melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/23/91)
This is a question that I have been asking myself for quite some time(but I've been afraid to bring up). We have been waiting for System 7.0 for a couple years, but what will it offer us that NeXTSTep 2.0 doesn't already have? The only big plus that I can tell is that it won't be nearly as large as Unix(another plus might be that it isn't Unix :-)) However, NeXT is shipping machines with 8 megs of memory and the 68040 chip, so this kind of makes of for the fact that Unix is a CPU and memory sucking hog. So, what more will 7.0 offer the user besides balloon help? -Mike BTW: Word Perfect 5.0 for the NeXT started shipping last week. It looks like NeXT is going to make it big. Hopefully, they won't take as long as Apple to realize that $1500 machines sell like hot cakes.
nick@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (01/23/91)
In article <t48Gb-f4@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > > This is a question that I have been asking myself for quite some > time(but I've been afraid to bring up). We have been waiting for > System 7.0 for a couple years, but what will it offer us that NeXTSTep > 2.0 doesn't already have? Well, I suppose one point is that it will run on a Macintosh. (together with the other software I need which doesn't run on the NeXT, and besides, NeXT's are unaffordable outside the US, and besides, the nearest dealer is in London, and besides, ...) -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "Theres menners f' yer! Te-oo banches o voylets trod into the mad."
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (01/24/91)
In article <t48Gb-f4@cs.psu.edu> (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >...System 7.0 for a couple years, but what will it offer us that NeXTSTep >2.0 doesn't already have? NeXTStep or UNIX(mach)? NeXTStep is the INTERFACE, MACH(unix) is the op sys. Will 7.0 have links to files and directories (false copies)? Pipes? Sockets? It's supposed to have inter-process communication, but we'll have to see how Apple does the 'Application Communication' Manager. >The only big plus that I can tell is that >it won't be nearly as large as Unix(another plus might be that it >isn't Unix :-)) It's too bad 7.0 isn't unix. I'd rather have unix onmy plus than the native MacOS. >However, NeXT is shipping machines with 8 megs of >memory and the 68040 chip, so this kind of makes of for the fact that >Unix is a CPU and memory sucking hog. Not really. The more memory you have the less paging the OS has to do (if it even supports VM, i.e., NOT macOS by design) and therefore, no I/O = quicker, sometimes significantly quicker, performance. UNIX by itself is NOT such a large system. When additions are made, it does enlarge, but that's understandable(just like adding INITs and cdevs to a Mac). Some UNIX kernels I have seen were 450K in size (some are considerably larger, i.e., 1.3M, and others are considerably smaller, 118K (for MINIX)). The smallest system file I have ever had has been ~300K, and actual memory usage (RAM) of the MacOS system is typically 250K on my Plus; sometimes 400K. I think the MacOS, for everything that is _built_in_ to ROMs, is the 'memory sucking hog.' 128K ROM (Mac Plus) + 400K RAM ==> 528K = This 528K is a large amount of memory to be using compared with the stock machine. (Actually, 400K/1024K is more appropriate -. ~40%). On a NeXT machine with 8M RAM, I seriously doubt if the MACH kernel occupies 3.5Megs. For an example of a small unix system that is *quite* usable, see the AT&T 3B1. Some models of it have 2M RAM, 40M hard drive and have a complete UNIX system (including development tools). It even has a windowing system and virtual memory. [it runs a M 68010 chip.] I have owned a Mac Plus for 4 years. I like Macintosh, but after using UNIX with X, I prefer UNIX. It's too bad I can't afford a NeXT, or other workstation. :-) Please send flames, et. al. to /dev/null (or the trashcan for non-unix). +----------------------+------------------------+ | Brent Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Computer Sci/Physics +------------------------+ | Texas A&M University | brentb@nuchat.UUCP |
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (01/24/91)
by n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton): | NeXTStep or UNIX(mach)? NeXTStep is the INTERFACE, MACH(unix) is the op sys. But the Mac GUI and Opsys are intimately linked. Many people without experience on UNIX type boxes don't understand this. ("X is NOT an interface...") | Will 7.0 have links to files and directories (false copies)? Yes. | Pipes? No. Pipes don't make a lot of sense without stdin and stdout, do they? :-) When was the last time you had an X program at the head of a pipe? | Sockets? It's supposed to have inter-process communication, but we'll | have to see how Apple does the 'Application Communication' Manager. Well, I don't think Apple will provide the BSD sockets interface. However, there is MacTCP, which supports all the standard TCP/IP functionality in a way that is more natural to Macs. The IPC in sys 7 is not, to my limited knowledge, just a plain old copy of something created earlier. Maybe a certified developer with all the Apple goodies (Inside Mac VI) can comment. |>The only big plus that I can tell is that |>it