esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) (11/08/90)
OK. I've read this thread so far, and I've seen several people say that they were switching from Mac to NeXT. I have to admit that I too, am leaning in that direction, and I definitely call myself a Macintosh fan. This brings me to a question. First, the disclaimer : Yes, obviously the Mac has a LOT more software and color is cheaper on the Mac. Yes, obviously if Joe has $ 1500 to spend, then NeXT is not an option. Speculation : Let's look at the situation two or three years from now. If the "killer development platform" on the NeXT is that great, than there should be lots of software. Hopefully some of that will be cheaper, more average stuff to meet the needs of all those home users who are supposedly going to buy the thing. The next NeXT is announced, based on the 68050 which is still in alpha. NeXT has sold lots of Stations, and has a respectable user base with respect to its appropriate market (no, obviously there are not as many NeXTs as PC clones - that was a ridiculous argument). System 7.0 is long out (this is starting to sound like a fairy tale :-) and System 8.0, the pre-emptive multitasking Macintosh OS is in alpha. MacMach is being marketed by Mt-Xinu for some reasonable price with respect to A/UX. Apple has sold gobs and gobs of Macintosh Classics and LC's. The Macintosh II(something) is out, based on the 68040, and it is significantly faster than the NeXTStation, because it doesn't have to run UNIX. USENET is still buzzing with discussion. (All of the above is pure speculation on my part, and my part alone. Some of it is admittedly questionable, but it serves my purpose.) Q: How many high end Macs have been sold ? In other words, what is Apple's response to the incredible price/performance ratio of the Station ? Some complain about the NeXT's lack of software, which could change, especially if the tools are as good as they sound. Some complain about the UNIX OS being to much for a home user. Some have refuted this, but in any case, it is those capabilities that Apple is aiming for in its new System revisions. Suppose the NeXT makes it! What do the skeptics have to complain about then ? Even after the new Macs introduction, the Macs cost a lot. Comparing the Macs to the NeXT, the Classic is a good buy. The LC isn't too bad. The IIfx is ridiculous. If the NeXT does well, it seems to me that Apple must change its marketing strategy a bit. I would like to see the NeXT intro benefit the Macintosh buyers. I would like to see a IIfx at $4995 list. I would like to see A/UX bundled with the high end Macs. I would like to see MPW bundled as well. I'd like to see Apple respond to NeXT's "challenge" to the benefit of its users. Obviously, all of this rests on the supposition that the NeXT will make it. This is obviously not a given. The US economy is not exactly booming, and Steve has chosen an unfortunate time to be innovative. The Mac is fairly well established, and the really conservatives will simply buy 386 UNIX boxes. Just because the NeXT is an extraordinary piece of hardware does not mean it will succeed. The NeXT will not follow the path of the Amiga, because it is a little expensive for some home buyers. It will not dominate the business scene, because IBM is still producing standards, if not profits. The NeXT will probably not produce a revolution in the workstation sector. The majority is conservative. (If it works...) What we have here is a very nice piece of hardware staring at at least one major competitor in every sector. Let's hope the NeXT does very well, but it will not dominate. The Mac has not dominated. We like it anyway. I am trying to be objective. I would like to see the NeXT make it. If I was shopping in the $3500 range, I would buy one. There does not seem to be an absolute, however. NeXT could fail. I am more interested in what happens if it does not. [ This posting has been edited in the hope that it is not a network fire hazard. The opinions here are mine. Whether or not you agree, there is an implicit invitation for you to express yours ... politely. ] Eric W. Sink "Are you sure this would |All opinions Departamento de Telematica not be time for a |are mine and Universidad Politecnica de Madrid colorful metaphor ?" |not necessarily esink@turia.dit.upm.es - Spock |yours.
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/09/90)
In article <396@goya.dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) writes: >Let's look at the situation two or three years from now. If the >"killer development platform" on the NeXT is that great, than >there should be lots of software. 1) Companies do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars developing software for a machine simply because it has a "killer development environment." They will do it only if they see a market. With an expensive, high-end machine like the NeXT, you have to sell programs for big $$$ to survive. The lack of inexpensive software keeps more users from coming to the machine. 2) "Than" is not the same word as "then." Not in Pascal, not in English. Please fix your syntax. :-) >The IIfx is ridiculous. Yes, but everybody knows that. Harry Anderson made the joke that IIfx stands for "too fucking expensive." Nevertheless, this machine, which has been a sales disappointment to Apple, is the standard by which NeXT's prices are judged. In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator boards for the Mac II. About six months after that we should see cheap "brand X" 68040 boards. Adding one of these to a IIsi will give you a machine that blows away the IIfx and is at least competitive with the NeXT for far less money.
