gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (11/15/90)
Hi there,
Peace to all,
First, let me introduce myself :
I am a Mac owner since the beginning (and besides, developper).
Second, I am looking at NeXT because it's a not too bad
computer, with a not too bad user interface and with
some not too bad tools.
(Ok, don't flame on me telling that this computer, user
interface and tools are not "not too bad" but incredibly
*GREAT*, that there are the best thing man ever did since
then invention of fire, that it brings us some totally new
horizon, that you can't sleep anymore just because of it,
etc, etc, etc.... I know you all really, frankly
think so, so spare your time and net bandwidth).
The next computer I will buy and make software for will
probably be a NeXT (punn intended).
The reason is : there is a market and it's not too bad.
OK.
But ! But, I will continue to make Mac software, because it's
a not too bad computer, with a not too bad interface (being
improved, because it has too to be on the NeXT level), and
not too bad tools (not because of Apple, but, anyway...).
OK.
Now, what I would like too know is :
WHAT IS THIS WAR FOR ?
It strongly reminds me of the time when the Mac was introduced
and PC people were saying :
"The Mac is just a toy"
"Who needs graphics ?"
"A mouse is only for dumb user or young children"
"User interface, user interface, what do you mean user interface ?"
and other arguments such as :
"There are not many Mac sold"
"There are nearly no applications for the Mac"
etc, etc, etc...
But I see a big difference (or I think I see it, nowadays I
tend to be sure of nothing, as someone will probably point
I am wrong at seeing things which do not exist) :
The big difference is that when the Mac was introduced it was new.
The mouse was new, the graphics were new, the Toolbox was new,
the hardware was new, all was new.
I don't think NeXT is bringing such new things (ok, there is
a floptical drive (or there was?), NeXTStep, Interface Builder,
etc, etc...) But I'd rather say that all those things are
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS over existing concepts (most of them brought
by the Mac and Unix (best of both worlds)) (okay, okay a few things
are probably new, and that's okay).
More important (for me).
When Apple introduced Macintosh, they had what I call a vision.
They wanted to do "the computer for the rest of us".
Now, they have some visions of what they want in 2010. (Altough
Knowledge Navigator is probably not their best vision at it).
I probably missed it, and if it is the case, please correct me,
but NeXT has no vision (or I didn't understood it).
I'm sad of it. I like visions. It stimulates me.
So, back is my question : Why this war between Mac and NeXT ?
Those computers are not THAT much different. Why not
to compare NeXT and Windows or Mac and Windows ?
Or better, why not compare NeXT and low-cost SUN Sparc stations,
or Sony stations. It seems it would be more fair to compare
Unix stations with Unix stations rather than Unix stations
and Personal Computer (er, Steve, is NeXT a personnal computer
or a workstation ?).
I will not enter this war.
I will continue to fight for peace.
What *I* want, and I think what *WE* need is :
- a new computer platform (I mean *REALLY* new)
- a new vision.
Think about the future. Imagine what you want to have in
ten or twenty years. Be wild and crazy. Imagine cyberdecks,
palmtop computers with color holo screens and neural link
connections, anything you can *THINK* of.
And everyday, each time you use your computer (be it a Mac,
a NeXT or an IBM 360), think of the distance between your
dream and what you have today. Each time a new machine
is announced (be it at Apple, NeXT, IBM (seriously), Wang,
Sony, or whatever), look a that machine and see if it brings
you closer to your dream or not.
And if it does not, be angry, shout, protest, *MAKE THEM MOVE*.
NeXT introduction was great, because it made Apple move.
Who will make NeXT move and provide a yet *BETTER* computer ?
And think about it, why this war ?
Arnaud
-- Odyssey.