won't be nearly as large as Unix(another plus might be that it |>isn't Unix :-)) | | It's too bad 7.0 isn't unix. I'd rather have unix on my plus than the | native MacOS. Not me. Maybe a UNIX-like kernal but no UNIX. I want demand paging, virtual memory (not necessarily equivalent), X, etc. etc. That's an awful lot to ask from a Plus. Maybe my SE/30, though. :-) |>However, NeXT is shipping machines with 8 megs of |>memory and the 68040 chip, so this kind of makes of for the fact that |>Unix is a CPU and memory sucking hog. | | Not really. The more memory you have the less paging the OS has to do | (if it even supports VM, i.e., NOT macOS by design) and therefore, no | I/O = quicker, sometimes significantly quicker, performance. | UNIX by itself is NOT such a large system. When additions are made, | it does enlarge, but that's understandable(just like adding INITs and | cdevs to a Mac). Some UNIX kernels I have | seen were 450K in size (some are considerably larger, i.e., 1.3M, and | others are considerably smaller, 118K (for MINIX)). The smallest | system file I have ever had has been ~300K, and actual memory usage | (RAM) of the MacOS system is typically 250K on my Plus; sometimes 400K. Well, the kernel is the least of my worries. I _want_ all the goodies that take up gobs of memory like an interface. On the NeXT, the display is drawn with PostScript which is not exactly known as being a memory miser. 8MB on a NeXT _is_ a minimum and users have found the 16MB is much more comfortable for using more than one or two programs at a time. With my 5MB SE/30, I commonly have 5+ programs all going at the same time, including memory hogging graphics. (Not color, though.) | I think the MacOS, for everything that is _built_in_ to ROMs, is the | 'memory sucking hog.' 128K ROM (Mac Plus) + 400K RAM ==> 528K = | This 528K is a large amount of memory to be using compared with the | stock machine. (Actually, 400K/1024K is more appropriate -. ~40%). | On a NeXT machine with 8M RAM, I seriously doubt if the MACH kernel | occupies 3.5Megs. Hmm. I'm logged into a DEC box that has one active user (me) running a news reader and vi. The system is otherwise quiescent. The active vm is currently 7.6MB and I'm not running goodies like X or anything. Now my Mac is running in under 2MB of space with much of that going unused by the programs. (This "wasted" space is a sore point IMHO.) I don't think it's reasonable to figure ROM under the category of memory hogging. Actually, the MacOS provides the equivalent of a dynamicly linked library shared by all applications. The fact that some stuff sits in ROM is of no real consequence. Think of it as a fast disk on a UNIX machine. Hmm. How much disk space does your average UNIX box with a good windowing system and a bunch of apps take? More than my humble 40MB, I bet. I've got a couple compilers, a few general productivity apps, tons of PD stuff. It's been my experience that UNIX apps tend to swell up with library code. Sure, the newer offerings have shared libraries, but those machines aren't usually the cheapest ones available. | For an example of a small unix system that is *quite* usable, see the | AT&T 3B1. Some models of it have 2M RAM, 40M hard drive and have a | complete UNIX system (including development tools). It even has a | windowing system and virtual memory. [it runs a M 68010 chip.] See below! | I have owned a Mac Plus for 4 years. I like Macintosh, but after | using UNIX with X, I prefer UNIX. It's too bad I can't afford a | NeXT, or other workstation. :-) Bingo. You and many many others. Hmm, I bet if you watch misc.forsale.computers, you'll find a few 3B1s every now and then. They are fully functional systems albeit slow. (At this school, they are used for vt100 terminals. :-)) The prices are usually pretty darn low. Go ahead and see if you like it. I'll save my $$$ for something a little more suited to my needs and, more importantly, lustful desires.
sharp@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (01/24/91)
Having used 7.0b1, and UNIX, I feel I should put my 2cents worth in. First, what is the machine for ? I use UNIX boxes for some things, and the Mac for other different things. The NeXT crosses some of the boundries, but not all. In article <11468@helios.TAMU.EDU> n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) writes: >In article <t48Gb-f4@cs.psu.edu> (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>...System 7.0 for a couple years, but what will it offer us that NeXTSTep >>2.0 doesn't already have? The trigger question... >NeXTStep or UNIX(mach)? NeXTStep is the INTERFACE, MACH(unix) is the op sys. >Will 7.0 have links to files and directories (false copies)? Pipes? >Sockets? It's supposed to have inter-process communication, but we'll >have to see how Apple does the 'Application Communication' Manager. Yes, 7.0 has *better* links than UNIX or the NeXT. They are called Aliases, and they hit the target regardless of target renaming or movement. That is, make an alias to file/application/folder (whatever) X, and you can change the name of X, move it to another disk or file server, and the alias will still hit the target. Pipes can be constructed using tools provided to the developer. You can already drop documents onto applications for opening. All you need is to drop a document on an application