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/13/90)
In article <108420@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator >boards for the Mac II. About six months after that we >should see cheap "brand X" 68040 boards. Adding one of >these to a IIsi will give you a machine that blows away >the IIfx and is at least competitive with the NeXT for >far less money. You have made a whole string of postings that show a lot of ignorance about the new NeXT machines, but this one takes the cake. If you even *possibly* think that a Mac IIsi with a "cheap brand X" 68040 board is going to be competitive with a NeXTStation for "far less money", then you're completely uninformed. The least expensive "cheap brand X" 25MHz 68030 accelerator for the Mac that I've seen is about $1000. The 68040 is more expensive than a 68030. The IIsi (at educational prices) costs about $3000 for a 5MB/80MB system. Do you want a monitor? A keyboard? Add another $770 (or do you want the tiny 12" mono monitor?). Even at the *very* optimistic price on a third-party 68040 board (that you won't be able to get at that price for at least a year), the total cost will be at least $4800. The NeXTStation costs $3400 at educational prices. Oh, that "cheap brand X" upgrade you're rhapsodizing about? It won't have DMA (for either hard disk or monitor) or all of the other neato performance goodies of the NeXTStation, so it will not approach the NeXT's overall performance. It won't be supported by Apple (you know, since Apple decided in its infinite wisdom not to support VM on 3rd party upgrades for System 7.) Hell, it probably won't even *run* on the IIsi given the SI's weak power supply. So, come on. There are certainly good reasons to buy a Mac over a NeXT. But price/performance ratio is definitely *not* one of them. It's ludicrous statements like that that are prolonging this NeXT vs. Mac discussion. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Perfecting the art of arthroscopic surgery. * ************************************************************************
esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) (11/13/90)
In article <108420@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >1) Companies do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars > developing software for a machine simply because it has > a "killer development environment." They will do it only > a if they see a market. With an expensive, high-end machine > like the NeXT, you have to sell programs for big $$$ to > survive. The lack of inexpensive software keeps more users > from coming to the machine. Good point. I don't entirely agree, but I grant that my assessment of what motivates a developer was a bit naive. The market will be a driving force, no doubt greater than the nice tools. However, I take exception with the phrase "expensive, high-end machine" as applied to the NeXT. It has traditionally been true that the words "expensive" and "high-end" go together. IMO, the NeXT works towards breaking that relationship. For this reason, I *hope* to see some inexpensive software crop up from that machine. If I am lucky enough to get one, I will be developing some. >2) "Than" is not the same word as "then." Not in Pascal, > not in English. Please fix your syntax. :-) My sig is a bit confusing. I'm an American, this error comes under the heading of "typo", not "lack of fluency". :-) >this machine, which has been a sales disappointment to Apple, >is the standard by which NeXT's prices are judged. This is because the IIfx is the only thing that competes with the NeXT in performance alone. A fairer comparison is strictly on the basis of the ratio of price / performance. Here, obviously the Station beats the IIfx hands down, but as I have said before, I think the Classic competes nicely in this statistic. Unfortunately, the Classic and the NeXT are not in the same market. >In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator >boards for the Mac II. About six months after that we >should see cheap "brand X" 68040 boards. Adding one of >these to a IIsi will give you a machine that blows away >the IIfx and is at least competitive with the NeXT for >far less money. I'm looking forward to it, but I still want the OS advantages of the NeXT on my Mac. I know Apple doesn't like the idea, but I repeat it : I'd like A/UX and MPW bundled with the Mac. Eric W. Sink "Are you sure this would |All opinions Departamento de Telematica not be time for a |are mine and Universidad Politecnica de Madrid colorful metaphor ?" |not necessarily esink@turia.dit.upm.es - Spock |yours.
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (11/15/90)
by ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright): | In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator | boards for the Mac II. About six months after that we | should see cheap "brand X" 68040 boards. Adding one of | these to a IIsi will give you a machine that blows away | the IIfx and is at least competitive with the NeXT for | far less money. A IIsi with an 040 board would encounter numerous bottlenecks much like 030 boards for SEs do today. The IIfx would be a better design to start off with since it has more of the goodies necessary to keep a fast CPU busy. Wouldn't it be great if there were an announcement of a IIpdq that was in a IIc_ size box with 040, the IIfx's IOPs, built in video like the IIci's, an 040 PDS (what would you put in it?) and two NuBus slots? Lessee, wouldn't it be great if only cost ~$4000? And wouldn't it be great if Apple brought a bunch of really great beer to the rollout? Any relation to reality, fictional or not, is purely coincidental. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov15.033359.25798@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >Wouldn't it be great if there were an announcement of a IIpdq >that was in a IIc_ size box with 040, the IIfx's IOPs, built in video >like the IIci's, an 040 PDS (what would you put in it?) and two NuBus >slots? Lessee, wouldn't it be great if only cost ~$4000? And wouldn't >it be great if Apple brought a bunch of really great beer to the rollout? Wouldn't it be great if you could read minds? Then you could find what Apple is really planning?
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/15/90)
As for bargain 040 Macs, it is important to remember that NeXT was reaching
a do or die point and that few would try to price quite so agressively. Apple
isn't the only major company with zero long term debt for nothing. As usual
Apple will test the waters with a really expensive 040 FX type machine and
introduce more performance features and VLSI. Then when Motorola can supply
them with the chips at a lower price we'll shortly see 040 ci's and SE/40's.
Kinda a boring, but rather likely...
Jack Howarthtorrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (11/16/90)
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >by ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright): >| In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator >| boards for the Mac II. About six months after that we > A IIsi with an 040 board would encounter numerous bottlenecks much >like 030 boards for SEs do today. The IIfx would be a better design to >start off with since it has more of the goodies necessary to keep a fast >CPU busy. Wouldn't it be great if there were an announcement of a IIpdq >that was in a IIc_ size box with 040, the IIfx's IOPs, built in video >like the IIci's, an 040 PDS (what would you put in it?) and two NuBus ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A 68050 card of course! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - a National landslide of incompetence