--
/======================//==========================================/
/ Arnaud Gourdol. // On the netland : gourdol@imag.fr /
/======================//==========================================/knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) (11/16/90)
gourdol@imag.imag.fr writes: >er, Steve, is the NeXT a personnal computer or a workstation Can't speak for Jobs, but someone in the NeXT newsgroup mentioned that they use a NeXT because it is both a workstation and a personal computer. How many have you have used a workstation or even a minicomputer running Unix and thought, gee, I wish you could do some of this on a Mac? How many have used Macs and thought, gee, I wish I could do things this way on a workstatio or on my university computer? The NeXT incorporates a lot of the best of both worlds:the Mac's nice interface and the power of Unix. It is a significant improvement over A/UX on the Mac in that the NeXT hides Unix from the user: the functionality is there, but the user doesn't have to know Unix commands or type on a command line.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/16/90)
------ In article <1990Nov15.160925.1037@agate.berkeley.edu>, knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes... >gourdol@imag.imag.fr writes: >>er, Steve, is the NeXT a personnal computer or a workstation > >Can't speak for Jobs, but someone in the NeXT newsgroup mentioned that they >use a NeXT because it is both a workstation and a personal computer. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping! :-> :-> 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) (11/16/90)
In article <15506@imag.imag.fr> gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) writes: > I probably missed it, and if it is the case, please correct me, > but NeXT has no vision (or I didn't understood it). > I'm sad of it. I like visions. It stimulates me. I believe the vision of Jobs was to raise the lowest-common-denominator. He wants the "minimum" machine that people pick up to be a much better machine (eg: grey scale, bigger monitors, sound chips, etc). Apple has lowered the costs on the entry level computer (which is most certainly welcome!), but the new entry level computer isn't really all that much better than the old entry level. A person that ones a Mac Plus isn't likely to feel bad that his computer is worse than a Classic (even if he or she wished they had paid less for that Mac Plus). In some sense I guess I'll argue with my last sentence. Before the Classic, the minimum machine that some people could actually afford was a PC-clone. With the new Macs they can afford a Mac, so for those people the minimum entry level has gotten better. The NeXT doesn't (by itself) really lower the minumum unless the cheapest NeXT is within the price range of "the masses". It should put downward pressure on all other computer prices though. So, I'd be happy to see NeXT continue and thrive, simply to fuel that particular vision. That doesn't mean I want to be deluged by any Mac vs. NeXT religious wars in this newsgroup, but the NeXT machines themselves are "A Good Thing(tm)". Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
tempest@walleye.uucp (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (11/16/90)
In article <%0*^YA#@rpi.edu> Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes: >In article <15506@imag.imag.fr> > gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) writes: >> but NeXT has no vision (or I didn't understood it). >> I'm sad of it. I like visions. It stimulates me. > >I believe the vision of Jobs was to raise the lowest-common-denominator. If you pick up a copy of NeXT's latest sales literature about the new products, you'll read about interpersonal computing as an important capability in the 1990s. This vision is the reason-- IMHO--that NeXT used the Mach kernel in order to implement their OS. I'm not sure if NeXTstep 2.0 fully supports Mach's multi-processing capabilities; version 1.0 did not from what I understand. Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/17/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 16-Nov-90 Re: Oh no ! Yet > Another Thr.. Garance Drosehn@mts.rpi. (1609) > In article <15506@imag.imag.fr> > gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) writes: > > I probably missed it, and if it is the case, please correct me, > > but NeXT has no vision (or I didn't understood it). > > I'm sad of it. I like visions. It stimulates me. > I believe the vision of Jobs was to raise the lowest- common- > denominator. He wants the "minimum" machine that people pick up to be a much better machine (eg: grey scale, bigger monitors, sound chips, etc). I don't think you can call this a vision. It's more like progress, and it is happening all around us. Maybe Jobs is trying (and succeeding) in doing this a little faster than most other groups; it's still not a vision. So what is the vision? I think it's an interesting question, and, along with the software problem, provides a portion of the reason that Mac people are not immediately abandoning their Macs for NeXTs with much lower price/performance ratios. From my point of view, the Mac software base (both in terms of programs available and programs that I own) is not worth giving up to get the advantages of a NeXT, in large part because there is not very much which is revolutionary, at least from the user's point of view, about the NeXT. There is extremely low price, and there is a decent interface on unix for probably the first time. And there are other advantages over a Mac, like a somewhat more stable OS, protected memory (which contributes to the previous), virtual memory, preemptive multitasking, IPC/IAC, and a reputedly excellent development environment. Some of this we will get in System 7 (virtual and IAC), when it comes out (and it will, eventually); much of it we have lived without for a long time and will continue to live without without missing much. I'm sure that the pro-NeXT people, especially the person who claims to be Raymond group on his "From:" line, but claims to be someone else otherwise, will point out problems with my argument, but I've been at least skimming all of these threads, and used a NeXT a little, and that's the way I see things. Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu Standard Disclaimers Apply