that operates only in the background and invokes other background only apps. That is a pipe. In UNIX you specify by typing in names, if you figure out how to specify that on the Mac, you can make some bucks. Sockets, as in BSD sockets. No. But you can code to use them (assuming you have a TCP/IP hookup). As to IPC, it is much better than any system I have seen yet. This includes the implementation on Apollos (NCS) and Suns. It is a fully object oriented high level message passing system. I like it. >It's too bad 7.0 isn't unix. I'd rather have unix onmy plus than the Go buy a copy of Xenix for the Mac then :-) [stuff about Next as memory/cpu hog] > >Not really. The more memory you have the less paging the OS has to do >(if it even supports VM, i.e., NOT macOS by design) and therefore, no The MacOS is now fully VM compatible, either in 24 or 32 bit addressing modes. It is applications for the Mac that have problems. As to the memory/cpu hog, both the NeXT AND the mac are hogs. That is a trend in systems, the memory and MIPS are there so use them. Whatever happened to really optimizing code :-). The bottom line, decide what you are going to use the system for, then buy the most appropriate system. Just make sure the company is going to be there in 5 years whey you need support or fixes ! maurice -- Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 GEnie M.SHARP5
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan23.204448.23778@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >by n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton): >| NeXTStep or UNIX(mach)? NeXTStep is the INTERFACE, MACH(unix) is the op sys. > >But the Mac GUI and Opsys are intimately linked. Many people without >experience on UNIX type boxes don't understand this. ("X is NOT an >interface...") True, X is a "network-based windowing system" that provides tools for an interface. >No. Pipes don't make a lot of sense without stdin and stdout, do >they? :-) When was the last time you had an X program at the head of >a pipe? Actually, just this past Fall I wrote a program that displayed formatted source code. When the user selected a variable name by clicking on it, the program sent some information <down a pipe> to the next tool. Powerful stuff. >| This 528K is a large amount of memory to be using compared with the >| stock machine. (Actually, 400K/1024K is more appropriate -. ~40%). >| On a NeXT machine with 8M RAM, I seriously doubt if the MACH kernel >| occupies 3.5Megs. > > I don't think it's reasonable to figure ROM under the category of >memory hogging. Actually, the MacOS provides the equivalent of a >dynamicly linked library shared by all applications. The fact that That's definitely true. (about the library) And when you consider the size of the ROM and what it could possibly be used for, like it can be used by *any* application (and is), it's quite efficient, now that I actually think about it.... >misc.forsale.computers, you'll find a few 3B1s every now and then. >They are fully functional systems albeit slow. (At this school, they >are used for vt100 terminals. That's all they are used for?? >[save money for ...] more importantly, lustful >desires. Really? on comp.sys.mac.misc??? What a bahgain! :-) +----------------------+------------------------+ | Brent Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Computer Sci/Physics +------------------------+ | Texas A&M University | brentb@nuchat.UUCP |
jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest) (01/24/91)
In <1991Jan23.204448.23778@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >by n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton): >| Pipes? >No. Pipes don't make a lot of sense without stdin and stdout, do >they? :-) I guess I don't follow you. This is a quote of the pipe(2) man page: (NAME ( pipe - create an interprocess communication channel ( (SYNOPSIS ( pipe(fildes) ( int fildes[2]; ( (DESCRIPTION ( The pipe system call creates an I/O mechanism called a pipe. ( The file descriptors returned can be used in read and write ( operations. When the pipe is written using the descriptor ( fildes[1] up to 4096 bytes of data are buffered before the ( writing process is suspended. A read using the descriptor ( fildes[0] will pick up the data. What does this have to do with stdin and stdout? Jeremy Brest
bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (01/24/91)
In article <NK5W6CQ@cs.swarthmore.edu> jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest) writes: >In <1991Jan23.204448.23778@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >>by n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton): >>| Pipes? >>No. Pipes don't make a lot of sense without stdin and stdout, do >>they? :-) >I guess I don't follow you. This is a quote of the pipe(2) man page: > ... >What does this have to do with stdin and stdout? Maybe I'm missing something here, myself. What does this have to do with the Macintosh? Are you proposing that we be able to pipe data from Versaterm to MacPaint? Piping is nice when you have small programs whose only function is to manipulate the data piped into them, and pipe out changed data, such as grep and colrm and sort. There are no programs like these existing for the Macintosh, as far as I know. << 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*."
