope! No, they are the ones who gain satisfaction when the government cuts back on student aid because the government, after recieving their Financial Aid Forms, sent back a form letter saying: You? Qualify for student aid? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (11/13/90)
In article <108620@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <1990Nov10.022306.6551@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>It may not be clear from my quote, but the Mac we were discussing was a >>Mac IIfx. I was arguing that a Mac IIfx gussied up to the tune of $12,000 >>was not as good a deal as a NeXTstation for $5000. > >But... read this very carefully, please... I don't know a single person >who believes that the Mac IIfx is a good deal. Comparing one overpriced >machine to another does not prove that the first machine is not overpriced. >You are starting to sound like a developer who is desperately afraid that >there won't be enough NeXT users around to buy his program when he gets >it done. I don't blame you. I like the NeXT hardware and would like to >see it succeed, but realistically that isn't goign to happen unless NeXT >lowers the price to get it into the hands of more users. > I strongly disagree that the NeXT is overpriced. A 25MHz 68040, DSP, 100MB HD, 8MB RAM, Lotus and Mathematica along with a megapixel monitor for $3,200 educational doesn't sound overpriced to me! The problem you mention of no user base can't be solved by lowering prices: NeXT isn't making any money as it is! They would need to make a low-end NeXT model which they probably couldn't do and still call it a NeXT, and besides I can't see Steven Jobs lowering himself like that. 8) -- Ethan If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon men, He would kill himself. -- Alexandre Dumas Which is it: is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders? -- Nietzsche They're JOKES! Lighten up! 8) Flames will be ignored.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov13.035815.17014@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >That ole "black&gray" display that you talk about is 17", 4 graytones, and >has a resolution of 1120x832. It has a mic and microphone jack like the >Mac IIsi's. Apple took their cue from NeXT on this one. Look, I'll grant that you are providing at least a nominal amount of information by contributing NeXT information. I wish you would STOP saying anything about Apple. You have proved repeatedly that you know relatively little about the Mac, and you won't be "educated" as you put it if you continue to post assertions assuming you'll be corrected if you're wrong. Farralon has had a sound recording device out for the Mac for a long time. I would guess that that and the multimedia craze contribute vastly more to Apple's decision to include a microphone in the Mac than any possible NeXT influence.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/13/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >....Who are all these students who are in the enviable position of >deciding whether to buy an overpriced Mac IIfx or an overpriced NeXT cube? Where's the humongous smiley on this one??? An "overpriced" NeXT? Who was making comparisons with cubes with anyway? We were discussing $3000-$3500 NeXTstations, which would beat the pants of ANY Mac in terms of punch per dollar. As for a full-blown NeXT CUBE, these would also compare more than favorably with ANY Mac in terms of price/performance+features. So, why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30, et al, since you could buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some cases. If you can only afford a Mac Classic. Fine, go ahead. When you're ready to move up, the NeXT is waiting for you. >[the Mac IIfx], which has been a sales disappointment to Apple, >is the standard by which NeXT's prices are judged. No, it is NOT the standard by which NeXT prices are judged. It IS, however, the only Apple machine that can even pretend to match the NeXT for performance and features. As for pricing, the NeXT is a much much much better bargain than any higher-end Mac actually priced low enough to be in its price range. Personally, the only Mac I would consider buying today is the Mac Classic. If I could afford a Mac IIsi today, I would try to save the extra few bucks for a NeXTstation.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/13/90)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >I wish you would STOP saying anything about Apple. You have proven >repeatedly that you know relatively little about the Mac... Hmmm...interesting. An entrance requirement for discussing the Mac. Has Mac stopped being the machine for the rest of us? Is it only comprehensible by the Mac elite? I've been a Mac SE owner for 3-4 years. But apparently that experience counts for nothing against those initiated into the deep dark secrets of the Mac. >I would guess that that and the multimedia craze contribute vastly more >to Apple's decision to include a microphone in the Mac than any possible >NeXT influence... I think the NeXT's built in audio equipment certainly played a factor in Apple's decision to go with a mic. By the way, when will we see the DSP chip come standard with a Mac?