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (01/25/91)
In article <5646@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: > Piping is nice when you have small programs whose only function is to > manipulate the data piped into them, and pipe out changed data, such > as grep and colrm and sort. There are no programs like these existing > for the Macintosh, as far as I know. Apple's MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) supports pipes and filters. It's almost identical to UNIX. Filters corresonding to grep, sort, etc. are included. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (01/25/91)
Me: | No. Pipes don't make a lot of sense without stdin and stdout, do | they? :-) by jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest): | I guess I don't follow you. This is a quote of the pipe(2) man page: | | (NAME | ( pipe - create an interprocess communication channel | ( | (SYNOPSIS | ( pipe(fildes) | ( int fildes[2]; | ( | (DESCRIPTION | ( The pipe system call creates an I/O mechanism called a pipe. | ( The file descriptors returned can be used in read and write | ( operations. When the pipe is written using the descriptor | ( fildes[1] up to 4096 bytes of data are buffered before the | ( writing process is suspended. A read using the descriptor | ( fildes[0] will pick up the data. This is great and all but I think the most common use of pipes is to take the stdout of one program and pipe it to the stdin of another: grep gottafindit mydbfile | sort would take to tools that seperately may not be terribly great and makes the combination very useful. Since the concept of stdin/out on the Mac doesn't exist, this use of pipes is useless. If you want to use pipes as an IPC mechanism, I'd suggest you try something else on a Mac. Like the sys 7 PPC routines. You might also consider AppleTalk or shared memory, depending on your requirements. For me, the best part about pipes is the ability to string together various programs to manipulate data streams. I can't remember the last time I felt the need to connect two programs using the pipe system call. However, piping through a command line with a shell is really useful and I have at times had really long pipelines. For example, the pbm plus toolkit contains a bunch of simple utilities to manipulate graphics files including converting formats and doing various image manipulations (zoom, rotate, clip, quantitize colors). I can feed the output from a ray tracer through theses tools and end up with a GIF file at the end without bothering with intermediate files. rayshade inputfile | mtvtoppm | ppmquant 256 | ppmtogif > outfile.gif Unfortunately, the *ppm* programs read in whole files at a time so I don't get the benefit of having them all operate in parallel but I do eliminate those pesky pixel data files (24bit color at 512x512 is a lot of spacem especially when you have extra files hanging around!) -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (01/25/91)
<sombody wrote blah blah blah...> >Are you proposing that we be able to pipe data from Versaterm to >MacPaint? Now there's an idea I didn't have. On UNIX systems, pipes can contain what character data you want, but typically text information. This really is an interesting idea - the concept of piping RAW INFORMATION to other programs - almost like message passing but programs not only pass a message, they send a book. Being able to pass information be- tween programs and having that information tagged in some way (as to mark it as TEXT, PICT, PostScript, etc.) might be a useful concept for such areas as hypertext (which I am interested in). I might follow this... >Piping is nice when you have small programs whose only function is to >manipulate the data piped into them, and pipe out changed data, such >as grep and colrm and sort. There are no programs like these existing >for the Macintosh, as far as I know. I just responded to a fellow netter about future changes to MacOS. As many of you have seen, I am a 100% pro-UNIX person. I enjoy the power and usefulness of these small utilities and the way you may combine them together to create new 'commands.' I think, besides IPC, the mac world could benefit from some type of piping system. Having a command line on a mac is sacreligious (sp?) almost, but I'm not saying kill off the windows. Just, "in addition to the windows..." +----------------------+------------------------+ | Brent Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Computer Sci/Physics +------------------------+ | Texas A&M University | brentb@nuchat.UUCP |
edgar@shape.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (01/25/91)
>Now there's an idea I didn't have. On UNIX systems, pipes can contain >what character data you want, but typically text information. >This really is an interesting idea - the concept of piping RAW INFORMATION >to other programs - almost like message passing but programs not only >pass a message, they send a book. Being able to pass information be- >tween programs and having that information tagged in some way (as to >mark it as TEXT, PICT, PostScript, etc.) might be a useful concept for And while you are at it, why not call it "Clipboard"? Sometimes I use MacroMaker to automatically Cut or Paste for me. -- Gerald A. Edgar Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY The Ohio State University Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu Columbus, OH 43210 ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!edgar
Greg@AppleLink.Apple.Com (Greg Marriott) (01/25/91)
In article <2898@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) writes: > Apple's MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) supports pipes and filters. > It's almost identical to UNIX. Filters corresonding to grep, sort, etc. > are included. What John says is true, especially the part about "almost" like UNIX. In MPW the output of one program is captured into a file, and then the next program gets a crack at it after the first one is done. This isn't quite like UNIX where several processes can be started and the output of one program "trickles" into the input of the next, and both run "at the same time". With MPW there has to be enough disk space to hold the output of the first program, which can be kind of a problem when processing REALLY REALLY BIG datasets. Greg Marriott Blue Meanie Apple Computer, Inc.
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (01/26/91)
In article <1991Jan24.205341.5563@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@shape.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes: >s.TAMU.EDU> > [my idea of piping info (graphics or text - just tagged info) between > macprograms] > >And while you are at it, why not call it "Clipboard"? > >Sometimes I use MacroMaker to automatically Cut or Paste for me. The clipboard is not the same. The clipboard allows you (the user) to place information between programs. This is not piping; it's like saving a text file in Word and opening it in Works. Piping is the transfer of information between two programs while they are running and is not typically controlled by the user, unlike copying and pasting. The user doesn't need to know what is happening, except that the information is appearing 'over here' now. I don't really know any more details about how this would truly work because this is just a simple idea I dreamed up while rambling. +----------------------+------------------------+ | Brent Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Computer Sci/Physics +------------------------+ | Texas A&M University | brentb@nuchat.UUCP |
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (01/30/91)
In article <t48Gb-f4@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >This is a question that I have been asking myself for quite some >time(but I've been afraid to bring up). We have been waiting for >System 7.0 for a couple years, but what will it offer us that NeXTSTep >2.0 doesn't already have? The only big plus that I can tell is that >it won't be nearly as large as Unix(another plus might be that it >isn't Unix :-)) However, NeXT is shipping machines with 8 megs of >memory and the 68040 chip, so this kind of makes of for the fact that >Unix is a CPU and memory sucking hog. So, what more will 7.0 offer >the user besides balloon help? > >-Mike > >BTW: Word Perfect 5.0 for the NeXT started shipping last week. It >looks like NeXT is going to make it big. Hopefully, they won't take >as long as Apple to realize that $1500 machines sell like hot cakes. Plus, it will run all of your Mac software which NeXt won't. If you can live with the NeXt software selection, can afford the box, and need the things it offers (why would a standard person need UNIX? I don't know), then go for NeXt. Hell, buy a Vax! A Cray, even... -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/30/91)
In article <16549@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
Plus, it will run all of your Mac software which NeXt won't. If you
can live with the NeXt software selection, can afford the box, and
need the things it offers (why would a standard person need UNIX? I
don't know), then go for NeXt. Hell, buy a Vax! A Cray, even...
Why did people buy the Mac over the Apple II or the IBM PC? Duhh...
How much more expensive is the NeXT compared with a IIci or IIfx,
anyway? I haven't seen a price list lately? Everyone knows that NeXT
does have a low-end machine. We can probably overlook that for all
while. After all, 17" monochrome and 16" color monitors aren't cheap.
-Mikejas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (01/31/91)
In article <co2G+?1a@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <16549@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: > > > Plus, it will run all of your Mac software which NeXt won't. If you > can live with the NeXt software selection, can afford the box, and > need the things it offers (why would a standard person need UNIX? I > don't know), then go for NeXt. Hell, buy a Vax! A Cray, even... > >Why did people buy the Mac over the Apple II or the IBM PC? Duhh... >How much more expensive is the NeXT compared with a IIci or IIfx, >anyway? I haven't seen a price list lately? Everyone knows that NeXT >does have a low-end machine. We can probably overlook that for all >while. After all, 17" monochrome and 16" color monitors aren't cheap. > >-Mike Why? Because, at the time, a Mac was a WHOLE NEW PARADIGM in personal computing, not just a few tweaks here and there, and little software to support it. Before, there was the promise of a whole new way of computing. Next isn't a whole new way -- it's a slightly different (possibly better) way to do the kinds of stuff you've been doing in UNIX and/or Macs for the past several years. It's NOT a paradigm shift, just a hardware boost with some software refinements. That's why there's a difference. How many PEOPLE need a IIci or IIfx? That's one thing the NeXt isn't -- a PERSONAL computer. You show me a person who needs a 68040 UNIX box with ??? MIPS, and I'll show you a person with too much time on his or her hands. .75 ;-) jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (01/31/91)
On 30-Jan-91 in Re: System 7.0 vs. NeXT Step user Kevin Kuehl@cs.purdue.ED writes: >In article <co2G+?1a@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) write >s: > How much more expensive is the NeXT compared with a IIci or IIfx, > anyway? I haven't seen a price list lately? > >Last price list I saw, the NeXTStation black and white is actually >cheaper than both the IIci and the IIfx with more software included. >A color NeXTstation is slightly more expensive than both, but hey a >16'' Trinitron on either a IIci or a IIfx is going to make it more >money than a color NeXTstation. >-- >Kevin Kuehl >krk@cs.purdue.edu >kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu FYI, these are directly from the Carnegie Mellon University price list. Draw your own conclusions. Mac IIci (1 1.4MB Floppy, no hard drive, 4MB mem) 3580.00* Mac IIci 80/4 (1 1.4MB Floppy, 80MB SCSI, 4MB mem) 4014.00 Mac IIfx (1 1.4MB Floppy, no hard drive, 4 MB mem) 5565.00 Mac IIfx 80/4 (1 1.4MB Floppy, 80MB SCSI, 4 MB mem) 6125.00 Keyboard (Standard) 88.00 Keyboard (Extended) 156.00 Color Monitor (12") 408.00* Color Monitor (13") 659.00 Portrait Monochrome Monitor (15") 725.00 Two-Page Monochrome Monitor (21") 1087.00 Video Card 4-8 442.00 Video Card 8-24 593.00 Video Card 8- 24GC 1318.00 Video Card Expansion (8-24GC only) 374.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NeXTstation - Mono - 8mg RAM, 25MHz 68040 Processor (15 MIPS), 56001 Digital Signal Processor, 3.5" 2.88mg Floppy Drive, 104mg Internal Hard Drive, 17" MegaPixel Display (1120x832 pixels), Thin & Twisted Pair Ethernet, Keyboard, Mouse and Standard Edition Software Package. 3170.00 NeXTstation Color - 12mg RAM, 25MHz 68040 Processor (15 MIPS), 56001 Digital Signal Processor, 3.5" 2.88mg Floppy Drive, 104mg Internal Hard Drive, 16" MegaPixel Display (1120x832 pixels), 16 bit Color (4096 Simultaneous Colors), Color Postscript Support, Thin & Twisted Pair Ethernet, Keyboard, Mouse and Standard Edition Software Package. 5500.00
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/31/91)
In article <16568@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
How many PEOPLE need a IIci or IIfx? That's one thing the NeXt isn't
-- a PERSONAL computer. You show me a person who needs a 68040 UNIX
box with ??? MIPS, and I'll show you a person with too much time on
his or her hands.