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/14/90)
In article <Fm41b243@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >What kind of software? Have you been paying attention? The companies >that are writing or have written software for the NeXT have been >mentioned. "Are writing" and "have written" are two different things. It's a bad idea to buy a computer based on promises. I remember when Apple introduced the first Mac. It, too, had a long list of companies (200, as I recall) that were "writing software" for it. The software did eventually materialize, but not until a couple years later, and most of it from companies that were not on that original list. Atari also had such a list of software for the ST, most of which never did materialize. When Commodore introduced the Amiga, Borland announced a version of Turbo Pascal for that machine in the first issue of AmigaWorld. Later, the rumor was that Borland was developing for the ST instead. Today, there is still no Turbo compiler for either machine. >Should I make a list of companies so everyone can call for >themselves. And $500 for a spreadsheet or word-processor is the going >rate. Buy your NeXT before Dec. 31 and get Lotus Improv free :-). Sure, but I'm only interested in products that are on the shelves, not vaporware. As I said, it's easy to compile a list; it's harder to fulfill it. >Read the article to which you replied. The floppy reads and writes >DOS diskettes, and therefore is a standard floppy drive. 2.88M is standard? Where does one even buy 2.88M floppies? >For fun, why >doesn't someone compare Apple's prices one year ago with NeXT's prices >today? For more fun, why doesn't someone compare Apple's prices today with IBM's prices twenty years ago? Or BMW's prices today with Ford's prices in 1952? Or K-Mart's prices now with Sear's prices... People do not make buying decisions based on what prices were in the past, they make them based on what prices are today. Apple was in serious trouble because business did *not* want to pay the premium prices it was charging for its high-end machines. Read the article in last month's Business Week if you don't believe that.
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (11/14/90)
In article <108629@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > In article <1990Nov12.002503.20363@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: > >What's your point? The NeXT is not intended for people with only $2000 to > >spend. Neither is the Cray, a VAX, an RS/6000, or a Mac IIcx. I guess a > >computer company without some sort of machine for under $2000 should get out > >of the business altogether? > > Yes, that's exactly the point. High-end machines are exciting and sexy, > but unless you also have low-end machines to attract enough users to > attract enough software developers to bring down software prices to attract > even more users and developers to sell more machines, you aren't going to > survive. Apple learned that lesson -- almost too late. And now look what happened: developers must make sure their applications will run in a limited environment with a tiny screen, a pathetically slow processor, and only 1-2 MB of RAM. Since Apple introduced a very CHEAP Macintosh with features commensurate with its price, the Classic may well have the net effect of stifling whatever innovative software development is left in the Mac world. The NeXT is all about raising the lowest common denominator - something you have failed to appreciate. > >Compare the NeXT to any Mac in its price range or higher. The Mac is truly > >guaranteed to lose. > > That's why Apple introduced the new low-cost Macs -- and why NeXT > should do the same thing if it wants to survive. Wrong. You want to see a NeXTclassic, with a 12" screen, mono sound, a 1.4 MB floppy drive, and only 4 MB of RAM, running a crippled version of Display PostScript on its 20 MHz 68030? It won't happen: NeXT's goal is to RAISE the standard of personal computing, not lower it. In other words, application developers can assume certain things about the environment their app is going to run on. This is a Good Thing. Sun hasn't announced any new computers which cost less than the NeXTstation, and they don't need to. Granted, NeXT would like to see its computers be more ubiquitous than Sun's, but it isn't necessary in order for the company to survive. -Declan
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (11/14/90)
In article <108628@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > "Soon to be available for the NeXT..." > "Will be out shortly..." > "Has been announced..." > "Is right around the corner..." > > Do these phrases sound familiar? It seems the NeXT fans have a > double standard here. They accept every software announcement > for their favorite machine as gospel truth, but assume that Apple > and its third-party developers are completely incapable of > delivering anything they promise. Maybe there are some great new > packages coming for the NeXT, but software development for the Mac > isn't standing still, either. > > BTW, System 7.0 is already in beta release. Since NeXT has a history > of shipping machines with beta software, by NeXT standards System 7 > is already available for the Mac. You obviously know pathetically little about the NeXT system if you'd try to compare even NeXTstep 0.9 to the equivalent Macintosh System and Finder combination. The first NeXT I bought ran NeXTstep 0.9, and it only crashed on me a handful of times; in comparison, my Macintosh (with a relatively pristine System folder) would crash with appalling frequency. That was running the version of 6.0.x which was out at the time - it's sad when NeXT's 0.9 system software is more stable than Apple's 6.0 release. Then again, it was built on a mature operating system. Furthermore, to take your ill-advised comparison further, by "NeXT standards", System 7.0 is NOT available for the Mac, since it is NOT shipping with every machine. You see, every NeXT owner got to experience 0.8 and 0.9 if they had their system that long. $-) BTW, NeXTstep 2.0 will ship this week/next week. How about System 7.0? -Declan
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/14/90)
------- In article <1990Nov13.055732.23694@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... [...] > >>I would guess that that and the multimedia craze contribute vastly more >>to Apple's decision to include a microphone in the Mac than any possible >>NeXT influence... > >I think the NeXT's built in audio equipment certainly played a factor in >Apple's decision to go with a mic. By the way, when will we see the DSP >chip come standard with a Mac? You have made the (in my opinion specious) claim that you are perpetuating this flamewar in the interests of information exchange. Can you please explain how either of your comments above are information? The first is pur speculation and the second is a question which no one on this group can really answer. This is not information. It is agitprop. How about taking it to a more appropriate newsgroup? Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov13.054334.22595@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >So, why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30, et al, since you could >buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some cases. BUUUUUZZZZZZZ!!!! Thank you for playing. I think you should come down from your NeXT superority complex and argue with the facts, not lies. WE ALL KNOW that one (at a Univ) can acquire a IIsi for $3000 and a SE/30 for $2500. Unless NeXT has made some drastic price cuts, I think you are wrong. As for a II, which is no longer made, they go for about $3000 today, still under NeXT and a IIci can be purchased for $5000, which is right with the NeXT pricing. So NeXT time you post, please state the facts correctly. Yes this is a heated debate and you can get really infuriated (I know I have :), but let's try and tell the truth, okay? Maybe this discussion should be moved to comp.religion or comp.not.the.truth!
mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) (11/14/90)
In article <39628@ut-emx.uucp>, awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > Farralon has had a sound recording device out for the Mac for a long time. I > would guess that that and the multimedia craze contribute vastly more to Apple's > decision to include a microphone in the Mac than any possible NeXT influence. This is slightly ridiculous - you criticize the original poster for making the opinion comment that NeXT influenced the IIsi microphone, and the go ahead and make an even more stupid opinion giving Farralon the credit for the influence in construction of IIsi mic idea... that is equivalent to saying the the company that made Virtual '30 should be given credit for the virtual idea in Sys 7.0.. (which seems to be another catch up attempt, since virtual has been an inherent part of NeXT from day 1... ) - people are welcome to their opinions. Don't hypocritically persecute them for it.. Loki ... (mldemsey@caslon.cs.arizona.edu)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/14/90)
------
To those of you who wish to continue this thread
AND
to those of you who wish to get this thread out of this newsgroup.
PLEASE do one of the following:
1) Crosspost to comp.sys.next. I see no reason why only the Mac newsgroup
should be filled with this flamewar. Plus the next group people HATE Mac
flamewars, so maybe the thread will die sooner if they have to listen to it
too.
2) Set followups to comp.sys.next when appropriate (I have done this when,
e.g.. people were interested in learning more about the Next).
3) Set followups to alt.religion.computers, where much of this really belongs.
Robert
============================================================================
= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to =
= * all my opinions are * compute" =
= * mine * -Kraftwerk =
============================================================================Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/14/90)
To pick a nit, and a small point at that: In article <Nov.13.13.18.00.1990.10582@remus.rutgers.edu> declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes: > In article <108629@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > > In article <1990Nov12.002503.20363@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > > >Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu writes: ^^^ = me > > >What's your point? The NeXT is not intended for people with only $2000 to > > >spend. Neither is the Cray, a VAX, an RS/6000, or a Mac IIcx. I guess a > > >computer company without some sort of machine for under $2000 should get out > > >of the business altogether? > > > > Yes, that's exactly the point. High-end machines are exciting and sexy, > > but unless you also have low-end machines to attract enough users to > > attract enough software developers to bring down software prices to attract > > even more users and developers to sell more machines, you aren't going to > > survive. Apple learned that lesson -- almost too late. > > And now look what happened: developers must make sure their ...(actual point of the article deleted)... Despite my name showing up there, nothing that is quoted was written by me... If you're going to delete lines (which is something that's good to do!), make sure you delete the right markers too! Hey, I said it was a small nit-picking point. :-) Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov13.202250.13539@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > This is not information. It is agitprop. How about taking it to a more > appropriate newsgroup? comp.sys.mac.agitprop ? :-) Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/14/90)
In article <525@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) writes: >In article <1990Nov13.054334.22595@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>So, why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30, et al, since you could >>buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some cases. > > BUUUUUZZZZZZZ!!!! Thank you for playing. > > I think you should come down from your NeXT superority complex and argue >with the facts, not lies. > WE ALL KNOW that one (at a Univ) can acquire a IIsi for $3000 and a SE/30 >for $2500. Unless NeXT has made some drastic price cuts, I think you are >wrong. Please. I don't think he was that far off. Part of the point of this whole long discussion was that NeXT *has* made some drastic price cuts (while increasing performance drastically with the 68040 in the new machines). So one more time: the NeXTStation can be bought at a university for $3150. (There are of course variations per university pricing policy, as with Macs.) $3150 is pretty darn close to $3000. It's even not that far from $2500 of the SE/30 (and UCLA is selling the 80MB SE/30 for $2900). So he exaggerated a little bit for those two machines, but not much. And of course, the NeXTStation is "MUCH cheaper in some cases", i.e. to the only Mac that comes within the same magnitude of performance as the NeXT, the IIfx (and also to the Mac IIci). > So NeXT time you post, please state the facts correctly. Yes this is a >heated debate and you can get really infuriated (I know I have :), but let's >try and tell the truth, okay? I would certainly agree with this. And once again, to those few vocal people that keep telling this discussion to go away, there *are* people learning from it (as some have posted as saying), and it certainly pertains to the Mac (and which directions it should go). If you don't like it, either learn how to use your "Kill" command or get a decent piece of software that *has* a kill command. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Perfecting the art of arthroscopic surgery. * ************************************************************************
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/14/90)
I wrote: >>So why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30 et al, since you >>could buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some >>cases jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) writes: > BUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZ!!! Thank you for playing > I think you should come down from your NeXT superiority complex with >the facts > WE ALL KNOW that one (at a Univ) can acquire a IIsi for $3000 and a >SE/30 for $2500 Excuse me. Buy a NeXT from your very own school. It'll cost you $2995. Yes, the U. of Arizona is selling the NeXTstation for $2995. I would say that this is "about the same price" as a Mac IIsi and the $2500 SE/30. As for hardware, performance, and features, the NeXT blows both machines away.
knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/14/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >It [the Mac], too, had a long list of companies (200, as I recall) that >were "writing software" for it. The software did eventually materialize >but not until a couple of years later. This is where the NeXT has a huge advantage over the original Mac. The original Macs were a b***h for programmers. The NeXT is a dream to develop software on. There is already real stuff out there for the NeXT, including a shrink-wrap business data management program from the company I work for. Here is a list of software that already comes free with the NeXT: Edit Digital Librarian NeXTmail (multimedia mail) Preview (PostScript previewer) Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus WriteNow DataViz/Bridge vt100 Terminal emulator (with Mac-like cut/paste features) Lotus's Improv (until Dec. 31. This is the only free stuff not yet actually on the market) DateBook, GNUChess with graphical front-end, Billards, a flight simulator, and other goodies The following is the list of software added to the above if you get a 340MB hard drive (even if you only get the 105MB version, you retain the right to obtain the following for free from anyone who has it. You can also get it from NeXT for the cost of the floppies and copying.) Oxford Dictionary of Quotations Complete works of Shakespeare TeX Mathematica (for educational buyers) Interface Builder Objective-C/C++ compiler 56001 DSP Tools GNU Emacs GNU Debugger BUG-56 Debugger (for the DSP) Malloc Debugger AppInspector PostScript Tools AppKit Music Kit Sound Kit The NeXT documentation on-line Here is a list of just some of the third-party software ALREADY shipping: Calendoscope PaperSight (document management) Tactician Plus (spreadsheet) Who's Calling? 1.0 (info management) Wingz 1.1 Adobe Plus Pack ClickArt Diagram! The Font Company Type Library FrameMaker 2.0 TextArt 1.0 TopDraw 1.0 TouchType AFS 3.0 Communicae Gatorbox, GatorMail, GatorShare MacLinkPlus/PC 3270 Vision WorldTalk/400 INGRES Sybase MundoCart/Optical Objective DB Toolkit DAN Spring Taylor Math 2++ The Library MediaStation 1.2 Virginia Tech InfoStation 1.0 MUMPS version 3.1 Fortran 77, ACUCOBOL-85, Allegro Common Lisp And I still have about a fifth of the product catalog left to go! There are also many other software products listed in the catalog which are not available today, but with delivery dates before the end of this year or early into next year.
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/14/90)
Well, here's my two cents on this topic. The NeXT is a very lovely machine,
BUT... They need to get a larger market share. The 040 NeXT has been claimed
as much faster than the 030 Macintosh's. True...however, the reality is than
80%+ of the CPUs sold are Intels running DOS/Windows/OS/2. The 486 is out and
has been out for a while. It has MIPs similiar to a 040. Granted the FLOPs of
a 486 are poor compared to an 040 that only applies for scientific/engineer-
ing applications. So rather that spew on about Apple's pricing, I suggest that
you look yonder at the 486's. What is the cheapest 486 box one can buy? As far as I can see, last time around NeXT made a temporary splash with the 030 cube
until 030 Macs and 386 DOS machines shortly became more common. The fact that
NeXT has small installed user base really hurts it badly and the NeXT cheer-
leaders don't or won't see that. A mainframe software company in town was going
to put all their publishing (30+) machines on the NeXT cube until they realized
that the installed base was 8,000 or so. At that level of market share you have
developers sitting around writing great tools for each other. My guess is that
the 040 NeXT will make a few gains this year but will level off as Mac 040's
come, the workstations like Suns etc come down in price and 486's cheapen even
more. Here at Rice, I believe they sold less than 8 cubes until this Oct. Since
then two more were bought at fire sales (one by the bookstore and the other by
a EE computer repair technician). The point is that these types and levels of
sales are not reproduced campus or nationwide. I have heard that many of the cubes bought last year were used as evaluation units. The problem is that after theevaluation, all too often there weren't takers for more cubes...