Oh, I see your point. Not too many people need a IIci or IIfx for
word processing. Maybe if you think about it long enough, you can
come up with some applications where a IIfx won't do. In fact, it
shouldn't be too hard to come up with applications where a 68040 won't
do either. Were you one of people that said that most people would
never need 386 machines(they're for power users!)? Now your probably
saying a 486 is overkill. You aren't going to sit down at a NeXT and
say "wow this thing is fast." Unless, of course, you have used the
030 machine :-). NeXT has built machine on which it is relatively
easy to write software. You pay a price for this in that the
performance of your computer is not as fast as it could be. But what
we really want out of computers is increased functionality, not
increased speed. I think little things like not needing a preview
mode in Adobe Illustrator, or a faster/cheaper machine on which to run
Mathematica(and Adobe Illustrator, Quark XPress,etc) should convince
enough people to buy a NeXT for the moment. However, software on the
NeXT is in its early MacWrite stages. Companies are presently rushing
to get their software out. Give it a year or two, until Lotus refines
the spreadsheet that they re-invented.
-Miken138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (02/01/91)
In article <16568@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: >How many PEOPLE need a IIci or IIfx? That's one thing the NeXt isn't >-- a PERSONAL computer. You show me a person who needs a 68040 UNIX >box with ??? MIPS, and I'll show you a person with too much time on >his or her hands. Actually, show me a person (such as myself) with a Mac PLUS, and I'll show YOU a person with too much time on their hands! I know if I did graphics work, I'd rather have a IIFX (or other suitable fast Mac II) over my Mac Plus. --Brent +----------------------+--------------------------+ | Brent P. Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Texas A&M University | Computer Science/Physics | +----------------------+--------------------------+
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (02/02/91)
On 30-Jan-91 in Re: System 7.0 vs. NeXT Step user Jeff Sullivan@ISI.EDU writes: >-- a PERSONAL computer. You show me a person who needs a 68040 UNIX >box with ??? MIPS, and I'll show you a person with too much time on >his or her hands. ^^^^^^^^ > You mean not enough time. If you can afford to wait 20 minutes for a compile on you .8 MIPS 68000, then fine. Most people are impatient and want the job done faster so they can get on with their lives. Just an observation.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/05/91)
As quoted from <oi4G-!=a@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): +--------------- | enough people to buy a NeXT for the moment. However, software on the | NeXT is in its early MacWrite stages. Companies are presently rushing | to get their software out. Give it a year or two, until Lotus refines | the spreadsheet that they re-invented. +--------------- ...and until NeXT comes up with a machine that doesn't have stuff I don't need, like Ethernet, and therefore don't want to pay for. (I can find a use for the DSP chip --- see my .signature --- but I bet many others wouldn't know what to do with one if it were dropped in their laps.) How about a low-end NeXT upgradeable in separate pieces, i.e. get the bare box and add Ethernet and DSP later? If they did this in a way that reduced the price sufficiently, I could almost see myself getting one. I have no doubt that the current breed of NeXT is a nice machine, but it'd *still* be swatting a fly with a sledgehammer in my case. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.013654.4045@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
...and until NeXT comes up with a machine that doesn't have stuff I don't
need, like Ethernet, and therefore don't want to pay for. (I can find a use
for the DSP chip --- see my .signature --- but I bet many others wouldn't know
what to do with one if it were dropped in their laps.) How about a low-end
NeXT upgradeable in separate pieces, i.e. get the bare box and add Ethernet
and DSP later? If they did this in a way that reduced the price sufficiently,
I could almost see myself getting one.
This is not going to happen. It goes back to what Jobs' says about
the least common denominator in a computer. If there isn't a DSP,
then developers can't assume that the quality of sound in the
machine(for a better and more detailed explanation of the LCD
principle, please read what Jobs has to say about it). Besides, voice
mail would not be a too good w/o the DSP. The LCD for the Mac is a
Plus. Apple is going to have to live with that legacy for several
years, and so are developers. This, IMHO, will limit the
functionality of the software on the Mac.
I have no doubt that the current breed of NeXT is a nice machine, but it'd
*still* be swatting a fly with a sledgehammer in my case.
What do you use a computer for anyway? I have used a Mac SE and a
Plus(and II). I wrote all of my papers in college on a Mac SE using
MS Word. The SE(Classic,etc) is starting to show its age. System 7.0
is going to be multitasking all of the time. Multitasking is a little
more useful if you have a screen bigger than 9". Actually, many
things are better if you have a larger screen. DTP, spreadsheet work,
Hypercard, MacroMind Director,...,etc. Hell, I'm probably more of a
Mac user than you. I might actually do some Mac programming if
Zortech has a good C++ class library for the Mac, and I can find a II
to work on.
-Mikevd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (02/07/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 5-Feb-91 Re: System 7.0 vs. > NeXT Step Brandon S. A. KB8JRR@NCo (1268) > ...and until NeXT comes up with a machine that doesn't have stuff I don't > need, like Ethernet... I really must disagree with you. People tout the fact that Apple ships machines with built-in networking capability. I agree with them; I think this is a good thing. Not everyone uses it, but when they do, it makes networks a lot easier to set up. Of course, LocalTalk is more plug-and-play than an ethernet, but still, it helps to have it already there when you want it. The same applies to the NeXT. And if it wasn't going to be ethernet, what? LocalTalk is really too slow. Ethernet is a standard, particularly in the Unix world, and the NeXT is, underneath, a Unix box... -Vince
fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) (02/08/91)
In article <li2G.5tf@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes : >This is not going to happen. It goes back to what Jobs' says about >the least common denominator in a computer. If there isn't a DSP, >then developers can't assume that the quality of sound in the >machine(for a better and more detailed explanation of the LCD >principle, please read what Jobs has to say about it). Besides, voice >mail would not be a too good w/o the DSP. The LCD for the Mac is a >Plus. Apple is going to have to live with that legacy for several >years, and so are developers. This, IMHO, will limit the >functionality of the software on the Mac. So what happened to Jobs' famous LCD? Even he seems to have gotten the idea all muddled up. Used to be, every NeXT had an erasable optical and no floppy drive. Now neither can be depended on. You can't even be sure there's a hard disk (on a machine costing thousands!). Not that I'm saying this is bad - it's just inevitable when a company responds, as NeXT is doing now, to the needs of different users. The LCD principle just can't be used as a defense for why NeXT shouldn't produce a low-end machine. That wouldn't stop developers from producing good software any more than it has stopped the production of good high-end software on the Mac (eg: FrameMaker, Adobe PhotoShop or Illustrator, etc., none of which is even tolerable on a Plus). In fact, NeXT will probably never make it big (as a "personal computer", though it may yet as a workstation) unless it makes a really low priced model. The principle of Lowest Common Denominator can only really work if the cost, too, is Low! -- ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb8.003934.5763@csn.org> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes:
So what happened to Jobs' famous LCD? Even he seems to have gotten the
idea all muddled up. Used to be, every NeXT had an erasable optical and
no floppy drive. Now neither can be depended on. You can't even be sure
there's a hard disk (on a machine costing thousands!).
What are you talking about? All new machines ship with at least a
105MB hard drive and a floppy. I imagine most old cube owners will
buy floppy drives. Distribution of software on flopticals is too
expensive.
It's unfortunate that the optical drives didn't take off. Hopefully,
they will within two years(on all machines). It's a great technology,
but it needs to be refined.
Not that I'm saying this is bad - it's just inevitable when a company
responds, as NeXT is doing now, to the needs of different users. The LCD
principle just can't be used as a defense for why NeXT shouldn't
produce a low-end machine. That wouldn't stop developers from producing
good software any more than it has stopped the production of good
high-end software on the Mac (eg: FrameMaker, Adobe PhotoShop or Illustrator,
etc., none of which is even tolerable on a Plus).
Why does NeXT need a low-end machine? Is NeXT even allowed to compete
in the low-end market? They signed an agreement with Apple, didn't
they? Something about only selling a machine that contained more than
a 1 million pixel display, etc.
People who buy SE's want a typewriter. Many people who use
Illustrator, FrameMaker, etc. can afford to buy a NeXT. I hope that
they're not using these programs on a Classic.
In fact, NeXT will probably never make it big (as a "personal computer",
though it may yet as a workstation) unless it makes a really low priced
model. The principle of Lowest Common Denominator can only really work
if the cost, too, is Low!
So what. How much of the market does NeXT have to get to be a
success? Apple managed to get 9% of the market before they come up
with the great idea of selling low-end machines. They might have 10%
by now.
-Mikekrk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) (02/08/91)
In article <z?cGd!sh@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >It's unfortunate that the optical drives didn't take off. Hopefully, >they will within two years(on all machines). It's a great technology, >but it needs to be refined. Yeah, I thought so too. That was the one thing (besides the cost) that I really liked about the machines. An enormous amout of space on something you could slap in your briefcase, backpack or even coat pocket and take with you. Kind of makes a CD-ROM look like junk. >Why does NeXT need a low-end machine? Is NeXT even allowed to compete I don't see why they need to either. If someone wants an SE or an LC type machine, then Apple makes one. If someone wants an inexpensive, fast development computer then NeXT makes one. I don't see why NeXT would even want to make one, unless their higher-end machine sales can't keep the company afloat and I don't see that happening. >So what. How much of the market does NeXT have to get to be a >success? Just the readers of this newsgroup. :-) -- Kevin Kuehl krk@cs.purdue.edu kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (02/09/91)
In article <z?cGd!sh@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >People who buy SE's want a typewriter. Many people who use >Illustrator, FrameMaker, etc. can afford to buy a NeXT. I hope that >they're not using these programs on a Classic. Let me put this in terms that maybe you can understand. People who buy SEs usually buy them because they can't afford more expensive machines. No matter how many times you and other NeXT bigots say "practically everyone qualifies for an educational discount," it just isn't true. Most people have to work for a living. Even among the small percentage of the US population that is composed of full-time college students, there are many who are not so well taken care of by Daddy Warbucks or Big Brother that they can afford to drop the kind of cash it takes to buy a NeXT. When NeXT users sneer at "people who can only afford to buy a Mac Classic," (i.e., anyone who can't afford to buy a NeXT) perhaps they should ponder whether or not Steve Jobs, back in the days before he sold his first Apple, could have put down that sort of money to buy a NeXT. They might also wonder where the next (no pun intended) Steve Jobs will come from and what sort of computer he can afford to buy today. Simply because someone cannot afford a NeXT does not mean that he is less intelligent than you are, or less talented, or less worthy; it simply means that he has less money. I am not speaking for myself here. I probably could afford to buy a NeXT if I wanted to. But I have no wish to own a machine which exists solely for the snobbish elite. Perhaps if NeXT introduces a true low-end machine (rather its lowest -- read highest -- common denominator), I might change my mind.