Jack
p.s. The mainframe software company (which writes for Big Blue) bought all
Macs after much wringing of hands over the issueknrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/14/90)
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack Howarth) writes: >Granted the FLOPs [for the 486] are poor compared to an 040 >that only applies for scientific/engineering application Or any application that needs to do calulations to draw. E.g., any application that makes use of PostScript (actually all applications use PostScript to the extent on the NeXT that Display PostScript is the screen imaging model, however drawing programs are even more PostScript-intensive.). There are probably a few more important uses for fast floating-point operations, but I can't think of them at the moment. >the installed base [of NeXTs] was 8,000 or so. At that level of market >share you have developers sitting around writing great tools for each other. >My guess is that the 040 NeXT will make a few gains this year but will level >off as Mac 040s come As I've said more than a few times, there were 15,000 NEW orders in the two months prior to Sept. 18th. I've just recently heard that there have been many more since then. NeXT is now not so much worried about getting enough orders as it is about getting those orders out in a timely fashion. By the way, the new NeXTs will ship in one week (representing a slip of three weeks from the original schedule...now how many *weeks* is System 7.0 late?) The NeXT is not making "few gains." It's making rather large gains in the workstation/high-end PC market. No official figures yet. But many NeXT software developers are sleeping much sounder nowadays. I believe the NeXT will take off, and take off in a big way. And if by some chance it doesn't, we can always port our software to other platforms--software that would have taken much longer to develop on virtually any other platform than the NeXT.
kempkec@ure.CS.ORST.EDU (Christopher Kempke) (11/14/90)
One comment, then this goes in the kill file: The Macintosh OS is infinitely superior to the NeXT on for me because of a single feature: It runs on a Macintosh. Now, since this group is called comp.sys.mac.misc, I would be inclined to believe that this is the only feature we need discuss. I don't own a NeXT, nor do most people reading this group. Hence a NeXT OS can perform any useful function it likes, and it will still not help me in the slightest. comp.misc strikes me as a MUCH better place to fight this battle. For 90%+ of the readers of this group (c.s.m.m), the whole discussion is irrelevant and boring, and not everyone has (or knows how to use) kill capability. Thank you for your patience. GOOD BYE! --Chris
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/15/90)
------ In article <1990Nov14.052446.9290@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... >I wrote: >>>So why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30 et al, since you >>>could buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some >>>cases > >jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) writes: >> BUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZ!!! Thank you for playing >> I think you should come down from your NeXT superiority complex with >>the facts >> WE ALL KNOW that one (at a Univ) can acquire a IIsi for $3000 and a >>SE/30 for $2500 > >Excuse me. Buy a NeXT from your very own school. It'll cost you $2995. Yes, >the U. of Arizona is selling the NeXTstation for $2995. I would say that >this is "about the same price" as a Mac IIsi and the $2500 SE/30. As >for hardware, performance, and features, the NeXT blows both machines >away. I know I've seen ads in the New York Times for IIsi's which were under $3000. So that's at least $2000 price difference between that and the $5000 NextStation price. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (Quaestor) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.052446.9290@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >He wrote: >>>So why buy a Mac IIsi, Mac II, Mac IIci, Mac SE/30 et al, since you >>>could buy a NeXT for about the same price or MUCH cheaper in some >>>cases > >I wrote: >> BUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZ!!! Thank you for playing >> I think you should come down from your NeXT superiority complex with >>the facts >> WE ALL KNOW that one (at a Univ) can acquire a IIsi for $3000 and a >>SE/30 for $2500 > >Excuse me. Buy a NeXT from your very own school. It'll cost you $2995. Yes, >the U. of Arizona is selling the NeXTstation for $2995. I would say that >this is "about the same price" as a Mac IIsi and the $2500 SE/30. As >for hardware, performance, and features, the NeXT blows both machines >away. I have the product pricing list right here, and the NeXT is $3200. Oh boy, $200 more. What a big deal, you say? Well, I will be upgrading to a IIsi in hopefully a coupla months. Now the IIsi will cost me about $3200 with the keyboard and other expenses, but the one thing that cannot be figured into the cost is all the software on my Plus that I will be *keeping*, not having to get rid of since Mac does not equal NeXT and vice-versa. *That's* where I'm saving money. But that's just the situation that I'm in. It doesn't apply to anyone but me. I just want to make this clear to everyone. I was not trying to say that a SE/30 or a IIsi or even a IIci is comparable to a NeXT. I was just trying to put in the facts that the original posting. Thats what we need here in this flamewar - the facts! I think we need to make a few rules here regarding posting in this flamewar. 1) All postings must have *documented* proof of all facts, prices, and any other specific things. A simple listing at the end of the message with footnotes will do, thank you. 2) No rumors, "I heard from a friend", or otherwise damn lies. 3) Anyone caught breaking these rules will be forced to own an 8086 clone and will not be allowed to upgrade it. The will also have to suffer with CGA. The uncompatabilty promblems alone should make them sorry for the rest of their life for not telling the truth! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Get the picture? :)
kline@cs.arizona.edu (Nick Kline) (11/15/90)
In a previous article, someone said that NeXTs at Arizona were $2995.
I have a press release that states that the price is $2995, and this
is from the univ. computing center, stating that they have
signed a special agreement with NeXT with the price being $2995.
Then later, there was a price list distributed with $3205.
I guess the bookstore decided to jack the price up, but I don't
know why they had the original release saying it was 210 cheaper.
-nick
---
"This isn't a game; this is garbage collection!"
- heard during my Ph. D. Oral Qualifier
Nick Kline, Univ. of Az., Computer Science, Tucson, AZ 85721
(kline@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao|allegra|cmcl2}!arizona!kline)Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov7.014246.29367@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: I'm going to regret this, but I too have heard entirely too much personal opinion from this person being fobbed off as "fact" to keep silent any longer. >>>...it [Personal LaserWriter NT] ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do >>>with it what you could do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. >Steve Hix writes: >>Other than 400dpi output, what >Let's see. Rotations and scaling without making your fonts look god-awful >ugly. And anything else you can do with a PostScript printer that you >can't do with the Mac's Personal LaserWriter NT. Mr Hix may hav ommitted to say that the PLWIINT IS a postscript printer... I'm not the first person to have pointed this out to you Mr group, would you mind waiting a few minuits to try and UNDERSTAND replies to your postings before you hop onto that f key? > There IS a reason you know >that Apple charges you so much extra for PostScript with its printers. This is also known as the money that goes directly into Adobe's pockets, and not Apples's as it is due to Adobe's high license fees. As another request, would you please stop presenting your personal opinions as fact? A number of the points you have made in the last few days in this thread have been based more on your personal perception than on any semblance of "fact". Yet another request Mr group, would be to take this thread to another newsgroup. This diatribe has gone on entirely too long; while your opinions on the new NeXTs vs Macs were at first informative to mac users (please recall that this is a Mac newsgroup) they have long ceased to bring us any new information, are thus no longer pertinant to the charter this newsgroup was created with, and take up altogether too much of my news spool. As I am assume the NeXT newsgroups no more desire your repetive expose than we do, I suggest alt.religion.computers. Should you wish to reply to THIS message, please use the EMAIL adresse which follows. Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov10.020441.5331@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >Here we go again. We're back to misconception #1 about the NeXT: the NeXT >is a typical Unix box. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not >like the Sun or any other Unix box, because the NeXT HIDES Unix from the >user. > You still don't get it, probably never will.. So what if Next hides the unix os from the user. If you own the system and no matter what interface you slap on it, the user is going to need how to use the underlying OS somewhere along the line. >The point I've made over and over again is that the NeXT allows you to >TOTALLY ignore Unix if you want to. Sit a Unix expert in front of a NeXT >and he/she would be hard pressed to figure out Unix was running under >NeXTStep. > >Think of it this way. Do you have to know low level Mac OS to use a Mac? >Absolutely no. Unix on a NeXT is like the Mac OS on a Mac. It is in the >background and away from the sight of the user. The nice thing about the >NeXT though is that, if you WANT to, you can access Unix through a nice >shell and use it. > >A NeXT owner will NOT "need" to know Unix. However, perhaps because people >have the misconception that the NeXT is like a Sun or some other Unix >workstation, they may not give the NeXT a fair shake. This is totally bogus... If the machines underlying OS is Unix, it is virutally impossible to shield a user from having to have some knowledge of how it works if they own the machine. Somewhere along the line they will have to understand and comprehend Unix to make full use of the system should they own one. If you want to just sit in front of it and admire the interface all day, thats fine, but eventually you might want to get some work done, and depending the users specific needs, that will more than likely require at some point a comprehension of unix, "Because its there" and thats what the Next uses to "run" >It is now very clear to me why NeXT does not attend many Unix expos. NeXT >has been unfairly branded as a Unix box by many people, and NeXT is trying >to combat this gross misperception. >Think hard about this: NeXTStep (NeXT's user environment) does not have to >run on top of Unix. It already runs on top of OS/2. It could conceivably >run on top of the Mac OS. > The only gross misperception as I see it is the one that says I own a Next, its OS is Unix with a spiffy interface that I'll never have to look beyond to make full and complete use of my Next System. I don't have to think hard about whether NextStep can run on top of other OS's, its irrelavant since the Next box runs on neither OS2 or Mac, it runs Unix. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov11.041752.12878@blackbox.lonestar.org> cbradley@blackbox.lonestar.org (Chris Bradley) writes: >In article <2924@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >> there is no way that Joe Average user is going to be able to >> figure out how to make effective use of many things under Unix. > >It seems that, all too often, the capabilities of computer users are >underestimated. No one likes to think of himself or herself as an >``average'' user, and, apparently, many of us have a perception of >the average user as an impatient semi-anthropoid with a ten-second >attention span. > >Give the people some credit! There are quite a few intelligent users >in the world who are willing to make an investment of their time in >learning about a new technology -- if they perceive that they will >benefit from it. > >-- >chris > >The term "user" has acquired a pejorative tone among computer professionals. And I think many people "totally Forget" that the audience being addressed on these conferences are very computer literate in most situations. Joe Average is the guy down the street that has never seen or used a computer in his home for example and you and others expect them to sit in front of a NExt box and easily comprehend it??? And despite the claims that Next hides Unix so well, its there, and somewhere along the line an owner will need to use it as a part of some maintanence or installation proecedure and that is not something for the person that has never used a computer before, or has minimal experience on any computer system. At least the Mac's ease of use is fairly universal from the OS to the applications and not trying to place a pretty face on Unix.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/21/90)
In article <gbDOVgS00UhW41Onl=@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >and there are no solid rumors of a Mac 040. Where is the logic in >comparing something that doesn't exist with something that is going in >production next week? From past experience, I would be surprised if we >saw a Mac 040 within the next year. By that time, NeXT may have 60 MHz >NeXTstations on the market. The fact is, NeXT is YEARS ahead of Apple >in technology. No one can deny this. You must be living in a sheltered zone somewhere? It is no big secret that Apple has had 040 Mac's in development ever since Motorola was able to produce sample chips. As far as 60mhz systems, NExt doesn't create its own CPU's, they can only do with the hardware provided, so if 60mhz chips come available, everyone will have them, Apple included. >Apple not only has CPU inferiority, but SCSI (5MB/s compared with >2MB/s), DMA (IIfx DMA won't even be supported in 7.0), DSP, video, >networking.... I could go on forever about hardware without mentioning >the superior software on the NeXT. (When will Apple have a standard >dictionary, something everyone complains about Apple already has networking, DSP is overrated, While there are some other areas that Apple is lacking, the Next superiority is overrated. Standard dictionary, what a paltry thing to moan about just because Next provides one, big deal, its not like you don't have dictionary applications on the Mac, in fact because of the choices you can use one that better fits your needs instead of being locked into just "one" >Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged >project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years >ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money >in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at >least try to stick to reality. Yes, lets stick to "reality". Apple announced its intentions of System 7.0 a little over a year ago. It did not say that it would be delivered back 1.5 years as you seem to indicate. Betas of System 7.0 are out now and its looking very good. While it may not be coming as fast as some would like, you seem to forget how long you were waiting for Next OS releases eh, not to mention systems, for which one can still continue to wait for the new ones. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) (11/21/90)
In article <2942@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >In article <1990Nov10.020441.5331@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >>Here we go again. We're back to misconception #1 about the NeXT: the NeXT >>is a typical Unix box. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not >>like the Sun or any other Unix box, because the NeXT HIDES Unix from the >>user. >> > You still don't get it, probably never will.. So what if Next hides > the unix os from the user. If you own the system and no matter > what interface you slap on it, the user is going to need how to > use the underlying OS somewhere along the line. The GUI interfaces NeXT supplies carry out at least the quantity of operations that Finder/MultiFinder/Etc. provide, WITHOUT having to deal directly with Unix on the textual level. If you want to do a group file operation on a Mac that's beyond the scope of Finder, what do you do? (if it's within the scope of Finder:) .. 0) Use the included Finder operations to do it. (if it's not, as the question presumes:) .. 1) Buy a program that's been written to do it. (if you're a programmer:) .. 2) Write a program of your own to do it. (if not of that works, then:) .. 3) Give up and operate file by file. (if, for some reason, that's not possible either:) .. 4) You give up. All these options still exist on a NeXT, and the NeXT provides as much at the 0 level as the Mac. 1) is going to take some time. If you don't want to mess with Unix, you may still choose any of the other modes of operation. Yes, you may end up learning Unix, but in most cases, it would be to perform an operation that wasn't even an option beforehand. > >>The point I've made over and over again is that the NeXT allows you to >>TOTALLY ignore Unix if you want to. Sit a Unix expert in front of a NeXT >>and he/she would be hard pressed to figure out Unix was running under >>NeXTStep. >> >>Think of it this way. Do you have to know low level Mac OS to use a Mac? >>Absolutely no. Unix on a NeXT is like the Mac OS on a Mac. It is in the >>background and away from the sight of the user. The nice thing about the >>NeXT though is that, if you WANT to, you can access Unix through a nice >>shell and use it. >> >>A NeXT owner will NOT "need" to know Unix. However, perhaps because people >>have the misconception that the NeXT is like a Sun or some other Unix >>workstation, they may not give the NeXT a fair shake. > > This is totally bogus... If the machines underlying OS is Unix, > it is virutally impossible to shield a user from having to have > some knowledge of how it works if they own the machine. Somewhere > along the line they will have to understand and comprehend Unix > to make full use of the system should they own one. If you want > to just sit in front of it and admire the interface all day, thats > fine, but eventually you might want to get some work done, and > depending the users specific needs, that will more than likely > require at some point a comprehension of unix, "Because its there" > and thats what the Next uses to "run" Only if your work is too complex for a Mac or a PC to handle in the first place... >-- >Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 >3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. >Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) >UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM | William Lee Nussbaum, Jr. | wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov12.004321.21385@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >The funny thing is, System 7.0 will not be functional or as nice-looking as >the NeXT's already shipped OS. Apple is really dragging its anchor in >this puddle. Raymond, this is getting a little old now. This is completely a subjective thing. I can easily say that 7.0's interface blows NextStep away... Why don't you post in comp.sys.next where your bacdwagon will be much more appreciated and those that want to read it can follow you. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (11/22/90)
I used to post from knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group). I'm now posting from my own account on the WELL. By the way, the name is Young, not Raymond. I thought that this thread had disappeared, but its back with renewed vigor, thanks to some comments by Norman Goodger. He writes: >...If the machines underlying OS is Unix, it is virtually impossible to >shield a user from having to have some knowledge of how it works if they >own the machine By the same token, if a machine's underlying OS is the intricate jumble that is at the heart of the Mac OS, would you say it is impossible to hide the mess that underlies the pretty face of the Mac? >The only gross misperception as I see it is the one that says if I own a >NeXT its OS is Unix with a spiffy interface that I'll never have to >look beyond to make full and complete use of the NeXT system Who ever said this was the case? I've always argued that if you want to do Mac-like things with a NeXT, you can ignore Unix. If you want, on the other hand, to do things you didn't dream about on the Mac, learn Unix and enjoy the extra power. In other words, Unix will let you tap the full power of the NeXT...power that is just not there on the Mac because the Mac doesn't have a decent standard Unix. >At least the Mac's ease of use is fairly universal from the OS to the >applications and not trying to place a pretty face on Unix Why the hostility towards Unix? At any rate, NeXTStep, NOT Unix, is the user environment for the NeXT. Think of Unix in terms of MPW for the Mac (although, of course, Unix lets you do a lot more than MPW). >...Apple already has networking. DSP is overrated Apple's networking, unfortunately, is nons-standard. The NeXT comes with built-in Ethernet, the standard for the rest of us. Why would you say the DSP is overrated? You don't think people want to do things with compact disc quality sound and perform extra-fast matrix algebra? True, people on PCs usually don't do this stuff. But that's because they can't and not because it wouldn't be real nice too. The same goes for video. Very few people do video, but NeXTDimension will not put high-quality yet easy-to-use video processing in the hands of more people. >Raymond [the name is Young], this is getting a little old now. This is a >completely subjective thing. I can easily say that 7.0's interface blows >NeXTStep away Can you say it with a straight face though? I've only heard descriptions of the mythical beta beast that is 7.0; but from what I hear, it ain't nearly as pleasing to the eye or the brain as the NeXT's old OS. This topic has been discussed before in this thread. >NExt doesn't create its own CPU's...so if 60 mhz chips come available, >every one will have them, Apple included But NeXT may very well have them first or be the first with a machine that runs on them. This is the case with the present 25 MHz 040s. NeXT is beating out HP by at least several months and Apple by at least half a year from the looks of it (i.e., the lack of anything even unofficial from Apple, Inc. on the 040 Macs). Look for new and even faster NeXTs around Fall. Cheers, Young-Kyu Yoo well!yoo@apple.com or yoo@well.sf.ca.us
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (11/23/90)
<GALES OF CRAZED LAUGHTER> AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!! MORE NEXT vs MAC DRIVEL !!!!!!! <SNAP!!!><SMASH!!!> WHERE'S MY KILL FILE!!!!! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!!!!! <Sound of 'k' being struck thousands of times> AAhhhhhhhhhh....
graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) (02/20/91)
In article <39262@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: > >>However, it ain't a PostScript printer and you can't do with it what you could >>do with a NeXT/NeXT laser printer combo. > >Ehhhhhhh. WRONG answer. The Personal LaserWriter NT IS a PS printer, and >because it has its own CPU, I don't lose cycles waiting for my print job. His output will look 16/9 times better than yours though :) ie - this is not a flame. mike -- Michael Graham | Baldrick, you wouldn't know a subtle plan if it graham@ug.cs.dal.ca | painted itself purple and danced naked on top of mgraham@ac.dal.ca | a piano singing 'Subtle Plans are Here Again'! - Black Adder.