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb5.013654.4045@NCoast.ORG>, allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: |> ...and until NeXT comes up with a machine that doesn't have stuff I don't |> need, like Ethernet, and therefore don't want to pay for. (I can find a use |> for the DSP chip --- see my .signature --- but I bet many others wouldn't know |> what to do with one if it were dropped in their laps.) How about a low-end |> NeXT upgradeable in separate pieces, i.e. get the bare box and add Ethernet |> and DSP later? If they did this in a way that reduced the price sufficiently, |> I could almost see myself getting one. If the original Mac had come without a bitmapped display, a mouse, a speaker, serial ports, and a floppy drive, it would have been much cheaper than it was. But, the result would have been that application writers would not have been able to assume anything. If the NeXT had an optional DSP chip, application writers wouldn't be able to assume that one would be available. Also, other companies wouldn't be working to add sound capabilities to their systems. The end result of NeXT going with the DSP chip is that future generations of machines will have it standard. As for Ethernet, I agree with you for functionality needs, but it's much cheaper to put Ethernet into the design than it is to make it an add-on board or module. -- ...David Elliott ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce ...(408)944-4073 ..."His lower lip waved poutily with defiance..."
mfi@serc.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb08.174850.12980@convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <z?cGd!sh@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>People who buy SE's want a typewriter. Many people who use >>Illustrator, FrameMaker, etc. can afford to buy a NeXT. I hope that >>they're not using these programs on a Classic. > >Let me put this in terms that maybe you can understand. People who >buy SEs usually buy them because they can't afford more expensive machines. ... > perhaps they should ponder whether or not Steve Jobs, back >in the days before he sold his first Apple, could have put down that >sort of money to buy a NeXT. When Apple introduced the MacII and people were suprised at the high cost, Apple said that adjusting for inflation the MacII (87 prices) was about the same price as the first appleII. Mark ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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."
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb08.174850.12980@convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[Stuff about NeXT users being snobs deleted]
If you can only afford to buy an SE, then buy it. The Classic is a
big part of Apple's market, but it is not their entire market. For
now NeXT is only focused on the business and educational markets. It
will probably be another two years, if then, before NeXT enters into
the low-end market. If spending $1000 is the maximum that you would
consider spending on a computer, then forget about the NeXT. However,
if you are going to spend $2000(educational) on a computer, then I
would consider the NeXT. Would you pay $5000 more for a car if you
could get a Cadillac instead of an Escort? SOME people are in the
same situation when deciding to buy a computer. However, some people
would still have to buy the Escort.
-Mikeallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/10/91)
As quoted from <li2G.5tf@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): +--------------- | This is not going to happen. It goes back to what Jobs' says about | the least common denominator in a computer. If there isn't a DSP, | then developers can't assume that the quality of sound in the | machine(for a better and more detailed explanation of the LCD | principle, please read what Jobs has to say about it). Besides, voice | mail would not be a too good w/o the DSP. The LCD for the Mac is a | Plus. Apple is going to have to live with that legacy for several | years, and so are developers. This, IMHO, will limit the | functionality of the software on the Mac. +--------------- Jobs' concept of what the LCD should be will, IMHO, limit the wide acceptance of the NeXT. +--------------- | I have no doubt that the current breed of NeXT is a nice machine, but it'd | *still* be swatting a fly with a sledgehammer in my case. | | MS Word. The SE(Classic,etc) is starting to show its age. System 7.0 | is going to be multitasking all of the time. Multitasking is a little | more useful if you have a screen bigger than 9". Actually, many +--------------- ...or not, as the case may be. I'm typing this on a Xenix system, with two other programs running in other multiscreens --- I can't have them all on screen at once, but I don't *need* them all on screen at once and this doesn't impact sharing data between them. +--------------- | Hypercard, MacroMind Director,...,etc. Hell, I'm probably more of a | Mac user than you. I might actually do some Mac programming if +--------------- Quite likely: I don't do full-blown DTP and don't plan to. Programming is doubtful, as I don't have the time to figure out how to write programs for the Mac... nor would I have the time to figure out Objective-C and NeXTStep. Given that Steve Jobs doesn't want to support the existing low end, he'll have to create a new one to replace it. So where is the full-featured $1000 NeXT? ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY