melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/06/91)
From comp.sys.next.
===========================================================================
From: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: NeXT Press Release
Date: 5 Apr 91 08:37:50 GMT
Reply-To: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
The following is NeXT's press release on April 4. In the release it
has 2 figures showing Q1'91 UNIX Workstation Shipments:
SUN 44,000
HP 20,000
DEC 8,000
IBM 12,000
NeXT 8,000
On Professional Workstation Shipments:
SUN 11,000
NeXT 8,000
HP 3,000
DEC 1,000
IBM 1,000
Here's the release:
NeXT SHIPS 8,000 CPUs IN FIRST QUARTER Makes NeXT One of
Leading Professional Workstation Vendors
REDWOOD CITY, Calif., April 4, 1991 P NeXT Computer,
Inc. today announced that it shipped 8,000 NeXT CPUs during
the first quarter of 1991, which ended March 31. It was
NeXT's first full quarter shipping its new line of worksta-
tions.
All of NeXT's shipments were into the professional
workstation category, making NeXT one of the leading vendors
in this segment. Professional workstations, unlike tradi-
tional scientific/technical workstations, are UNIX worksta-
tions designed for non-technical users.
"In our first full quarter shipping the new systems,
we think NeXT has nearly matched market leader Sun in ship-
ments to the professional workstation segment," said Steven
P. Jobs, president and CEO of NeXT. "Customers are begin-
ning to grasp the benefits of NeXT's concept of 'UNIX for
mere mortals' and they like what they see."
Comparing NeXT's first quarter 1991 with other ven-
dors' most recently reported sales, NeXT tied with Digital
Equipment Corporation in the overall workstation market. In
the professional workstation category, NeXT ran a close
second to market leader Sun Microsystems.
Sixty percent of NeXT's sales were to customers in
business and government and 40 percent were to universities.
More than 30 percent of NeXT's 8,000 CPUs were sold interna-
tionally to customers in Europe and Asia. NeXT coordinates
its European activities through its three subsidiaries in
the United Kingdom, France and Germany. In Asia, Canon,
Inc. is the company's exclusive representative.
Professional Workstations
Professional workstations represent a rapidly emerg-
ing new category of UNIX workstations. Professional works-
tation users require the power, networking and multitasking
capabilities of UNIX workstations, but also need a computer
that runs personal computer-like productivity applications
and is easy to use. These users work in areas such as pub-
lishing, financial services, entertainment/advertising, med-
ical and legal services, government and higher education.
Customers in non-technical fields generally purchase
workstations rather than personal computers for three rea-
sons: to develop mission-critical custom applications; to
run networking-intensive installations; and to run more
powerful versions of productivity applications than are
available for personal computers. In time, NeXT believes,
they will also demand greater interpersonal computing
capabilities to increase group productivity and collabora-
tion.
NeXT computers have the technology that commercial
users are seeking as they migrate to workstation technology.
NeXTstep, NeXT's graphical user interface and application
development environment, offers the most powerful and easi-
est to use environment for custom application development.
NeXT's systems also provide extremely powerful built-in net-
working capabilities P including TCP/IP and both twisted-
pair and thin Ethernet P yet setting up and navigating
around a network on NeXT is extremely simple.
Unlike other workstation vendors, NeXT has a wide
assortment of breakthrough productivity applications, such
as Lotus Improv and WordPerfect (both shipping now). These
applications are superior in functionality to, but compati-
ble with, their versions on other platforms. They also have
the ability to read files by other spreadsheet and word pro-
cessing vendors, thus making them compatible with 80 percent
of the installed base of software. Lastly, NeXT is the only
computer company focusing on interpersonal computing, with
built-in, easy-to-use electronic mail that allows everyone
in an organization to use voice, text and graphics to keep
each other informed.
NeXT's family of professional workstations comprises
the NeXTstation and NeXTcube, which began shipping in
November 1990; NeXTstation Color, which began shipping on
March 12; and NeXTdimension, due to be available to custo-
mers in May. NeXT's first quarter shipment numbers do not
include the two color products. All four systems are based
on Motorola's 68040 microprocessor.
Distribution
One of NeXT's challenges in 1991 is to structure its
distribution strategy to match the quality of its products.
In the first stage of this program, NeXT is rapidly expand-
ing its dealer base in the U.S., putting greater emphasis on
campus resellers in the higher education community, forging
partnerships with more value-added resellers (VARs) and
increasing its direct sales force.
"Along with building credibility for an entirely new
category of computers P professional workstations P NeXT has
also had to take a fresh look at the right distribution
strategies to reach professional workstation customers,"
said Todd Rulon-Miller, NeXT's vice president, sales. " Our
distribution goals are two-fold: to expand our total dis-
tribution capabilities and to choose channels that give us
greater leverage with customers. The changes we've ini-
tiated in 1991 take us a long way toward accomplishing these
goals."
To reach individuals and small- and medium-sized
businesses, NeXT is establishing a network of independent
dealers that are aggressive, technically savvy, owner-
operated retailers with strong regional reputations.
Included in this group will be individually certified Busi-
nessland centers, chosen on a case-by-case basis according
to their track record selling NeXT's professional worksta-
tion products. NeXT expects that these Businessland centers
will make up about 10 percent of its total dealer base.
NeXT's VAR strategy focuses on specific vertical
markets that depend on proprietary custom software, and for
which NeXT is particularly well suited, including publish-
ing, financial services, entertainment/advertising, medical
and legal services. Historically, more than half of all
workstations have been sold through VARs.
To increase its leverage among higher education cus-
tomers P which account for 40 percent of NeXT's total sales
worldwide P NeXT is concentrating more effort on campus
resellers (i.e., bookstores and on-campus computer stores).
The company is focusing on establishing key resellers at
computer-intensive colleges and universities, which are
responsible for about half of all higher education computer
purchases.
Many large corporate customers, as well as many
government organizations and higher education institutions,
prefer to purchase computers directly from vendors instead
of through intermediate channels. NeXT has doubled its
direct sales force in the last six months to better serve
these customers.
NeXT Computer, Inc. designs, manufactures and mark-
ets professional workstations, which combine the power and
networking of today's most advanced workstations with the
ease of use and productivity applications of today's best
personal computers. NeXT's professional workstation systems
promise to enhance the way groups of people work together in
the 1990s. NeXT is headquartered at 900 Chesapeake Drive,
Redwood City, California, 94063.es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/06/91)
In article <?#3Ga72i1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >From comp.sys.next. > >=========================================================================== >From: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.next >Subject: NeXT Press Release >Date: 5 Apr 91 08:37:50 GMT >Reply-To: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Organization: University of California, Berkeley > > >The following is NeXT's press release on April 4. In the release it >has 2 figures showing Q1'91 UNIX Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 44,000 > HP 20,000 > DEC 8,000 > IBM 12,000 > NeXT 8,000 > >On Professional Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 11,000 > NeXT 8,000 > HP 3,000 > DEC 1,000 > IBM 1,000 > >Here's the release: > >NeXT SHIPS 8,000 CPUs IN FIRST QUARTER Makes NeXT One of >Leading Professional Workstation Vendors > Well, if you are going to post a totally stupid and irrelevant press release, I figure I'll contribute my gratuitary Amiga word. In Q1'91 Commodore sold 125,000 Amigas, and that is only including Britain! The reason for the meaninglessness of your press release is that there is some wierd distinction between UNIX and Professional workstation, one makes them look better than the other. Considering that all that has been shipping is the low-end NeXT I hardly think it ranks beyond a normal UNIX ranking. Besides, NeXT just released a new series of models. At this point they are catching up on orders. Come 3rd calendar quarter sales will probably be 1,000, putting them nowhere. Mike, either you believe the press-release is really meaningful, in which case you know my opinion, or you will claim you just posted it to be "informative", in which case why would you post something of such mediocre informative quality if it could only produce flames? -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/06/91)
The Press Release posting was just to answer the FAQ: how many NeXTs has NeXT solds? Well, in Q1 1991, it was officially 8,000 machines. I didn't really read much into the "Professional Workstation Shipments" except that Sun et. al. sell higher priced machines than NeXT, like > $30,000. The overall numbers are interesting, since they include DEC's 5000 and 2100(3100?), and IBM's RS/6000 series. It's really hard to call. The NeXT is somewhere b/w the workstation market and the PC(generic) market. How many should they have sold? How many Mac IIci's did Apple sell, and how many Amiga 3000's did Commodore sell? -Mike
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/06/91)
In article <?#3Ga72i1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >From comp.sys.next. > >=========================================================================== >From: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.next >Subject: NeXT Press Release >Date: 5 Apr 91 08:37:50 GMT >Reply-To: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Organization: University of California, Berkeley > > >The following is NeXT's press release on April 4. In the release it >has 2 figures showing Q1'91 UNIX Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 44,000 > HP 20,000 > DEC 8,000 > IBM 12,000 > NeXT 8,000 > >On Professional Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 11,000 > NeXT 8,000 > HP 3,000 > DEC 1,000 > IBM 1,000 > ... and then the article goes on to define what a "Professional Workstation" is. In a nutshell, it's any computer called "NeXT", but with some flexibility added so there will be some competitors; and since nobody would believe a word of the whole release if Next actually sold better than Sun, Sun gets the top ranking. But NeXT is #2. It's easy to be the market leader when you get to define your own market. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr6.054943.4408@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > The reason for the meaninglessness of your press release >is that there is some wierd distinction between UNIX and >Professional workstation, one makes them look better than the >other. Double-speak at its finest, IMHO -- a distinction designed to make NeXT look good. From the announcement: :Professional workstations represent a rapidly emerging new category of UNIX :workstations.... Professional workstations, unlike traditional :scientific/technical workstations, are UNIX workstations designed for :non-technical users. "...rapidly emerging new category." Yeah right. In fact, this very press release made nauseous enough to ask to be removed from my NeXT mailing list. Soon they'll be selling "Double-Plus-Good-Professional Ultra-Workstations", meaning workstations sold to users who are over five-foot-three, have a background in ancient Greek philosophy, and live in the Northeast USA. Where's Humpty-Dumpty when ya need him.... Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (04/07/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >The Press Release posting was just to answer the FAQ: how many NeXTs >has NeXT solds? Well, in Q1 1991, it was officially 8,000 machines. >How many >Mac IIci's did Apple sell, and how many Amiga 3000's did Commodore >sell? Well, Apple never (as far as I'm aware) releases ACTUAL units sold, but they did project selling 205,000 Mac IIci's this financial year in their annual report. I guess that makes 50,000 a quarter or so. [Note: the annual report also projects 735,000 Classics being sold, which seems about right given the current sales figures]. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/07/91)
"Professional workstations", eh? "We can't really sell that many systems so we'll redefine our market segment to make us look good". Fine, then we'll just define a market segment that includes the Amiga and excludes most of Apple and IBM, and get results like these: Sales of personal workstations: IBM: 0 Apple: 2000 NeXT: 8000 Commodore: 1,000,000 -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr7.042318.26991@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
"Professional workstations", eh? "We can't really sell that many systems so
we'll redefine our market segment to make us look good". Fine, then we'll
just define a market segment that includes the Amiga and excludes most of Apple
and IBM, and get results like these:
Sales of personal workstations:
IBM: 0
Apple: 2000
NeXT: 8000
Commodore: 1,000,000
Yeah, Commodore is #1. Now when will I be able to run Word Perfect
and Lotus(or Excel or Wingz or any big name spreadsheet) on it?
-Mike
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/08/91)
In article <-o2G3=mj1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991Apr7.042318.26991@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > "Professional workstations", eh? "We can't really sell that many systems so > we'll redefine our market segment to make us look good". Fine, then we'll > just define a market segment that includes the Amiga and excludes most of Apple > and IBM, and get results like these: > > Sales of personal workstations: > > IBM: 0 > Apple: 2000 > NeXT: 8000 > Commodore: 1,000,000 > > >Yeah, Commodore is #1. Now when will I be able to run Word Perfect >and Lotus(or Excel or Wingz or any big name spreadsheet) on it? > >-Mike > Now. Get an emulator. You can emulate both IBM and Amiga. Another alternative altogether is to network to a machine running X-Windows. Lots of options. You get a computer to do what you want. If all you want is Lotus, don't get an Amiga. If you want the best of what the Amiga offers, as well as those things not available under AmigaDOS, get em both in one box! -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/08/91)
In article <-o2G3=mj1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991Apr7.042318.26991@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > "Professional workstations", eh? "We can't really sell that many systems so > we'll redefine our market segment to make us look good". Fine, then we'll > just define a market segment that includes the Amiga and excludes most of Apple > and IBM, and get results like these: > > Sales of personal workstations: > > IBM: 0 > Apple: 2000 > NeXT: 8000 > Commodore: 1,000,000 > > >Yeah, Commodore is #1. Now when will I be able to run Word Perfect >and Lotus(or Excel or Wingz or any big name spreadsheet) on it? You missed the point. Peter didn't include Lotus or WP in the market definition. He did this deliberately, so toimprove Commodore's standing. He did this to illustrate the problems with the NeXT press release, which named it the #2 selling professional workstation. The release itself defines what a professional workstation is, and they proceeds to give the NeXT high rankings. Such a definition is worthless. We can do the same, and it's just as valid. This is common in marketing. IBM announced the RISC System 6000 as a 27 MIPS workstation. The MIPS they used were based on Dhrystone 1.1, which most consider invalid. Motorola and DG promptly switched from their own definition of MIPS, under which the 20MHz 88K chip got 17 MIPS, to IBM's definition, where the 88K "suddenly" shot up to 28 MIPS. Fair is fair, right? By defining the "personal workstation" as "any computer which uses a Motorola 68K-based core, runs a multi-tasking operating system in only 512K of RAM, and has a flexible and powerful expansion architecture" we can create a class of computers with only one member, Amiga. And therefore, we can be the market leader. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr8.142326.28930@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
He did this to illustrate the problems with the NeXT press release,
which named it the #2 selling professional workstation. The release
itself defines what a professional workstation is, and they proceeds to
give the NeXT high rankings. Such a definition is worthless.
Yeah, I agree with this. I can understand what NeXT is trying to do:
define their own place in the market. They seem to be stuck b/w the
workstation world and the PC world in both price and performance.
Part of the marketing game has to do with how other people perceive
your machine. If the computer gets branded a "game machine", it will
take a long time for that to wear off, if ever, even if it don't
deserve the title. You can't explain to Fortune 500 companies that
games demonstrate the real power of a computer. So, what NeXT is
trying to do is proclaim themselves a success so that people who don't
understand computers will also perceive them as a success. NeXT is
fighting the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" disease. It's all
a marketing game, and YOU MUST PLAY TO WIN! That is the major reason
that I respect Apple. They took on IBM and won. They are the only
other PC alternative in the business world. Commdore is selling
millions of machines and they still haven't won, as demonstated by the
Computer Shopper dropping their coverage.
-Mikedtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/08/91)
In article <?#3Ga72i1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >From comp.sys.next. > >=========================================================================== >From: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.next >Subject: NeXT Press Release >Date: 5 Apr 91 08:37:50 GMT >Reply-To: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) >Organization: University of California, Berkeley > > >The following is NeXT's press release on April 4. In the release it >has 2 figures showing Q1'91 UNIX Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 44,000 > HP 20,000 > DEC 8,000 > IBM 12,000 > NeXT 8,000 > > >Here's the release: > >NeXT SHIPS 8,000 CPUs IN FIRST QUARTER Makes NeXT One of >Leading Professional Workstation Vendors > > REDWOOD CITY, Calif., April 4, 1991 P NeXT Computer, >Inc. today announced that it shipped 8,000 NeXT CPUs during >the first quarter of 1991, which ended March 31. It was >NeXT's first full quarter shipping its new line of worksta- >tions. > > All of NeXT's shipments were into the professional >workstation category, making NeXT one of the leading vendors >in this segment. Professional workstations, unlike tradi- >tional scientific/technical workstations, are UNIX worksta- >tions designed for non-technical users. > (lots of misleading propoganda deleted) Oh boy, big deal! So 8,000 units were shipped! We have been hearing for ages now how the Next was backordered by 20,000 units, and now we here that 8,000 have actually gone out! Whoopie! Why is it considered only one market period when it actually took over a year to ship them? I remember a few years back when the Pontiac Fiero was first made. It sold over 100,000 cars in its first year, which is 2-3 times more than the average car in its class. Next year, it dropped to 80,000 and then fizzled down to 50,000 in the next year. NeXT, it died out for good. Not impressed. (Actually, maybe I'll try that one on one of my professors. 'So what if it is the last week of the semester; I still am handing in all of my assignments in one huge lump.") -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN -- Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :)
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/08/91)
In article <-o2G3=mj1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991Apr7.042318.26991@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > "Professional workstations", eh? "We can't really sell that many systems so > we'll redefine our market segment to make us look good". Fine, then we'll > just define a market segment that includes the Amiga and excludes most of Apple > and IBM, and get results like these: > > Sales of personal workstations: > > IBM: 0 > Apple: 2000 > NeXT: 8000 > Commodore: 1,000,000 > > >Yeah, Commodore is #1. Now when will I be able to run Word Perfect >and Lotus(or Excel or Wingz or any big name spreadsheet) on it? > >-Mike > Do you own an Amiga? You need one of those first! I have run Word Perfect, Lotus, and a Mac version of Excel with absolutely no problems. Who do you think you are? Go out and get a Timex Sinclair. running on a $1000 computer too! a500 $499 ATonce $260 old B+W TV $FREE 2.5 megs ram $250 The best part is when you get to multitask IBM programs and Amiga programs at the same time with less than 10% loss in speed! David -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN -- Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :)
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (04/09/91)
In article <l86Gpn7k1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > Commdore is selling > millions of machines and they still haven't won, as demonstated by the > Computer Shopper dropping their coverage. Well, I don't think that being dropped from Computer Shopper has ANY impact on the Amiga or any other non-MS-DOS machine. This is a PC-DOS rag that tries to make it's self respectible by covering some other types of computers. It really made me sick to read an issue of this magazine (and I just that term lightly) just to see all this trash. > -Mike -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/09/91)
In article <l86Gpn7k1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Part of the marketing game has to do with how other people perceive >your machine. If the computer gets branded a "game machine", it will >take a long time for that to wear off, if ever, even if it don't >deserve the title. You can't explain to Fortune 500 companies that >games demonstrate the real power of a computer. So, what NeXT is >trying to do is proclaim themselves a success so that people who don't >understand computers will also perceive them as a success. NeXT is >fighting the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" disease. It's all >a marketing game, and YOU MUST PLAY TO WIN! That is the major reason >that I respect Apple. They took on IBM and won. They are the only >other PC alternative in the business world. Commdore is selling >millions of machines and they still haven't won, as demonstated by the >Computer Shopper dropping their coverage. > >-Mike I was wondering, have you ever sat down on an A3000 with some nice software on it? ...seen how snappy and responsive it is? Now that I think about it, I find it quite remarkable that you continue debating the advantages of NeXT vs the advantages of Amiga with out having ever spent any time on an Amiga. You seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage since most of the people who debate this subject here have spent some time on a NeXT. And speaking of marketing... I made several posts awhile back about why I thought Amiga will eventually become the #2 computer behind IBM/compatibles. You reinforced some of my arguments by refering to a Mac as a "Macintoy." Steve Jobs and his NeXT computer ...the whole things seems pretty flaky to me. Making hundreds of millions of dollars when you are in your twenties can can give you a feeling of inviciblity that will separate you from the rest of the world. The NeXT sounds like the beat all, do all, end all computer conceived by a mind coming unwrapped. ...the NeXT failure is going to play like a B movie and I'll bet a lot of people out there in the industry know it. I don't mean to be so negetive. It is just the way I see it and I'll tell you because you sound like a the kind of person who likes to hear whats on someone's mind. (Prob. esp. a really warped mind like mine!) NCW Note: The above opinions are probably the best you'll ever get.
#admiral@m-5.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) (04/09/91)
In article <?#3Ga72i1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > From comp.sys.next. > > =========================================================================== > From: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) > Newsgroups: comp.sys.next > Subject: NeXT Press Release > Date: 5 Apr 91 08:37:50 GMT > Reply-To: jclee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Lee) > Organization: University of California, Berkeley > > > The following is NeXT's press release on April 4. In the release it > has 2 figures showing Q1'91 UNIX Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 44,000 > HP 20,000 > DEC 8,000 > IBM 12,000 > NeXT 8,000 > > On Professional Workstation Shipments: > > SUN 11,000 > NeXT 8,000 > HP 3,000 > DEC 1,000 > IBM 1,000 > > Here's the release: > > NeXT SHIPS 8,000 CPUs IN FIRST QUARTER Makes NeXT One of > Leading Professional Workstation Vendors > > All of NeXT's shipments were into the professional > workstation category, making NeXT one of the leading vendors > in this segment. Professional workstations, unlike tradi- > tional scientific/technical workstations, are UNIX worksta- > tions designed for non-technical users. > > "In our first full quarter shipping the new systems, > we think NeXT has nearly matched market leader Sun in ship- > ments to the professional workstation segment," said Steven > P. Jobs, president and CEO of NeXT. "Customers are begin- > > What marketeze! At least if your going to make up a market segment you could at least think of one where your the leader. Mick ------------------------------------------------------------------- And for those of you who are a big fish in a small pond. The all new SHARKstation 1! Built in ethernet and buoyancy control. SHARKware applications. SUNdunk. The worlds leader in underwater workstations. Why? Because we can. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think there's a world market for about 5 computers." - Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of the Board, IBM (around 1948) ------------------------------------------------------------------- uucp: {anywhere}!sun!admiral -------------------------------------------------------------------
nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr09.034458.5317@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >I was wondering, have you ever sat down on an A3000 with some nice software >on it? ...seen how snappy and responsive it is? Now that I think about it, >I find it quite remarkable that you continue debating the advantages of NeXT >vs the advantages of Amiga with out having ever spent any time on an Amiga. >You seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage since most of the people who >debate this subject here have spent some time on a NeXT. Show me a nice productivity software for A3000 that can match the NeXT stuffs! ProVector and PageStream are quite nice. Haven't see Super Base IV so I can't tell. In the area of spreadsheets Amiga is really weak. Wordprocessing is pretty weak also. Haven't seen a program that uses the Amiga's potentials yet. Amiga's only advantage is in the multimedia stuffs. NeXT is a pretty nice system. I don't know why all the Amiga people are trying to make having Display Postscript sound like something bad to have. It's like when Amiga had multitasking, all the IBM people said that it's needed. Now the Amiga people are doing the same thing. If DP is bad why is C= trying to get CompuGraphic Font support in 2.x??? The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. By the way, I have an A3000/25!!!
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/10/91)
From article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen): > NeXT is a pretty nice system. I don't know why all the Amiga people are > trying to make having Display Postscript sound like something bad to have. It's nice. But it's a processor hog, and it's useless for many things that I do every day. Do you honestly believe your term program NEEDS to have DP? What about a spreadsheet? Your screen blanker? Your games? The list goes on. > needed. Now the Amiga people are doing the same thing. If DP is bad > why is C= trying to get CompuGraphic Font support in 2.x??? I'm sure that if you thought long and hard enough, your brain cell could tell you that scaleable fonts and DP have between little and nothing in common... > The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when > I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not > just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have > several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. > > By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! Not sure what you mean on that last part... Anyways, you wouldn't notice the slowdown. Seriously. Have you ever run Mach WITHOUT DP? No. Why? You can't. So how can you say the slowdown isn't that noticeable. Compared to what??? -- - gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the ________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (04/11/91)
In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen): >> NeXT is a pretty nice system. I don't know why all the Amiga people are >> trying to make having Display Postscript sound like something bad to have. > >It's nice. But it's a processor hog, and it's useless for many things >that I do every day. >Do you honestly believe your term program NEEDS >to have DP? What about a spreadsheet? Your screen blanker? My term program isn't slowed down by PostScript. The serial port is the bottleneck here. My spreadsheet isn't slowed down by PostScript. Processor speed is the bottleneck here. These are really horrible examples. I wonder what Gregory has against DPS? I wonder what he wants to run at blinding speeds that DPS won't let him do? >Your games? I think I've found my answer. Well, Greg, on an old '030 NeXT running 1.0, DPS was fast enough to run a reasonable flight simulator. But if you're a serious gamer, and you need a serious game machine, buy an Amiga. >> The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when >> I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not >> just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have >> several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. >> >> By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! > >Not sure what you mean on that last part... Anyways, you wouldn't >notice the slowdown. Seriously. I don't think it was a hypothetical situation. Thien was saying that it _did_ slow down and he _did_ notice the difference. >Have you ever run Mach WITHOUT DP? >No. Why? You can't. So how can you say the slowdown isn't that >noticeable. Compared to what??? Well, yes I have run Mach without DPS. Why? Because I can. When I first got my system I decided to test it out and see how much DPS would slow everything down. I wish I had saved the exact timings, but a 45 minute ray- trace took about 30 seconds less in single user mode (with no Window Server running). What do you think it is about DPS that slows things down? You can't draw as many polygons/minute as you could on an Amiga (unless you've got a NeXTDimension), but it doesn't bring every application you try to run to a crawl. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
thomas@tubkom.prz.tu-berlin.de (Thomas Hensel) (04/11/91)
> >Show me a nice productivity software for A3000 that can match the NeXT >stuffs! ProVector and PageStream are quite nice. Haven't seen Compare editors and find out, that the TURBOTEXT editor can match ... >Super Base IV so I can't tell. In the area of spreadsheets Amiga is >really weak. Wordprocessing is pretty weak also. Haven't seen a program ^^^^^ You are so right ...:-< >that uses the Amiga's potentials yet. All programs using ARexx do this. > >Amiga's only advantage is in the multimedia stuffs. ^^^^ not true - see above > >NeXT is a pretty nice system. I don't know why all the Amiga people are >trying to make having Display Postscript sound like something bad to have. So do I. [ ... Stuff deleted ... ] >By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! I have an A2000A connected via DNET to a 040 NeXT-Station and I use both :-) -- #-#--thomas@tubkom.prz.tu-berlin.de-----#--Thomas Hensel----------#-# #-#-#--eunet : thomas@tubkom.UUCP---------#--Technical University---#-#-# #-#-#--X400 : C=de;A=dbp;P=tu-berlin;----#----of Berlin (TUB)------#-#-# #-#----------OU=prz;OU=tubkom;S=hensel--#--Voice (030) 314 25092--#-#
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (04/11/91)
In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen): > >> The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when >> I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not >> just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have >> several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. >> >> By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! > >Not sure what you mean on that last part... Anyways, you wouldn't >notice the slowdown. Seriously. Have you ever run Mach WITHOUT DP? >No. Why? You can't. So how can you say the slowdown isn't that ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can bring up a NeXT machine in single user mode vs. multi-user mode. In single user mode you don't load the window manager and you have a Unix box with just a plain old command line. >noticeable. Compared to what??? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So you compare times for benchmarks running in a term window under DP and running in single user mode. You obviously know nothing about a NeXT except what you have read and that isn't much. >-- >- gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple > Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not >Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the >________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (04/12/91)
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: -In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: ->From article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen): -> ->> The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when ->> I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not ->> just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have ->> several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. ->> ->> By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! -> ->Not sure what you mean on that last part... Anyways, you wouldn't ->notice the slowdown. Seriously. Have you ever run Mach WITHOUT DP? ->No. Why? You can't. So how can you say the slowdown isn't that -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -You can bring up a NeXT machine in single user mode vs. multi-user mode. -In single user mode you don't load the window manager and you have a -Unix box with just a plain old command line. Or just telnet/rlogin/dialin to the machine. No DP there. I do it all the time. Makes a REAL NICE timesharing Unix box. BSD too. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/12/91)
From article <b1oN02Tl06q701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > You can bring up a NeXT machine in single user mode vs. multi-user mode. > In single user mode you don't load the window manager and you have a > Unix box with just a plain old command line. Exactly how do you do this? It's not like I have access to cabling or anything. It's not as if I could disconnect it from the network. And if you do this, maybe the fact that it's expecting display postscript and the routines for using non-display postscript systems just aren't as advanced... Maybe they're close tothe same speed. Do a benchmark while using the term program with the exact same load, say a stream of continuous characters ata certain baudrate being spewn to the screen without DP, and then with DP. Post the difference, and I'll believe it. Until then, you have proved little. > > You obviously know nothing about a NeXT except what you have read and that > isn't much. And you're obviously underinformed, and lack proof in any of the statements you make here. Do the above and I'll believe you. -- - gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the ________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
jmauric@hubcap.clemson.edu (Phantom of Adexsi) (04/12/91)
From article <b1oN02Tl06q701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>From article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen): >> >>> The slow down is not that noticable. In fact, it runs quite fast even when >>> I have many windows opened on the screen. Also the whole window moves, not >>> just the outline. Try to move the windows on the Amiga, when you have >>> several windows opened --- it slows down noticeably even on A3000 with 2.x. >>> >>> By the way, I have an A3000/25!!! >> actually there is a PD/Shareware program called WIN which lets you move the whole window on the amiga. its available at the AB20 ftp site. --john -- =============================================================================== !X! Music Edit Tools Special ! 999999999 Bytes Free =====! !================================================================= !#Opera#!______
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/13/91)
In article <2802B910.22818@orion.oac.uci.edu> nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen) writes: >In article <1991Apr09.034458.5317@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >> >>I was wondering, have you ever sat down on an A3000 with some nice software >>on it? ...seen how snappy and responsive it is? Now that I think about it, >>I find it quite remarkable that you continue debating the advantages of NeXT >>vs the advantages of Amiga with out having ever spent any time on an Amiga. >>You seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage since most of the people who >>debate this subject here have spent some time on a NeXT. > >Show me a nice productivity software for A3000 that can match the NeXT >stuffs! ProVector and PageStream are quite nice. Haven't see >Super Base IV so I can't tell. In the area of spreadsheets Amiga is >really weak. Wordprocessing is pretty weak also. Haven't seen a program >that uses the Amiga's potentials yet. Exactly. YOU haven't seen them yet. YOU haven't heard about them. Ever hear about how incredibly awesome MacPaint is? Lots of Mac users loved it for a long time...but sit that next to DPaint III and watch them SQUIRM! Just because Word Perfect is froma big company and is used by lots of people doesn't mean that it is a strong program. I used WP, and found that it is nearly impossible to learn how to use it in less than a month. Too many helps screens and keyboard commands to remember. I learned how to use Pro Write and excellence! within an HOUR. Plus, it has always had color graphics support.... > >Amiga's only advantage is in the multimedia stuffs. > NeXT's only advantage is the 68040. Let's see how long the advantage lasts (I say one more month). What about the Amiga's animation, sound, 3D modeling, multitasking, cli, games, video, affordability, software emulation, ... -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :) Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/13/91)
From article <2323@pdxgate.UUCP>, by hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh): > In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > My term program isn't slowed down by PostScript. The serial port is the > bottleneck here. My spreadsheet isn't slowed down by PostScript. Processor > speed is the bottleneck here. These are really horrible examples. I wonder > what Gregory has against DPS? I wonder what he wants to run at blinding > speeds that DPS won't let him do? Ya, right. Okay, let's take the spreadsheet on in particular. DISPLAYING the spreadsheet. It's the processor's fault? It's the fault of the slow, obtrusive, and generally dumb 040. Maybe you should rethink this. I'm talking about anything display intensive. And frankly, it's faster on the amiga because there ISN'T dp. > > I think I've found my answer. Well, Greg, on an old '030 NeXT running 1.0, > DPS was fast enough to run a reasonable flight simulator. But if you're a > serious gamer, and you need a serious game machine, buy an Amiga. Flight simulators don't display much. They just calculate. And since DP takes up little cpu time if it's NOT displaying, it won't get in the way of calculations, will it??? > I don't think it was a hypothetical situation. Thien was saying that it > _did_ slow down and he _did_ notice the difference. Uh, I don't experience any slowdown, how many windows are we talking about here? 14? 15? 20? How many people really use that many windows? And what was running in the background at such a high priority? > Well, yes I have run Mach without DPS. Why? Because I can. When I first > got my system I decided to test it out and see how much DPS would slow > everything down. I wish I had saved the exact timings, but a 45 minute ray- > trace took about 30 seconds less in single user mode (with no Window > Server running). Oh, and I imagine a raytrace is just SOOOOOOO display intensive, huh? I didn't say that DP took up cpu time like a pig when it WASN'T being used, did I??? Duh. > What do you think it is about DPS that slows things down? You can't draw as > many polygons/minute as you could on an Amiga (unless you've got a > NeXTDimension), but it doesn't bring every application you try to run to a > crawl. Interpreted language slows it down. Period. No, you can't draw as many polygons per minute, and I doubt it will, unless you're running a 68090 over a stock 68000. And whether or not it brings it to a crawl doesn't mean it doesn't help to degrade the performance of an otherwise lightningly-wicked computer. -- - gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the ________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (04/14/91)
In article <11007@uwm.edu>, gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > From article <2323@pdxgate.UUCP>, by hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh): > >> What do you think it is about DPS that slows things down? You can't draw as >> many polygons/minute as you could on an Amiga (unless you've got a >> NeXTDimension), but it doesn't bring every application you try to run to a >> crawl. > > Interpreted language slows it down. Period. No, you can't draw as > many polygons per minute, and I doubt it will, unless you're running a > 68090 over a stock 68000. And whether or not it brings it to a crawl > doesn't mean it doesn't help to degrade the performance of an > otherwise lightningly-wicked computer. Well, actually Display Postscript is an _encoded_ interpreted language. And when you program, you usually make PostScriptWraps, which are compiled to binary routines. Display Postscript isn't just "postscript on the screen", it's more efficient than plain old printer postscript. And who cares if the Display Postscript is a bit slower than some else graphic output system. The key word here is _functionality_. I think Display Postscript is one of the NeXT's _strong_ points, not a weakness. By the way, the same philosophy lies behind the choice of the "system programming language". Objective C sure is a bit slower than plain C, but which one would you rather program with? The 68040 has enough power to give for these features and much more. Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (04/15/91)
In article <11007@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <2323@pdxgate.UUCP>, by hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh): >> In article <10922@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >> My term program isn't slowed down by PostScript. The serial port is the >> bottleneck here. My spreadsheet isn't slowed down by PostScript. Processor >> speed is the bottleneck here. These are really horrible examples. I wonder >> what Gregory has against DPS? I wonder what he wants to run at blinding >> speeds that DPS won't let him do? > >Ya, right. Okay, let's take the spreadsheet on in particular. >DISPLAYING the spreadsheet. It's the processor's fault? It's the >fault of the slow, obtrusive, and generally dumb 040. Maybe you >should rethink this. I'm talking about anything display intensive. >And frankly, it's faster on the amiga because there ISN'T dp. The terminal emulator I'm running on the '030 NeXT in front of me scrolls back and forth between my previous screens in real time. I don't know what advantage you'd get on an Amiga. (Faster than real time? :-) I haven't felt the need to use my copy of Improv yet, but I don't see any reason why it would be any slower drawing a couple hundred columns of text than this would be. I don't know how you got this idea into your head that you'll be twiddling your thumbs while you waiting for a block of text to pop up, but it's completely false. It probably does take longer to draw a page of text, but it's very hard for a human being to tell the difference between 10ms and 100ms. >Flight simulators don't display much. They just calculate. And since >DP takes up little cpu time if it's NOT displaying, it won't get in >the way of calculations, will it??? Which is more display intensive: animating a hundred polygons or drawing a couple hundred lines of text? Spreadsheets and terminal emulators don't display much. They just calculate. (Well, I suppose terminal emulators read data from ttys). So... DPS won't affect the spreadsheet or terminal emulator user. (At least it won't affect it more than it will affect the flight simulator user) >> Well, yes I have run Mach without DPS. Why? Because I can. When I first >> got my system I decided to test it out and see how much DPS would slow >> everything down. I wish I had saved the exact timings, but a 45 minute ray- >> trace took about 30 seconds less in single user mode (with no Window >> Server running). > >Oh, and I imagine a raytrace is just SOOOOOOO display intensive, huh? >I didn't say that DP took up cpu time like a pig when it WASN'T being >used, did I??? Duh. So what you're saying is that unless you're running video games in the background or furiosly waving your windows around the screen, your programs won't be slowed down by Display Postscript. >Interpreted language slows it down. Period. No, you can't draw as >many polygons per minute, and I doubt it will, unless you're running a >68090 over a stock 68000. And whether or not it brings it to a crawl >doesn't mean it doesn't help to degrade the performance of an >otherwise lightningly-wicked computer. Try comparing Quickdraw (not interpreted) on a 25mhz Mac IIfx agains DPS on an '030 NeXT. The Amiga is faster than either one of thses because it has special graphics hardware. The Mac is not much faster than a NeXT. For a ~10% speed decrease, you get a graphics environment that's powerful, easy to program, and consistent across devices. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/15/91)
In article <2361@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) writes:
Try comparing Quickdraw (not interpreted) on a 25mhz Mac IIfx agains DPS on
an '030 NeXT. The Amiga is faster than either one of thses because it has
special graphics hardware. The Mac is not much faster than a NeXT. For a
~10% speed decrease, you get a graphics environment that's powerful, easy to
program, and consistent across devices.
Ahem, the IIfx is a 40MHz machine. And does the IIfx display graphics
faster than the NeXT? It's been mentioned more than once on the net
that the 10MHz NuBus on the Mac is a bottleneck for graphics. I'm not
an engineer so I can't elaborate. Does anyone else have more
information? The 040 Macs to be release in the fall will have a 20MHz
NuBus, though.
-Mikeeww@engr.ucf.edu (Mr. Eric W. Wampner) (04/15/91)
In article <10956@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <b1oN02Tl06q701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): <One user says single user cli based is something?> > <Another user doesn't believe him, wants benchmarks, etc> > <And they get kind of abusive too.> Well, all of this seems to be about Display Postscript, right, well, I probably shouldn't spout off, but I think I am qualified to speak, got amiga 1000 and work on a couple of 040 NeXTs. Of course, it really isn't a fair comparison at all, since one is designed for one console and multiply tty users, different display types, the incongruities of unix, etc and has a much more powerfull processor than any ami i know of yet. The other one is designed for one particular type of display, and a single user, a streamlined, small os, and multiple task specific chips. I don't think you all have really got it through your minds, diffrent needs beget different breeds. A comparison must have some referent. You are comparing the display types designed with different methodologies, one for really fast adequately colored graphics which do not tie down the processor to bad. The other for excellent graphcis with some speed traded off against the idea of display independant graphics. I think the NeXTs are great fun, but sometimes I do battle with NeXTinfo other times I have to put up with high system overhead. And of course, HUGE file size, I would hate to have to live in 100mb. My amiga 1000 occasionally annoys me with its memory (only 2.5 mb), slow speed, but I get by with the low mem and only a 20mb drive. I like both, Digital Webster, Stealth, F/A 18, Empire, Scribble! I like my amiga at home, wouldn't want a NeXT, and while I might contemplate a 3000UX, I think I would rather have a NeXT at work. Eric Wampner Disclaimer: Not paid for ideas. eww@engr.ucf.edu
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/16/91)
From article <2361@pdxgate.UUCP>, by hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh): > The terminal emulator I'm running on the '030 NeXT in front of me scrolls > back and forth between my previous screens in real time. I don't know what > advantage you'd get on an Amiga. (Faster than real time? :-) I haven't felt > the need to use my copy of Improv yet, but I don't see any reason why it would > be any slower drawing a couple hundred columns of text than this would be. Gee, I thought that was the point I was trying to make. That spreadsheets aren't much in the way of intensivity of screen stufff. Of course, people on the Amiga scream sometimes if it's not as fast as CED, which is supposed to be INSTANTANEOUS. Everything is on the screen at once, I guess. Definitely not something I think that DP could handle, compiled or not. If you can render a page of text onscreen INSTANTLY, tell me. > I don't know how you got this idea into your head that you'll be twiddling your > thumbs while you waiting for a block of text to pop up, but it's completely > false. It probably does take longer to draw a page of text, but it's very > hard for a human being to tell the difference between 10ms and 100ms. I didn't say it was THAT slow, please don't put words into my mouth. I just was saying it adds to the overall sluggishness of the NextStep system. I think it would be better if it were more responsive, and there isn't much that DP is good for. Not to make it worth slowing down the whole system. There are things that you NEED to do with a windowing system that would not need DP, and if you could turn it off, you'd speed up the windowing system just enough so that it wouldn't feel like spongy cheese. > Which is more display intensive: animating a hundred polygons or drawing > a couple hundred lines of text? Spreadsheets and terminal emulators don't > display much. They just calculate. (Well, I suppose terminal emulators read > data from ttys). So... DPS won't affect the spreadsheet or terminal emulator > user. (At least it won't affect it more than it will affect the flight > simulator user) At high enough speeds, it would interfere all right. I'm not talking about 2400 baud here. > So what you're saying is that unless you're running video games in the > background or furiosly waving your windows around the screen, your programs > won't be slowed down by Display Postscript. So you're trying to tell me that video games and waving windows around are the only thing that takes up display time??? Is that it? What about things like screen-redraws of graphics. I'm not talking bitmap. With the amiga, you can optimize your own routines. With DP, you can only hope that it's optimized, which it isn't. Take a look at the code sometime. > > Try comparing Quickdraw (not interpreted) on a 25mhz Mac IIfx agains DPS on > an '030 NeXT. The Amiga is faster than either one of thses because it has > special graphics hardware. The Mac is not much faster than a NeXT. For a > ~10% speed decrease, you get a graphics environment that's powerful, easy to > program, and consistent across devices. > > Aaron Harsh > hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, don't it? -- - gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the ________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/16/91)
Hey, DP is a great idea... but why did NeXT split the market by inventing it over again from scratch instead of adapting and polishing NeWS? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/16/91)
Perhaps someone at GFXbase would care to comment on the speed of AmigaOS running NeWS... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.012744.21996@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
Hey, DP is a great idea... but why did NeXT split the market by inventing it
over again from scratch instead of adapting and polishing NeWS?
They would have to pay royalties to Sun, a competitor?
It would look bad using a News since it was already beaten by X.
I'm sure that you could probably think of a few more.
-Mikekls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (04/17/91)
In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <2361@pdxgate.UUCP>, by hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh): >> I don't know how you got this idea into your head that you'll be twiddling your >> thumbs while you waiting for a block of text to pop up, but it's completely >> false. It probably does take longer to draw a page of text, but it's very >> hard for a human being to tell the difference between 10ms and 100ms. > >I didn't say it was THAT slow, please don't put words into my mouth. >I just was saying it adds to the overall sluggishness of the NextStep >system. I think it would be better if it were more responsive, and >there isn't much that DP is good for. Not to make it worth slowing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Next time you need true WYSIWYG tell me that DP has no uses. Try printing on an Amiga or Mac and tell me it is WYSIWYG. >down the whole system. There are things that you NEED to do with a >windowing system that would not need DP, and if you could turn it off, >you'd speed up the windowing system just enough so that it wouldn't >feel like spongy cheese. Try any windowing system on a 17" monitor. Drawing 1 million pixels is takes up CPU time even on a SUN. > >> So what you're saying is that unless you're running video games in the >> background or furiosly waving your windows around the screen, your programs >> won't be slowed down by Display Postscript. > >So you're trying to tell me that video games and waving windows around >are the only thing that takes up display time??? Is that it? What >about things like screen-redraws of graphics. I'm not talking bitmap. >With the amiga, you can optimize your own routines. With DP, you can >only hope that it's optimized, which it isn't. Take a look at the >code sometime. > >> >> Try comparing Quickdraw (not interpreted) on a 25mhz Mac IIfx agains DPS on >> an '030 NeXT. The Amiga is faster than either one of thses because it has >> special graphics hardware. The Mac is not much faster than a NeXT. For a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Have you ever worked on a Mac with a large screen, definitely slower than a NeXT. Screen updates are slow as molasses in winter. >> ~10% speed decrease, you get a graphics environment that's powerful, easy to >> program, and consistent across devices. >> >> Aaron Harsh >> hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu > >And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never >said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. >If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. >QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, >don't it? Try Quickdraw on a SE or any Mac for that matter, but with a 17" monitor with resolution > 1120x832 and see what the response is.Slooooooow. What you people fail to realize is that unless you are comparing systems with the same on screen resolution you are comparing apples and oranges. I bet an Amiga slows down when it has to update a screen with 1 million pixels. Face the facts, on large screens, windowing sucks up CPU cycles no matter what platform. Also Unix has overhead that slows the CPU. So compare an Amiga or Mac running Unix and a windowing system and see what happens, slower still. >-- >- gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple > Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not >Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the >________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) (04/17/91)
Just fanning the flames......... But...
NeXt just announced that the NeXT dimension board WILL NOT have a
JPEG chip in it. Possibly they will be leaving a "hole" for it. This
is totally C-CUBE's fault. So I guess this sort of kills "nifty" full
motion video onthe NeXT. :-(
--
adam hill -- hill@evax.uta.edu ASOCC - University of Texas at UTA
I programmed for three days Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA!
And heard no human voices. Amiga... Multimedia NOW!
But the hard disk sang. - TZoP Born To Run SVR4gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/18/91)
From article <c9GH02Nl06X.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > Next time you need true WYSIWYG tell me that DP has no uses. Try printing > on an Amiga or Mac and tell me it is WYSIWYG. I do. But how many of my everyday applications need wysiwig? Yes, my WP does. Yes, even maybe I could push it with spreadsheets. Okay, I'll even give you databases, and then DTP. What now? > >>down the whole system. There are things that you NEED to do with a >>windowing system that would not need DP, and if you could turn it off, >>you'd speed up the windowing system just enough so that it wouldn't >>feel like spongy cheese. > > Try any windowing system on a 17" monitor. Drawing 1 million pixels is > takes up CPU time even on a SUN. Yes, but would it be faster doing it WITHOUT DP? That's the question. I don't care HOW much slower it is, something that slow doesn't need ANYTHING to make it slower. And then it should be an option. I like DP, don't get me wrong. But I want to be able to SELECT it. > Have you ever worked on a Mac with a large screen, definitely slower than > a NeXT. Screen updates are slow as molasses in winter. Yes, I have, and not really. I was working with their Radius big-screen on a Mac IIcx at the time. And it was actually more responsive than NeXTStep. I didn't like the SIZE of the monitor, though. Larger than I needed... MUUUUUUCH larger... > >>And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never >>said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. >>If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. >>QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, >>don't it? > > Try Quickdraw on a SE or any Mac for that matter, but with a 17" monitor > with resolution > 1120x832 and see what the response is.Slooooooow. Right, I forgot about that. Of course, then just give them more equal processors. It beats your precious, costly baby in speed on their IIcx. I think it beat it on the II (68020, 16mhz) with the same monitor as I was mentioning before, but the only time I really played with it was when the II first came out... > > What you people fail to realize is that unless you are comparing systems > with the same on screen resolution you are comparing apples and oranges. > I bet an Amiga slows down when it has to update a screen with 1 million > pixels. Then again, you really can't be sure... You've never seen it, as most haven't. Anyone try it on a hedley, or anything with a large monitor? > > Face the facts, on large screens, windowing sucks up CPU cycles no matter > what platform. Also Unix has overhead that slows the CPU. So compare an > Amiga or Mac running Unix and a windowing system and see what happens, > slower still. > Yes, but when windowing is NECESSARY, why suck up more than you need to? How is it that other systems have wysiwig without running a global meltdown-like DP over the whole system like Mort hangs over a cat? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/18/91)
In article <11113@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: Yes, but would it be faster doing it WITHOUT DP? That's the question. I don't care HOW much slower it is, something that slow doesn't need ANYTHING to make it slower. And then it should be an option. I like DP, don't get me wrong. But I want to be able to SELECT it. Do you get to select multitasking? On Unix machines is virtual memory and memory protection an option. Quit your whining. How much faster would it be w/o DP? What purpose would it serve? Would a 10% speedup make a difference? Animation might be a little faster, but not fast enough for video. I suppose that you want to write directly to video memory too? > Have you ever worked on a Mac with a large screen, definitely slower than > a NeXT. Screen updates are slow as molasses in winter. Yes, I have, and not really. I was working with their Radius big-screen on a Mac IIcx at the time. And it was actually more responsive than NeXTStep. I didn't like the SIZE of the monitor, though. Larger than I needed... MUUUUUUCH larger... Are you using NeXTStep 2.0 with an 040 board? How much memory is in the NeXT. The responsiveness(or lack of) is more than likely due to paging. This has been covered before!! If you learn a little bit more about computers, then you will be able to understand why certain problems occur and then fix them or avoid them. Yes, but when windowing is NECESSARY, why suck up more than you need to? How is it that other systems have wysiwig without running a global meltdown-like DP over the whole system like Mort hangs over a cat? What other systems have wysiwig displays? -Mike
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/18/91)
In article <c9GH02Nl06X.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: > Face the facts, on large screens, windowing sucks up CPU cycles no matter > what platform. Also Unix has overhead that slows the CPU. So compare an > Amiga or Mac running Unix and a windowing system and see what happens, > slower still. That's why people put extra CPUs in to speed up windowing. Well, everyone except NeXT... their extra CPU is for, um, well they'll think of something... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/18/91)
In article <jqdGj55r1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > In article <1991Apr16.012744.21996@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Hey, DP is a great idea... but why did NeXT split the market by inventing it > over again from scratch instead of adapting and polishing NeWS? > They would have to pay royalties to Sun, a competitor? That doesn't seem to bother people like Solbourne, or in another field it doesn't bother SCO to be paying royalties to AT&T. For that matter, NeXT does that too. > It would look bad using a News since it was already beaten by X. NeWS was "beaten" by X on price. What they implemented is a subset of NeWS... this is supposed to be an advantage? > I'm sure that you could probably think of a few more. I'm trying. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr) (04/18/91)
In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > >And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never >said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. >If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. >QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, >don't it? Says nothing. Having seen both quickdraw on a 68000 and DP on a 68040, I can say that there is no question whatsoever that DP is way faster. True, it would be awful on a 68000, but with a 68040, there's no problem. As for this thread on the speed of DP, it seems to me that if everyone could calm down and see that although DP is not made for heavy duty animation, it is still a good system, and--IF THERE ARE THIS MANY NeXT PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO LIKE IT, THEN-JUST MAYBE-IT CAN'T BE AS AWFUL AS ALL THE AMIGA FOLKS ARE SAYING... matt
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/19/91)
From article <d!bGv+2s1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Do you get to select multitasking? Actually, YES, I do. > On Unix machines is virtual memory > and memory protection an option. Quit your whining. How much faster > would it be w/o DP? What purpose would it serve? Would a 10% speedup > make a difference? Animation might be a little faster, but not fast > enough for video. I suppose that you want to write directly to video > memory too? Ten percent would be just fine. 10% of 25 mips. Gee, that sounds good. I'll take it. It would speed up NeXTStep just enough so that it doesn't feel sluggish. 10% would be just fine. I don't want realtime video, bud. I just want it to feel good. > Are you using NeXTStep 2.0 with an 040 board? How much memory is in > the NeXT. The responsiveness(or lack of) is more than likely due to > paging. This has been covered before!! If you learn a little bit > more about computers, then you will be able to understand why certain > problems occur and then fix them or avoid them. 16 megabytes enough? I've seen it on an eight, and I understand that. But it shouldn't happen in 16. Maybe if you didn't open you mouth a week before you think about saying, you'd cut the rude comments, and get to the point. Right now, there's only one problem I see, and I'm talking to it. Cut the BS, and keep your points. 4 lines of that were enough to make your point. > > What other systems have wysiwig displays? > Macintosh, pal. At least it's close enough. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (04/19/91)
In article <d!bGv+2s1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Do you get to select multitasking? Yes. In several ways, even. >On Unix machines is virtual memory and memory protection an option. Isn't shared memory always "real" memory, and unprotected? [Going from very ancient Unix manuals...] Regardless, there's a special processor built into your computer to take care of these items. Is there one for the NeXT's graphics? >Quit your whining. How much faster >would it be w/o DP? What purpose would it serve? It'd be faster, dude. What's the question again? Any real-time system will require every reasonable ounce of speed. It's one of the reasons why you don't page over a network. >The responsiveness(or lack of) is more than likely due to >paging. This has been covered before!! You're quite right, it has. Mind reminding us what it is that your pager keeps paging in and out of memory? No? Can you say "window system overhead?" or "Unix kernel overhead?" I knew you could. >What other systems have wysiwig displays? Your argument would be more compelling stated as: "What other systems have device independent graphics?" After all, any TV is a wysiwyg display. Truly, What You See is What You Get. Of course, it's the only thing you get, but that's my point, eh. In which case I could name several vendors selling several layers of device independent graphics. For the Mac and for the PC. You may argue their success in the technique, but... Even PostScript has its problems. See <<kerning>>, for one. Remember Mike, you're talking to people who multi-task in 512k. The reasons for DP had better be *real* compelling. :) :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/19/91)
From article <30178@cs.yale.edu>, by pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr): > > Says nothing. Having seen both quickdraw on a 68000 and DP on a 68040, I > can say that there is no question whatsoever that DP is way faster. True, > it would be awful on a 68000, but with a 68040, there's no problem. uhh, THAT says nothing. You're comparing 68040 to 68000.... No deal. > > As for this thread on the speed of DP, it seems to me that if everyone could > calm down and see that although DP is not made for heavy duty animation, > it is still a good system, and--IF THERE ARE THIS MANY NeXT PEOPLE OUT THERE > WHO LIKE IT, THEN-JUST MAYBE-IT CAN'T BE AS AWFUL AS ALL THE AMIGA FOLKS ARE > SAYING... > > matt I'm not saying it's awful. But if you can get a 10% increase on an 040 next by not running it, an EXTRA 2.5 MIPS FOR APPLICATION USE, wouldn't you like it? I mean 2.5 mips is almost an extra 68030... greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/19/91)
In article <11145@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: Ten percent would be just fine. 10% of 25 mips. Gee, that sounds good. I'll take it. It would speed up NeXTStep just enough so that it doesn't feel sluggish. 10% would be just fine. I don't want realtime video, bud. I just want it to feel good. NeXTStep doesn't feel sluggish. At least because of the CPU. > > What other systems have wysiwig displays? > Macintosh, pal. At least it's close enough. Then why True Type and Adobe Font Manager? -Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/19/91)
From article <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > > NeXTStep doesn't feel sluggish. At least because of the CPU. Then what's fault is it? It's DP's fault, if it takes up 10%. Of course, that's oversimplification. If they did some severe optimization, maybe even hand-optimization, and knocked off 10% system overhead, it would be awesome. > > Then why True Type and Adobe Font Manager? > To use adobe. Just because it's not display postscript doesn't mean it's not wysiwig... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (04/19/91)
In article <11113@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <c9GH02Nl06X.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): >> In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>>down the whole system. There are things that you NEED to do with a >>>windowing system that would not need DP, and if you could turn it off, >>>you'd speed up the windowing system just enough so that it wouldn't >>>feel like spongy cheese. >> >> Try any windowing system on a 17" monitor. Drawing 1 million pixels is >> takes up CPU time even on a SUN. > >Yes, but would it be faster doing it WITHOUT DP? That's the question. >I don't care HOW much slower it is, something that slow doesn't need >ANYTHING to make it slower. And then it should be an option. I like >DP, don't get me wrong. But I want to be able to SELECT it. > If you don't want graphics on a Mac you are stuck. If you don't want X or NeWS on a Sun you get command line Unix. The NeXT is no different. DP is the display model. If you don't have DP you get nothing. It is an entire client/server model. If you turn it off where is your window manager. Oh I get it you want something other than DP. >> Have you ever worked on a Mac with a large screen, definitely slower than >> a NeXT. Screen updates are slow as molasses in winter. > >Yes, I have, and not really. I was working with their Radius >big-screen on a Mac IIcx at the time. And it was actually more >responsive than NeXTStep. I didn't like the SIZE of the monitor, >though. Larger than I needed... MUUUUUUCH larger... > I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors using software called Design Works, which is a logic design entry and simulation program. It is very screen intensive. When running that program with simulation off, the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. My NeXT even when it was an '030 was never, ever that slow, even with multiple programs running. The Mac display model when using a large screen even on an IIfx is slower than my NeXT. >> >>>And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never >>>said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. >>>If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. >>>QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, >>>don't it? Postscript does run on a 68000. Next time yopu use a postscript printer it could be a 68000 doing the processing. Remember postscript is a uniform, device independent display model. >> >> Try Quickdraw on a SE or any Mac for that matter, but with a 17" monitor >> with resolution > 1120x832 and see what the response is.Slooooooow. > >Right, I forgot about that. Of course, then just give them more equal >processors. It beats your precious, costly baby in speed on their >IIcx. I think it beat it on the II (68020, 16mhz) with the same >monitor as I was mentioning before, but the only time I really played >with it was when the II first came out... I've used the Mac with a large screen and it was slow, too slow. Oh, costly. You call a NeXT costly. I have the educational price list for Apple right here. A IIci with 80meg HD and 4mb memory is $4300 plus I still need a keyboard and monitor. Compare to a Mac with -good- performance a NeXT is cheap. By the time you add either a 17in mono or color monitor to a IIci, I could have bought a NeXTstation 200 in mono or color to compare. Don't even try to compare a IIfx to a NeXT. The IIfx is II f***n' expensive. The educational prices for the A3000ux aren't all that great either. > >> >> What you people fail to realize is that unless you are comparing systems >> with the same on screen resolution you are comparing apples and oranges. >> I bet an Amiga slows down when it has to update a screen with 1 million >> pixels. > >Then again, you really can't be sure... You've never seen it, as most >haven't. Anyone try it on a hedley, or anything with a large monitor? > >> >> Face the facts, on large screens, windowing sucks up CPU cycles no matter >> what platform. Also Unix has overhead that slows the CPU. So compare an >> Amiga or Mac running Unix and a windowing system and see what happens, >> slower still. >> > >Yes, but when windowing is NECESSARY, why suck up more than you need >to? How is it that other systems have wysiwig without running a >global meltdown-like DP over the whole system like Mort hangs over a cat? > Don't use the windowing system. You can always run command line Unix. All you have to do is boot the machine and don't start the window server. But then all you get is command line Unix and no windowing system. BTW - If you want wysiwyg on a Mac you go into preview mode and talk about meltdown. I was using Adobe Illustrator on a Mac and wanted to see exactly what it would look like when my document printed. On a IIci it took 30 sec. and this was no complex drawing. It still turned out not to be what was displayed on the screen, but it was close enough. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. >Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. > -Wubba -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/19/91)
In article <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >NeXTStep doesn't feel sluggish. At least because of the CPU. I thought you said you were a NeXT developer... The NeXTStep _I_ saw and used (YES, version 2.0 on an 040 box) _was_ sluggish. Sure you have a NeXT there? ;-) Certainly if you're not doing anything except playing with the GUI it's bearable. If you start doing _anything_ it slows down to much slower than any other Unix box it's supposed to be comparable to. For example, the SPARC 1+ feels at least twice as fast. The SPARC 1 (more equal in CPU power) feels about 1.5 times as fast. BTW, my comparison is based on machines with 8MB of RAM in each case. Each of them swapped some, but the NeXT swapped a great deal more than the Suns. They were all running similar programs in a similar configuration. Here's a project: Run some of those little graphic demos that come with the NeXT (at least the demo version at our microcenter). Now, make sure you're not running anything else and you're only running one at a time so that you're not swapping like crazy. NOW, compare them to similar demos that came out in early '86 on the Amiga. The NeXT can't draw triangles (or whatever the particular demo is) as fast as a 68K with a blitter. NOW try and tell me DP isn't sluggish. I've seen X demos get a lot better response. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (04/19/91)
In article <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <11145@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > Macintosh, pal. At least it's close enough. > >Then why True Type and Adobe Font Manager? Because many and/or large bitmaps take up too much space, and because many users have been suckered into thinking their very functional systems just HAVE to have the ability to display type sizes they'll never use. Also, when you have lots of CPU cycles to throw at a problem, the law of diminishing returns doesn't hurt as much.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/20/91)
In article <47471@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
I thought you said you were a NeXT developer... The NeXTStep _I_ saw and
used (YES, version 2.0 on an 040 box) _was_ sluggish. Sure you have a NeXT
there? ;-)
I never said that I was a developer!! And I use NeXT quite a bit.
Certainly if you're not doing anything except playing with the GUI it's
bearable. If you start doing _anything_ it slows down to much slower than
any other Unix box it's supposed to be comparable to. For example, the
SPARC 1+ feels at least twice as fast. The SPARC 1 (more equal in CPU
power) feels about 1.5 times as fast.
The NeXT is comparable to a SPARC 1+ is raw CPU performance.
BTW, my comparison is based on machines with 8MB of RAM in each case. Each
of them swapped some, but the NeXT swapped a great deal more than the Suns.
They were all running similar programs in a similar configuration.
I thought Sun shipped their SparcStations with 16megs of memory.
Here's a project: Run some of those little graphic demos that come with
the NeXT (at least the demo version at our microcenter). Now, make sure
you're not running anything else and you're only running one at a time so
that you're not swapping like crazy. NOW, compare them to similar demos
that came out in early '86 on the Amiga. The NeXT can't draw triangles (or
whatever the particular demo is) as fast as a 68K with a blitter. NOW try
and tell me DP isn't sluggish. I've seen X demos get a lot better response.
The NeXT isn't that bad. Try running the Saturn demo, BoinkOut, and
BreakApp concurrently. I don't have the demos that came with the 86
Amiga, so I can't compare. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the
Amiga was a better animation machine. If games are what you want, the
A500 is definitely the way to go. It's much cheaper than the NeXT too.
Just don't try to run Unix on it.
-Mikegblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/20/91)
From article <ec5B02dI06zP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > In article <11113@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > If you don't want graphics on a Mac you are stuck. If you don't want X or > NeWS on a Sun you get command line Unix. The NeXT is no different. DP > is the display model. If you don't have DP you get nothing. It is an > entire client/server model. If you turn it off where is your window > manager. Oh I get it you want something other than DP. Righto. > I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors using software > called Design Works, which is a logic design entry and simulation program. > It is very screen intensive. When running that program with simulation > off, the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. My NeXT even when it was > an '030 was never, ever that slow, even with multiple programs running. > The Mac display model when using a large screen even on an IIfx is slower > than my NeXT. 1) Was this color NeXT? Try to remember that color is always going to be slower than b/w. And it was just mentioned here that color NeXT can be quite slow... 2) It could also be the fault of the program itself. Compare two similar programs. Better yet, compare similar DTPs. Maybe Quark XPress or something on the Mac and NeXT to get a speed comparison. And then remember how much faster a 68040 is than a 68030. I'd imagine they're roughly the same update. > Postscript does run on a 68000. Next time yopu use a postscript printer > it could be a 68000 doing the processing. Remember postscript is a > uniform, device independent display model. Of course, speed is the issue here. Or I would be using Post 1.5 for ALL my printing, wouldn't I? > I've used the Mac with a large screen and it was slow, too slow. > Oh, costly. You call a NeXT costly. I have the educational price list > for Apple right here. A IIci with 80meg HD and 4mb memory is $4300 plus > I still need a keyboard and monitor. Compare to a Mac with -good- > performance a NeXT is cheap. By the time you add either a 17in mono or > color monitor to a IIci, I could have bought a NeXTstation 200 in mono > or color to compare. Don't even try to compare a IIfx to a NeXT. The > IIfx is II f***n' expensive. The educational prices for the A3000ux > aren't all that great either. Right. But this ISN'T a price issue. It's a PERFORMANCE issue. I'm not saying that QuickDraw is great. I'm saying DP is worse than QuickDraw. I could care less about a IIci, a IIfx, or even a classic. I've got an Amiga. > > Don't use the windowing system. You can always run command line Unix. > All you have to do is boot the machine and don't start the window server. > But then all you get is command line Unix and no windowing system. I want a windowing system. If I want a command-line box, I'll get an Intel/IBM unix box. Period. I don't want something that doesn't have a windowing system. As a matter of fact, I don't even want commandline. Even though I'm forced into it sometimes. > > BTW - If you want wysiwyg on a Mac you go into preview mode and talk > about meltdown. I was using Adobe Illustrator on a Mac and wanted to see > exactly what it would look like when my document printed. On a IIci it > took 30 sec. and this was no complex drawing. It still turned out not > to be what was displayed on the screen, but it was close enough. Then again, it depends on the program, doesn't it? I didn't say WYSIWIG was a standard, but some programs do it better than others. The question was whether or not other computers have WYSIWIG, and you've answered the question. Thank you. :) "I love it when a plan comes together." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (04/20/91)
In article <ec5B02dI06zP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. SHephard) writes: >I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors... >...the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. Just FTR (for the record), Mac screen updates can be very quick with the right graphics card. My friend at SuperMac showed me their 24-bit graphics accelerator card, and it could do 24-bit updates faster than the A3000 does 4-bit updates on the Workbench. The speed difference was very noticable. Of course, you have to $$pay$$ for that kind of speed, but it does exist for Macs. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/20/91)
In article <4c9Go-jt1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >The NeXT isn't that bad. Try running the Saturn demo, BoinkOut, and >BreakApp concurrently. I don't have the demos that came with the 86 >Amiga, so I can't compare. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the >Amiga was a better animation machine. If games are what you want, the >A500 is definitely the way to go. It's much cheaper than the NeXT too. >Just don't try to run Unix on it. > >-Mike See, this is what bothers me most about NeXT. What is it for? Is it a workstation or a pc. If you want a good workstation... buy one. Buy a standard one that you can get plenty of software for. The advantage of an Amiga is that you get a lot of pc utility along with the Unix. For many people, it will have advantages over a plain workstation because of the Amiga OS and the Amiga software (including games). NeXT is in such a narrow nich, you don't get such an advantage. NeXT will never get the volume of software that is becoming available to Amiga because Amiga has a machine for the multitudes in the Amiga 500. What can you do on a NeXT that can't be done on a workstation? If you just want high end applications, why wouldn't you just want a sun or something that you can get software for? ...maybe I am missing something. By the way, the 500 is a powerful computer for only $500. And it is much much much much less expensive (cheaper) than a NeXT. The 500 and the UX compliment each other. The 500 is a good thing, not a bad one. And you know, ...gee, the NeXT is a good thing too. So is DP. DP may be a little like tail fins on cars... but what the heck. It is still a wonder- ful peice of programing and engineering. Pat Steve Jobs on the head for me. I don't see a lot of utility in DP however. DP is not something like multitasking where there is a 'trade off' in my opinion. And in general, the NeXT seems like some good work, good ideas, free enterprise in action. I don't see where there is market for the beast however and I still believe it is doomed. But lets not bicker about the NeXT failure... we will see. ^^^^ NCW
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/20/91)
This article is a recent post from comp.sys.next. So, perhaps after NeXT's 3Q press release we won't have to listen to a bunch of "NeXT is making up this Professional Workstation Market" shit. ====================================================================== From: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Date: 11 Apr 91 06:45:01 GMT Reply-To: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Michael Limprecht (SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) writes: > Michael D Mellinger writes: > > On Professional Workstation Shipments: > > > > SUN 11,000 > > NeXT 8,000 > > HP 3,000 > > DEC 1,000 > > IBM 1,000 > > > What marketeze! At least if your going to make up a market segment > you could at least think of one where your the leader. The market segment "Professional Workstation" was defined by International Data Corp. (IDC), and not by NeXT. IDC estimates a market of 50,000 units in 1990, increasing to 100,000 in 1991 and 300,000 in 1992, according to the NeXT market backgrounder press release. IDC is hardly infallible... actual mileage may vary. -- Edward Jung Microsoft Corp. My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (04/20/91)
In article <11146@uwm.edu>, gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > From article <30178@cs.yale.edu>, by pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr): >> As for this thread on the speed of DP, it seems to me that if everyone could >> calm down and see that although DP is not made for heavy duty animation, >> it is still a good system, and--IF THERE ARE THIS MANY NeXT PEOPLE OUT THERE >> WHO LIKE IT, THEN-JUST MAYBE-IT CAN'T BE AS AWFUL AS ALL THE AMIGA FOLKS ARE >> SAYING... >> >> matt > > I'm not saying it's awful. But if you can get a 10% increase on an > 040 next by not running it, an EXTRA 2.5 MIPS FOR APPLICATION USE, > wouldn't you like it? I mean 2.5 mips is almost an extra 68030... > > greg Well, first of all, 10% of 15 MIPS is not 2.5 MIPS... :-) And then: The point is functionality versus speed. And I think your "EXTRA 2.5 MIPS FOR APPLICATION USE" is quite a bit misleading. The DP doesn't take _any_ speed when the machine doesn't draw anything! And most of the machine doesn't draw much - at least not more than a few lines or text (I doubt that takes 10% of performance compared to some other as advanced windowing system with Unix). I somehow get the impression that some people here try to find _every_ little "bad point" of NeXT and brag about it continuously. Jouni
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (04/20/91)
In article <8068@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <ec5B02dI06zP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. SHephard) writes: >>I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors... >>...the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. > > Just FTR (for the record), Mac screen updates can be very quick with >the right graphics card. My friend at SuperMac showed me their 24-bit >graphics accelerator card, and it could do 24-bit updates faster than the >A3000 does 4-bit updates on the Workbench. The speed difference was very >noticable. > > Of course, you have to $$pay$$ for that kind of speed, but it does >exist for Macs. Actually, the price isn't really all that much. The list price for the 8/24GC with true 24-bit display and the RISC graphics coprocessor is $2000, and I've seen it for a little as $1500. Besides offering a very fast 640x480 non-interlaced 24-bit display, it offers resolutions up to 1024x768 monochrome, and is capable of generating 15KHz interlaced video output (for video purposes) with the flick of a switch. The only video card available for the Amiga that comes close to the 8/24GC is the A2410, and that hasn't been released yet and may cost more. > > Dan > > //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >| Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | >| INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | >| COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////// ---------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ----------------------------------------------------------
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/21/91)
In article <4c9Go-jt1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <47471@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > I thought you said you were a NeXT developer... The NeXTStep _I_ saw and > used (YES, version 2.0 on an 040 box) _was_ sluggish. Sure you have a NeXT > there? ;-) > >I never said that I was a developer!! And I use NeXT quite a bit. Excuse me. You have said that you were programming them. Maybe developer isn't the word... HAVE you programmed them? >The NeXT is comparable to a SPARC 1+ is raw CPU performance. Comparable. Not equal. The 1+ has a few MIPS on the 040. Of course, MIPS means nothing. Perceived speed does, and the percieved speed of the 1+ is at least two times as fast as the NeXT (from my experience). >I thought Sun shipped their SparcStations with 16megs of memory. I can only go by what the owner of the machine told me. Also, a quick glimpse into the BYTE review of the SPARC 2 series seems to imply that they shipped 8MB in the first-generation SPARCs. Certianly the two SPARC clones reviewed in the next few pages are only 8MB machines. >The NeXT isn't that bad. Try running the Saturn demo, BoinkOut, and >BreakApp concurrently. I don't have the demos that came with the 86 >Amiga, so I can't compare. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the >Amiga was a better animation machine. If games are what you want, the >A500 is definitely the way to go. It's much cheaper than the NeXT too. >Just don't try to run Unix on it. Games are not what I want. Graphics are some of what I want, though. You keep trying to show how DP/NeXTStep is the be-all, end-all of UIs and that couldn't be farther from true. In fact, I feel it has only limited use. It'd have been nice if there had been a way to use DP when you needed it and not use it when it was just deadweight. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/21/91)
In article <47555@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: Excuse me. You have said that you were programming them. Maybe developer isn't the word... HAVE you programmed them? I have done some programming. I've learned Objective C, Postscript, Interface Builder, and I have become familar with the NeXT classes and methods. The NeXT is a pleasure to program. >The NeXT is comparable to a SPARC 1+ is raw CPU performance. Comparable. Not equal. The 1+ has a few MIPS on the 040. Of course, MIPS means nothing. Perceived speed does, and the percieved speed of the 1+ is at least two times as fast as the NeXT (from my experience). WRONG. The Sparc 1+ is rated 15mips and so is the 68040. What percieved speed speed are you talking about? Moving windows? Compiling programs? >I thought Sun shipped their SparcStations with 16megs of memory. I can only go by what the owner of the machine told me. Also, a quick glimpse into the BYTE review of the SPARC 2 series seems to imply that they shipped 8MB in the first-generation SPARCs. Certianly the two SPARC clones reviewed in the next few pages are only 8MB machines. Ok. You might be right. Games are not what I want. Graphics are some of what I want, though. You keep trying to show how DP/NeXTStep is the be-all, end-all of UIs and that couldn't be farther from true. In fact, I feel it has only limited use. It'd have been nice if there had been a way to use DP when you needed it and not use it when it was just deadweight. I'm simply trying to get the point acrossed that DP isn't deadweight. Amiga users keep clamoring that DP is slow because they are misinformed or they are making wrong assumptions like postscript printers are slow therefore the NeXT display must be slow. >-Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/21/91)
From article <1991Apr20.124248.6059@cc.helsinki.fi>, by jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi: > In article <11146@uwm.edu>, gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > Well, first of all, 10% of 15 MIPS is not 2.5 MIPS... :-) No, 10% of 25 mips is 2.5. Which is what the magazine I have at hand lists the 68040 used at its potential has. It says 25 mips average. And even if it was 1.5 mips, and the 68000 runs at .8, it would still be the fact that I could have an extra 68000's power for my raytracing. > > And then: The point is functionality versus speed. And I think your > "EXTRA 2.5 MIPS FOR APPLICATION USE" is quite a bit misleading. The DP > doesn't take _any_ speed when the machine doesn't draw anything! And most of > the machine doesn't draw much - at least not more than a few lines or > text (I doubt that takes 10% of performance compared to some other as > advanced windowing system with Unix). I'm saying that it is nice. Really nice. For SOME applications. But if I'm using something that doesn't need WYSIWIG, I don't want to waste processor ticks on a useless task. And since I _NEED_ color, and since it does slow down the graphics, color+dp+my heavy-duty applications = a very bogged system. Now if I can knock out one of the slower aspects, guess which it would be? DP. It's nice. But it could have been done so that you can turn it off for certain applications, or at least turn it off when you want to. It's not all that much work. > > I somehow get the impression that some people here try to find _every_ > little "bad point" of NeXT and brag about it continuously. > And I get the impression that some views on DP are biased because of the computer they own. I want DP for the Amiga. Yes, I do, I'm not making a joke. But I want to treat it the same way I treat multitasking- I want to be able to turn it off at a whim. I can stop multitasking, can you stop DPing? I didn't think so. Which is why anything processor-intensive will run faster on an Amiga than an EQUIVELANT NeXT. Maybe it won't be as device independent, but even that may come to us in time... Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/21/91)
In article <11224@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: From article <1991Apr20.124248.6059@cc.helsinki.fi>, by jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi: > In article <11146@uwm.edu>, gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > Well, first of all, 10% of 15 MIPS is not 2.5 MIPS... :-) No, 10% of 25 mips is 2.5. Which is what the magazine I have at hand lists the 68040 used at its potential has. It says 25 mips average. And even if it was 1.5 mips, and the 68000 runs at .8, it would still be the fact that I could have an extra 68000's power for my raytracing. WRONG. Motorola claimed that a 25MHz 68040 would do 20mips, but 15 mips is closer to reality. I'm saying that it is nice. Really nice. For SOME applications. But if I'm using something that doesn't need WYSIWIG, I don't want to waste processor ticks on a useless task. And since I _NEED_ color, and since it does slow down the graphics, color+dp+my heavy-duty applications = a very bogged system. Now if I can knock out one of the slower aspects, guess which it would be? DP. It's nice. But it could have been done so that you can turn it off for certain applications, or at least turn it off when you want to. It's not all that much work. I imagine if you want to hack with the NeXT, you can circumvent DP by writing directly to the frame buffer. And I get the impression that some views on DP are biased because of the computer they own. I want DP for the Amiga. Yes, I do, I'm not making a joke. But I want to treat it the same way I treat multitasking- I want to be able to turn it off at a whim. I can stop multitasking, can you stop DPing? I didn't think so. Which is why anything processor-intensive will run faster on an Amiga than an EQUIVELANT NeXT. Maybe it won't be as device independent, but even that may come to us in time... Why exactly is Display Postscript slow? I've heard quite a few Amiga droid say that it is, but do any of them have an answer to my question, or did another Amiga droid tell you that it is slow? -Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/21/91)
From article <.-2G2vju1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > WRONG. Motorola claimed that a 25MHz 68040 would do 20mips, but 15 mips > is closer to reality. > As I said, an extra 68000's power for my raytracing, being eaten up by a task which isn't good for most programs. > > I imagine if you want to hack with the NeXT, you can circumvent DP by > writing directly to the frame buffer. Sounds good. Now how's about making the windowing system support this??? Make a little switch in the system so that you can use one set of routines or the other???? Make it standard??? > > Why exactly is Display Postscript slow? I've heard quite a few Amiga > droid say that it is, but do any of them have an answer to my > question, or did another Amiga droid tell you that it is slow? > 1) Walk through the code, and you'll understand. 2) How large is it? Something that large takes up processor time, like it or not. It simply does. PostScript itself is rather clunky and Display Postscript is better--but not by much. 3) If it truly does take up 10% of a 68040, as you said, it _IS_. May not be that much to someone who has never had to squeeze every inch of a productive session out of a computer. But for those who have used Suns, Apollos, or ANYTHING except a NeXT know that a slow GUI is BAD for productivity. And the solution, as you would like to think, is NOT to throw in a bigger cpu. I believe someone said that you should code for the smallest, fastest, most optimized programs, no matter what you plan on running it on. The Unix kernal in general is big and obtrusive. NeXT's kernal is larger than most, if not all, I believe. That fact in itself makes me a tad wary. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (04/21/91)
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >No, 10% of 25 mips is 2.5. Which is what the magazine I have at hand >lists the 68040 used at its potential has. It says 25 mips average. Your magazine is bunk. Tell me the name of the magazine, and I'll remember never to buy it. [For a 25MHz 68040 to AVERAGE 25 native MIPS, it would have to have a CPI of 1. Even the BEST Motorola estimates put the CPI at 1.3, and that's assuming a perfect memory system] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/21/91)
In article <11226@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > Why exactly is Display Postscript slow? I've heard quite a few Amiga > droid say that it is, but do any of them have an answer to my > question, or did another Amiga droid tell you that it is slow? > 1) Walk through the code, and you'll understand. But I don't understand, explain it to me. 2) How large is it? Something that large takes up processor time, like it or not. It simply does. PostScript itself is rather clunky and Display Postscript is better--but not by much. It must be better. I've seen a LaserWriter spend a couple of minutes imaging a page to print. Display Postscript on the NeXT doesn't have this problem. 3) If it truly does take up 10% of a 68040, as you said, it _IS_. May not be that much to someone who has never had to squeeze every inch of a productive session out of a computer. But for those who have used Suns, Apollos, or ANYTHING except a NeXT know that a slow GUI is BAD for productivity. And the solution, as you would like to think, is NOT to throw in a bigger cpu. I didn't claim that it took 10% of the CPU time. I imagine that the actual amount of time varies. If you are watching your program compile, I seriously doubt that 10% of the CPU time is being used by Display Postscript. I believe someone said that you should code for the smallest, fastest, most optimized programs, no matter what you plan on running it on. What a nice saying. Should I write in 68000 assembler? Wait! NeXT is going to move to a RISC chip in a year or so. Oh well, then I'm SOL. The Unix kernal in general is big and obtrusive. NeXT's kernal is larger than most, if not all, I believe. That fact in itself makes me a tad wary. Buy more RAM, it's cheap(< $200 for 4MB). Unix is like having a big powerful engine in your car, except that gas is getting cheaper everyday. Don't worry, it's environmentally safe to use a RAM guzzling NeXT. -Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/21/91)
From article <1o4G7xmu1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > 1) Walk through the code, and you'll understand. > > But I don't understand, explain it to me. It's optimized quite poorly. Even in its current state, it could be better. > It must be better. I've seen a LaserWriter spend a couple of minutes > imaging a page to print. Display Postscript on the NeXT doesn't have > this problem. Oh, and I now suppose that your MegaPixel display is 300dpi??? Give me a break. And you said yourself, it doesn't need to do the whole display, just the parts that change. Get real. > I didn't claim that it took 10% of the CPU time. I imagine that the > actual amount of time varies. If you are watching your program > compile, I seriously doubt that 10% of the CPU time is being used by > Display Postscript. Worst case or not, I'm sure it would be quite easy to achieve 10%. And be assured that the Amiga doesn't take up that much time... I've never seen a display update that was updating 10% of the time you were using it on an Amiga. > What a nice saying. Should I write in 68000 assembler? Wait! NeXT > is going to move to a RISC chip in a year or so. Oh well, then I'm > SOL. No, but you could write in 68040 assembly... Or are you forced into Objective C as well as DP??? > Buy more RAM, it's cheap(< $200 for 4MB). Unix is like having a big > powerful engine in your car, except that gas is getting cheaper > everyday. Don't worry, it's environmentally safe to use a RAM > guzzling NeXT. > In making those chips, CFC's and other chemicals are used. Those chemicals are environmentally bad. No, don't give me that. And the solution to a software problem is NOT to throw more hardware at it. I don't care if it's 200 dollars, or 200,000. If you can't do it in 16MB, and virtual memory, it's not worth it. Honestly, I don't ever want to buy more than 5mb. And I try to restrict myself to companies that don't use harmful chemicals, even though most times it's near impossible. And using ELECTRICITY is generally unsafe for the environment. So in essence, that last statement isn't true. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/21/91)
In article <11230@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: It's optimized quite poorly. Even in its current state, it could be better. So NeXT will improve the performance of Display Postsript in future revisions of the OS. The did when they went from 1.0 to 2.0. Oh, and I now suppose that your MegaPixel display is 300dpi??? Give me a break. And you said yourself, it doesn't need to do the whole display, just the parts that change. Get real. The megapixel display is a nice crisp 92dpi display, and there are times when you image an entire 8"1/2 by 11". It only takes a split second. Can there be that much of a difference when going from 92dpi to 300dpi? Worst case or not, I'm sure it would be quite easy to achieve 10%. And be assured that the Amiga doesn't take up that much time... I've never seen a display update that was updating 10% of the time you were using it on an Amiga. > What a nice saying. Should I write in 68000 assembler? Wait! NeXT > is going to move to a RISC chip in a year or so. Oh well, then I'm > SOL. No, but you could write in 68040 assembly... Or are you forced into Objective C as well as DP??? You're not forced to program in Objective C, but you must use it if you want to use the Interface Builder because it has support for run-time binding(think that's the term). You can always use C or C++ and resort to the old fashion way of actually writing code. > Buy more RAM, it's cheap(< $200 for 4MB). Unix is like having a big > powerful engine in your car, except that gas is getting cheaper > everyday. Don't worry, it's environmentally safe to use a RAM > guzzling NeXT. > In making those chips, CFC's and other chemicals are used. Those chemicals are environmentally bad. No, don't give me that. And the solution to a software problem is NOT to throw more hardware at it. I don't care if it's 200 dollars, or 200,000. If you can't do it in 16MB, and virtual memory, it's not worth it. Honestly, I don't ever want to buy more than 5mb. And I try to restrict myself to companies that don't use harmful chemicals, even though most times it's near impossible. And using ELECTRICITY is generally unsafe for the environment. So in essence, that last statement isn't true. I believe(IMHO) that throwing hardware into a machine is the solution to the "software crisis". I'm looking forward to the day when most programmers can throw away their C compilers and program in Smalltalk or some other high-level language. -Mike
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (04/21/91)
In article <.-2G2vju1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >Why exactly is Display Postscript slow? I've heard quite a few Amiga >droid say that it is, but do any of them have an answer to my >question, or did another Amiga droid tell you that it is slow? > >-Mike I've been following this thread and I have relied on the 'Amiga droid' concensus and its not that DP itself is slow, its that DP is the most wasteful and useless of the NeXT's CPU ti killers. There has been a lot said about the NeXT in general being slow from people who have used NeXT. (You haven't even seen the 3000 under 2.0 have you Mike?) I remember one post in particular that said something about where a screen refresh was timed at over 2 min. I think they were networking or something but it still seemed incredibly slow for an 040 machin ...to the person who wrote in. DP just seemed to sybolize what is wrong with NeXT. Its costly, mostly glitz, its not very practical, and doesn't seem to be grounded in the reality of the marketplace as Amiga had to become. I would imagine that people, including myself, pick on DP because it is the easiest aspect to pick on. If we can win the DP argement, the entire arguement with NeXT falls into place. PS I went over and played around on my friends 3000 again today. Is that a dream machine or what? His machine was only $2500 Mike with the vivid color 1950 monitor and a 50 (? or 40) meg hard drive. There is a slot for the 040 chip and he will be able to add Unix, 386/VGA, or AmaxIII with 0.7 and color on down the road. I've also read that 200 meg drives will soon be available for around $300. You seen the lemmings game... talk about fun. NCW
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/21/91)
From article <c9GH02Nl06X.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > Next time you need true WYSIWYG tell me that DP has no uses. Try printing > on an Amiga or Mac and tell me it is WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG, eh? "What you see is all you get". Some of us actually prefer to program in nroff (or Postscript, for that matter) directly. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr) (04/21/91)
In article <11146@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <30178@cs.yale.edu>, by pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr): >> >> Says nothing. Having seen both quickdraw on a 68000 and DP on a 68040, I >> can say that there is no question whatsoever that DP is way faster. True, >> it would be awful on a 68000, but with a 68040, there's no problem. > >uhh, THAT says nothing. You're comparing 68040 to 68000.... No deal. > I compared a 68040 to a 68000 because the person I was replying to claimed that 68000+QuickDraw is way faster than 68040 with DP. matt
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (04/22/91)
In article <672G.izu1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >The megapixel display is a nice crisp 92dpi display, and there are >times when you image an entire 8"1/2 by 11". It only takes a split >second. Can there be that much of a difference when going from 92dpi >to 300dpi? Is this a serious question? You HONESTLY can't figure out the difference between a 68040 doing 92*92 res imaging and a 68000 doing 300*300? (I'll admit that the 92 dpi is greyscale (2 bit?).) Also, I'd bet that the laserprinter already has the page imaged in memory before the paper begins to feed. Sheesh.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/22/91)
In article <47581@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
Is this a serious question? You HONESTLY can't figure out the difference
between a 68040 doing 92*92 res imaging and a 68000 doing 300*300? (I'll admit
that the 92 dpi is greyscale (2 bit?).) Also, I'd bet that the laserprinter
already has the page imaged in memory before the paper begins to feed.
Sheesh.
Forgot that the AppleLaser Writer only contains a 68000. Big difference!
-Mikedtiberio@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/22/91)
In article <8068@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <ec5B02dI06zP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. SHephard) writes: >>I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors... >>...the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. > > Just FTR (for the record), Mac screen updates can be very quick with >the right graphics card. My friend at SuperMac showed me their 24-bit >graphics accelerator card, and it could do 24-bit updates faster than the >A3000 does 4-bit updates on the Workbench. The speed difference was very >noticable. > > Of course, you have to $$pay$$ for that kind of speed, but it does >exist for Macs. Isn't the SuperMac $23,000? > > Dan > > //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ >| Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | >| INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | >| COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////// -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :) Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/22/91)
From article <672G.izu1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > So NeXT will improve the performance of Display Postsript in future > revisions of the OS. The did when they went from 1.0 to 2.0. I said it could be better, but not enough to warrant slowing down programs that really don't need it. Look at the Mac! They survive with only scaleable outline font technology. I imagine I will do the same. > The megapixel display is a nice crisp 92dpi display, and there are > times when you image an entire 8"1/2 by 11". It only takes a split > second. Can there be that much of a difference when going from 92dpi > to 300dpi? Well, as you've answered yourself, more than 3 times. And try to remember that there aren't exactly any 68040 printers... for that matter, nothing really close to that performance that I know of... > No, but you could write in 68040 assembly... Or are you forced into > Objective C as well as DP??? > > You're not forced to program in Objective C, but you must use it if > you want to use the Interface Builder because it has support for > run-time binding(think that's the term). You can always use C or C++ > and resort to the old fashion way of actually writing code. > Gee, it seems to work here... :) So, it's a little more work. So there are no interface builders for non-objective C? Isn't that like having one forced decision? I mean, even us little amigoids have ones for c, assembly, and others... > > I believe(IMHO) that throwing hardware into a machine is the solution > to the "software crisis". I'm looking forward to the day when most > programmers can throw away their C compilers and program in Smalltalk > or some other high-level language. > You could program in smalltalk, if you really wanted to... I've seen it (at least) for Macs. And WHY would you need to give something more hardware, when it can still be efficient if you'd just do a little work?? If they can do it with 2.0, they can do it with that floor-polisher you call Mach... Greg And if I haven't said so, HAPPY EARTH DAY. I hope all of you continue to do your part to save our world. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/22/91)
From article <30285@cs.yale.edu>, by pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr): > > I compared a 68040 to a 68000 because the person I was replying to claimed > that 68000+QuickDraw is way faster than 68040 with DP. > > matt Most of the time, it is... At least on an FX and Radius, the closest thing to a NeXT. And this is color, so maybe you should add color to your system overhead before comparing redraw speeds... Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (04/22/91)
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >Well, as you've answered yourself, more than 3 times. And try to >remember that there aren't exactly any 68040 printers... for that >matter, nothing really close to that performance that I know of... Any of the new Postscript engines using the AMD29000 (e.g. HP's new LaserJet) have integer performance comparable to that of the 68040. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "She's got a tongue like an electric eel, and she likes the taste of a man's tonsils!" - Rik Flashheart
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/22/91)
In article <hpdG+zeu1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47555@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > Comparable. Not equal. The 1+ has a few MIPS on the 040. Of course, MIPS > means nothing. Perceived speed does, and the percieved speed of the 1+ is at > least two times as fast as the NeXT (from my experience). > >WRONG. The Sparc 1+ is rated 15mips and so is the 68040. What >percieved speed speed are you talking about? Moving windows? >Compiling programs? I've seen MIPS ratings from 10-20 on the 040, and I've been watching that chip for quite a long time. The SPARC 1+ pulls 15.8. The Solbourne S4000 (A SPARC clone) pulls 25.5 MIPS, but is only 20% faster. That tells you just how accurate the MIPS benchmark is. I'm talking about using the GUI, editing (with EMACS), compiling, reading news, and anything else you might do on a Unix box. The 1+ simply feels more responsive. > You keep trying to show how DP/NeXTStep is the be-all, end-all of UIs and that > couldn't be farther from true. In fact, I feel it has only limited use. It'd > have been nice if there had been a way to use DP when you needed it and not > use it when it was just deadweight. > >I'm simply trying to get the point acrossed that DP isn't deadweight. >Amiga users keep clamoring that DP is slow because they are >misinformed or they are making wrong assumptions like postscript >printers are slow therefore the NeXT display must be slow. THIS Amiga user isn't misinformed about DP. I've used it, and I could sit down with you in from of the NeXT and point out for hours features/apps that didn't need Postscript. For those programs DP IS deadweight. There's no denying it. I'm not saying there are not apps for which DP is perfectly suited. In fact, DTP and similar fields benefit greatly from it. Unfortunetly, that makes the NeXT niche pretty small considering most DTP is done on machines about the level of the Mac Classic. The whole idea behind it is the low price you have to pay to do it yourself. Take off those rosey glasses and really look at the machine you are using. Many Amiga owners have had to do this and come to terms with the shortfalls of the Amiga so they could be more objective. You could learn from us... Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/23/91)
In <=61Gn&tt1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >The market segment "Professional Workstation" was defined by >International Data Corp. (IDC), and not by NeXT. IDC estimates >a market of 50,000 units in 1990, increasing to 100,000 in 1991 >and 300,000 in 1992, according to the NeXT market backgrounder >press release. >IDC is hardly infallible... actual mileage may vary. Then why aren't both the Amiga (at least all 2500/30 and 3000) sales, and OS/2 and Windows on 386 or 486 (I personally wouldn't count 286) included? They are at least as much a "professional workstation" as anything else listed. Tastes may vary, but the platforms IDC listed don't support any more personal productivity than the systems I've listed. I suspect that either their objectivity or research is faulty. Dan Taylor /* My opinions, not NCR's. */
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/23/91)
From article <1991Apr22.065604.10532@neon.Stanford.EDU>, by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > > Any of the new Postscript engines using the AMD29000 (e.g. HP's > new LaserJet) have integer performance comparable to that of the 68040. > Yes, then again, PostScript is not entirely dependent on integer performance. Actually, from what I've seen, not much at all on integer performace. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/23/91)
In article <47641@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
I've seen MIPS ratings from 10-20 on the 040, and I've been watching that chip
for quite a long time. The SPARC 1+ pulls 15.8. The Solbourne S4000 (A SPARC
clone) pulls 25.5 MIPS, but is only 20% faster. That tells you just how
accurate the MIPS benchmark is.
I'm talking about using the GUI, editing (with EMACS), compiling, reading
news, and anything else you might do on a Unix box. The 1+ simply feels more
responsive.
Sorry, I've compiled several large programs and the NeXT is about as
fast as the 1+. It might even be faster. It's fast enough that I'm
doing my project on it instead of a SparcStation(not a 1+, though).
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/23/91)
In article <11299@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
Yes, then again, PostScript is not entirely dependent on integer
performance. Actually, from what I've seen, not much at all on
integer performace.
Then why doesn't someone put an i860 in a laserprinter?
-Mikegblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/23/91)
From article <cdaG3?4w1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > In article <11299@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > > Yes, then again, PostScript is not entirely dependent on integer > performance. Actually, from what I've seen, not much at all on > integer performace. > > Then why doesn't someone put an i860 in a laserprinter? > > -Mike I'd love to tell you, but if you can't figure it out, you're not worth the breath. Or the wasted keystrokes. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/24/91)
In article <x#9Gwj4w1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Sorry, I've compiled several large programs and the NeXT is about as >fast as the 1+. It might even be faster. It's fast enough that I'm >doing my project on it instead of a SparcStation(not a 1+, though). Sorry, but I've compiled quite a bit myself on both machines. That 1+ must have been severely crippled in order to compile _anything_ close to the speed of an 040 NeXT. -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/24/91)
In article <47714@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
Sorry, but I've compiled quite a bit myself on both machines. That 1+
must have been severely crippled in order to compile _anything_ close to
the speed of an 040 NeXT.
What programs did you compile? Compiling Objective C programs is
slow, but if it's standard C then the NeXT compiles pretty fast.
-Mikedtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (04/24/91)
In article <=61Gn&tt1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >This article is a recent post from comp.sys.next. So, perhaps after >NeXT's 3Q press release we won't have to listen to a bunch of "NeXT is >making up this Professional Workstation Market" shit. > >====================================================================== >From: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.next >Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release >Date: 11 Apr 91 06:45:01 GMT >Reply-To: edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) >Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA > >Michael Limprecht (SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) writes: >> Michael D Mellinger writes: >> > On Professional Workstation Shipments: >> > >> > SUN 11,000 >> > NeXT 8,000 Were all 8,000 orders placed in that shipping period, or are they only shipping backorders? (I already know the answer). >> > HP 3,000 >> > DEC 1,000 >> > IBM 1,000 >> > >> What marketeze! At least if your going to make up a market segment >> you could at least think of one where your the leader. > >The market segment "Professional Workstation" was defined by >International Data Corp. (IDC), and not by NeXT. IDC estimates >a market of 50,000 units in 1990, increasing to 100,000 in 1991 >and 300,000 in 1992, according to the NeXT market backgrounder >press release. > >IDC is hardly infallible... actual mileage may vary. > >-- >Edward Jung >Microsoft Corp. > >My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer. -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :) Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr24.015533.22457@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
Were all 8,000 orders placed in that shipping period, or are they only
shipping backorders? (I already know the answer).
Then what's your point? 15,000 orders where placed in the 4Q of 1990.
Are we hoping that NeXT sells sort of trickle off by NeXT year? NOT A
CHANCE! These machines scream!
-Mike
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/24/91)
In article <gh5G0s+w1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47714@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > Sorry, but I've compiled quite a bit myself on both machines. That 1+ > must have been severely crippled in order to compile _anything_ close to > the speed of an 040 NeXT. > >What programs did you compile? Compiling Objective C programs is >slow, but if it's standard C then the NeXT compiles pretty fast. I don't use Obj-C. If I want OOP I use C++, not that... that... obsenity. :) I am talking about the same or similar C code being compiled here. For example, I have compiled DNet without mods on both machines, and the 1+ was the definite winner in compile speed there. Other than that it's mostly been my own code, which doesn't get very large (I tend to only write little utils or test programs on Unix. My real programming occurs on Amigas and (yech) MSDOS machines). It's nice, though, to have a 100-line module compile in a second or two. I'm not saying the NeXT compiles slowly. It's certainly faster than my 68000 Amiga... :) Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) (04/25/91)
In article <11306@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <cdaG3?4w1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): >> >> In article <11299@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >> >> >> Yes, then again, PostScript is not entirely dependent on integer >> performance. Actually, from what I've seen, not much at all on >> integer performace. >> >> Then why doesn't someone put an i860 in a laserprinter? >> >> -Mike > >I'd love to tell you, but if you can't figure it out, you're not worth >the breath. Or the wasted keystrokes. > >Greg Actually Postscript benefits from an FPU. But most of the "cool new RISC procesors" are simply too expensive to justify their use in laser printers. There _are_ some printers based on some of the less expensive RISC chips (e.g. AMD 29K) and some high end imagesetters (the $100K machines) using things like 68040's and i860's. For 99% of the DTP work that's going on, the increased cost of _anything_ over a dirt cheap 68000 with no FPU isn't worth it. The merket for $10K laser printers is pretty small. But as the high rformance chips keep getting cheaper, they are migrating into embedded applications such as printer controllers. - Laird Popkin
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/25/91)
In article <47766@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
I don't use Obj-C. If I want OOP I use C++, not that... that... obsenity. :)
What don't you like about Objective-C? It contains a lot fewer
extensions to C than C++. It more closely resembles Smalltalk. I've
heard many people scream about how nasty C++ is. I'm undecided. I
use the things that I like, and ignore that I consider to be thorny.
You can use C++ on the NeXT if you like. They ship a C++ compiler
with the machine.
-Mikegreg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/25/91)
[RN once again choked, so I have to post instead of following up to this article.] melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: What don't you like about Objective-C? It contains a lot fewer extensions to C than C++. It more closely resembles Smalltalk. I've heard many people scream about how nasty C++ is. I'm undecided. I use the things that I like, and ignore that I consider to be thorny. You can use C++ on the NeXT if you like. They ship a C++ compiler with the machine. Well, for one thing C++ is standard. I don't use non-standard languages unless I _know_ I'm not going to be porting something. On the NeXT, I can't assure that, even if I'm using DP for something. Using a non- standard language on _any_ Unix box is not a very smart thing to do. Who's to say that you _won't_ port it, re-writing the GUI code for the other platform? Of course, NeXT went and stuck you with Obj-C if you want to use their Interface Builder. It'd be nice if you could select the language like most other interface design packages I've used. Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/26/91)
In article <47889@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
Well, for one thing C++ is standard. I don't use non-standard languages
unless I _know_ I'm not going to be porting something. On the NeXT, I
can't assure that, even if I'm using DP for something. Using a non-
standard language on _any_ Unix box is not a very smart thing to do. Who's
to say that you _won't_ port it, re-writing the GUI code for the other
platform?
The IBM PC is standard why don't you use it? Standard does not imply
better. Anyway you can program using C++ on the NeXT, if you so
desire. A C++ compiler is include free when you buy the NeXT(didn't I
mention this before).
Of course, NeXT went and stuck you with Obj-C if you want to use their
Interface Builder. It'd be nice if you could select the language like most
other interface design packages I've used.
So, don't use the IB. You can program the old fashion way if you
want. You can write the biggest part of your code in C++ and write
your interface code in Objective C too. Sorry, but C++ doesn't have
the ability to dynamically load objects at run-time. The other IB's
generate code. On the NeXT, binary files are generated that you never
look at.
-Mikegreg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/26/91)
In article <xh9Ghhry1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47889@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > > Well, for one thing C++ is standard. I don't use non-standard languages > unless I _know_ I'm not going to be porting something. On the NeXT, I > can't assure that, even if I'm using DP for something. Using a non- > standard language on _any_ Unix box is not a very smart thing to do. Who's > to say that you _won't_ port it, re-writing the GUI code for the other > platform? > >The IBM PC is standard why don't you use it? Standard does not imply >better. I left what I wrote previously in so you could re-read it. You see, MessyDOS binaries can not be run on other platforms without an emulator. C++ code can be compiled on any platform with a compiler for it with minimal mods for any platform-dependant stuff. See the difference? Maybe someone there could spend more time explaining it to you... BTW, the PeeCee line is no more standard than the NeXT is the best-selling Unix box on the market. Also, in the case of programming languages, standard _is_ better because not only can you find more programmers who are proficient and even talented in that language, but you can also port to multiple platforms. You see, I live in the real world where people make a living from programming... >Anyway you can program using C++ on the NeXT, if you so >desire. A C++ compiler is include free when you buy the NeXT(didn't I >mention this before). Yeah, it's pretty easy to compile g++ and rename it, isn't it? > Of course, NeXT went and stuck you with Obj-C if you want to use their > Interface Builder. It'd be nice if you could select the language like most > other interface design packages I've used. > >So, don't use the IB. You can program the old fashion way if you >want. Ah, but I can get interface-building programs that use languages other than Obj-C on other platforms. NeXT sticks you with one language when many IB style programs allow you to pick the language. >You can write the biggest part of your code in C++ and write >your interface code in Objective C too. Sorry, but C++ doesn't have >the ability to dynamically load objects at run-time. As if it can't be implemented in any language... I'm sure there are libraries available if I really had the need for it. >The other IB's >generate code. On the NeXT, binary files are generated that you never >look at. So you aren't able to go in a tweak it once you're done, eh? What happens if you have some last-minute changes? If you're lucky they were smart enough to allow IB to load the binary and allow you to modify it. Otherwise you're SOL. I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don't have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can read it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/27/91)
In article <47946@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: I left what I wrote previously in so you could re-read it. You see, MessyDOS binaries can not be run on other platforms without an emulator. C++ code can be compiled on any platform with a compiler for it with minimal mods for any platform-dependant stuff. See the difference? Maybe someone there could spend more time explaining it to you... Sometimes this is simply not true. That depends on the windowing system used, among other things. BTW, the PeeCee line is no more standard than the NeXT is the best-selling Unix box on the market. Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. Also, in the case of programming languages, standard _is_ better because not only can you find more programmers who are proficient and even talented in that language, but you can also port to multiple platforms. You see, I live in the real world where people make a living from programming... Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. >Anyway you can program using C++ on the NeXT, if you so >desire. A C++ compiler is include free when you buy the NeXT(didn't I >mention this before). Yeah, it's pretty easy to compile g++ and rename it, isn't it? Yep. What's your point. Ah, but I can get interface-building programs that use languages other than Obj-C on other platforms. NeXT sticks you with one language when many IB style programs allow you to pick the language. The only other IB that I've seen is one for the Sun, and NeXT's looked better. >The other IB's >generate code. On the NeXT, binary files are generated that you never >look at. So you aren't able to go in a tweak it once you're done, eh? What happens if you have some last-minute changes? If you're lucky they were smart enough to allow IB to load the binary and allow you to modify it. Otherwise you're SOL. You can reload the binary files(.nib) into Interface Builder as many times as you want and make as many changes as you want. I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don't have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can read it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. Actually, I think the binary file files aren't executable code because the .nib files didn't need to be changed when they were ported the the IBM RS/6000 running NeXTStep. If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that you've always wanted. -Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/27/91)
From article <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Sometimes this is simply not true. That depends on the windowing > system used, among other things. It's (messydos) is built to use custom chips and special techniques. And since your compiler doesn't support these options, it isn't standard, portable code. Very little on the Amiga in the way of well-done interactive programs are portable. Well, portable, and still keep the same feel and responses. > Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. A standard what? Who proclaimed it standard, and what standard is that? Is it the XT, the AT, or the 386, or even the 486 that is standard? Which architecture? ISA? EISA? MCA? Which BIOS? What voltage powersupply? And why is it that the Mac doesn't follow the standards, which is what they seem to love to do over at Apple? THEY have a standard Finder, and a standard guideline for programs. Why? Because they SET IT. IBM set no standards. Why? Because you can't set something as widely-diversible as a computer. Okay, if there is any standard to be set by IBM, it's the standard IBM system to be used with an Intel processor. When you say Intel, you think IBM. When people (most) think computer, most often you'll hear C= 64. Why? Cause tons of people have them. Then, IBM. And then, Mac, ST, Amiga. You don't think of a computer as a Next. Because the NeXT isn't a computer, it's a WORKSTATION. And when it comes to workstations, most people think of anything BUT the NeXT or the Amiga SYSVr4 systems. DEC, Sun, and Iris are the first to pop into many minds... IBM computers aren't a standard, they're a trend, and they're also the most widely used. So? That in itself doesn't make them a standard. Maybe they are thought of first in certain applications, but NOT in general usage. It's a little too broad for that. > Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. > Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. Yes, but that doesn't make it standard. And I do believe that more people know C++ than Objective. > The only other IB that I've seen is one for the Sun, and NeXT's looked > better. Yes, but then again, there are at least more than one for the Sun, aren't there? And since Sun's use a standard language... You must use objective C to use the IB at all, or you're stuck writing lots of hard stuff. Because windows on the Next, I imagine, are more than simply defining the structure, there's DP involved. > > So you aren't able to go in a tweak it once you're done, eh? What happens > if you have some last-minute changes? If you're lucky they were smart > enough to allow IB to load the binary and allow you to modify it. > Otherwise you're SOL. > > You can reload the binary files(.nib) into Interface Builder as many > times as you want and make as many changes as you want. No doing anything by hand though. It's either all or none, give or take. > > I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don't > have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, > given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can read > it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. > > Actually, I think the binary file files aren't executable code because > the .nib files didn't need to be changed when they were ported the the > IBM RS/6000 running NeXTStep. > > If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they > release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that > you've always wanted. Most programmers on the Amiga DON'T need or want an IB. And they're available, so if you do, you can use them. It's not hard to use Intuition in programming, just a matter of defining exactly what you want, or customizing at will. No forced footsteps, no bridge over death. Just a beaten path, and stray footsteps. Use what you like, toss what you don't. It may not be as fast to do it by hand on the Amiga compared to doing it on a NeXT's IB, but doing it by hand on both will give us a hands-down victory. In speed, anyways. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
accangel@amix.commodore.com (Mark Gardner) (04/28/91)
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > From article <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Melling [whole lotta stuff about the NeXT deleted. Sorry, I just plain ain't too interested in the li'l black box] > > > > I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don > > have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, > > given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can rea > > it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. > > > > Actually, I think the binary file files aren't executable code because > > the .nib files didn't need to be changed when they were ported the the > > IBM RS/6000 running NeXTStep. > > > > If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they > > release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that > > you've always wanted. > > Most programmers on the Amiga DON'T need or want an IB. And they're > available, so if you do, you can use them. It's not hard to use > Intuition in programming, just a matter of defining exactly what you > want, or customizing at will. No forced footsteps, no bridge over > death. Just a beaten path, and stray footsteps. Use what you like, > toss what you don't. It may not be as fast to do it by hand on the > Amiga compared to doing it on a NeXT's IB, but doing it by hand on > both will give us a hands-down victory. In speed, anyways. Now, I'm not up on objective-oriented programming (still tooling around with HiSoft BASIC and AREXX on the Amiga), but as I understand it, one of the key features of objective languages is classes of objects, which can be inherited and then customized in the users' own objects. This is exactly what Intuition (the Amiga's GUI/windowing system) does - it provides you with a basic window structure, and you throw out what you don't need, or add your own stuff. Then you tack menus, gadgets (mouse hit-boxes), etc. onto those, which inherit characteristics from the window.... You get the idea. In essence, if you're doing anything involving Intuition on the Amiga, even in BASIC, you're doing a bit of object-oriented programming. Same goes, really, for any other multitasking, graphical OS. And if you don't want to mess with that stuff, you make Shell-based programs, which only use what little the console device gives you. Well, *I* thought it was neat. All this time, I was doing object programming! -Mark Gardner > > Greg > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. > Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. > -Wubba ---------- Mark Gardner UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!accangel Internet: undrground!accangel@amix.commodore.com
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/28/91)
In article <47889@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Of course, NeXT went and stuck you with Obj-C if you want to use their > Interface Builder. It'd be nice if you could select the language like most > other interface design packages I've used. You can. Just link your application in C or C++ to the UI part in ObjC (to me, it's a tossup which one is more likely to make me toss my cookies anyway. C++ and ObjC are like Ratfor and EFL... bags on the side of a language to make it do stuff it wasn't intended to. When a better OO language gets a few good implementations under its belt, it will blow C++ away, as C blew away Ratfor. Eiffel might do it, but I suspect it'll end up like TRAC... another forgotten proprietary language). I don't understand your complaint here, anyway. You don't like the fact that NeXT stuck you with ObjC for their IB because it's not portable. So? Anything that depends on their IB isn't portable in the first place. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/29/91)
From article <1991Apr28.125746.14051@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > > I don't understand your complaint here, anyway. You don't like the fact that > NeXT stuck you with ObjC for their IB because it's not portable. So? Anything > that depends on their IB isn't portable in the first place. That didn't even cross my mind. Argh. You're right, and it's not worth the bandwidth. Thanks. :) -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/29/91)
In article <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47946@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > > I left what I wrote previously in so you could re-read it. You see, > MessyDOS binaries can not be run on other platforms without an emulator. > C++ code can be compiled on any platform with a compiler for it with > minimal mods for any platform-dependant stuff. See the difference? Maybe ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ > someone there could spend more time explaining it to you... > >Sometimes this is simply not true. That depends on the windowing >system used, among other things. I left what I wrote _again_ and even underlined one of my key points for you. Any half-decent programmer can which can have its user interface changed without too much of a headache. > BTW, the PeeCee line is no more standard than the NeXT is the best-selling > Unix box on the market. > >Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. Excuse me while a laugh a while... There. That's better. Please bother to get some experience with the PeeCee line before trying to make statements like that. Ask any person who has developed for that line how many times they have had to "port" their code to a different configuration of this so-called "standard" machine. It can be a significant amount of the development time in graphics-related applications like the ones I have done. Also, try working with more than the 640K DOS memory limit. There are different ways to do it depending on the CPU and what kind of memory it is. I don't call that standard by any means. >Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. >Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. Why? C++ is already an accepted standard. I've never even seen an ad for an Objective C compiler (not that I've been looking for one). Besides, ease of learning is generally an opinion. >If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they >release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that >you've always wanted. Bzzt. Interface-building software has been available for the Amiga longer than the 040 NeXT has been available. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/30/91)
In <11476@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >A standard what? Who proclaimed it standard, and what standard is >that? Is it the XT, the AT, or the 386, or even the 486 that is >standard? Which architecture? ISA? EISA? MCA? Which BIOS? What History: the STANDARD was XT, 4.77 MHz, ISA, IBM BIOS. There were several MS-DOS computers that DIED because they weren't as slow and stupid as the PC or XT, so the programs written for IBM PC's didn't run on them. NOW: the STANDARD is XT, 4.77 MHz, ISA, IBM BIOS. There's still a LOT of software that won't run properly on anything else. So, MS-DOS still uses the 640K. And 386's and 486's run in STUPID mode, most of the time. Why do you think so may boxes have clock "slow-down" modes? Also, there are enough clones out that they have created a [34]86/EISA/Super VGA/ Phoenix BIOS standard of their own. This doesn't mean that some software vendors haven't learned better. Some of them have figured out how to run the [34]86 in 32-bit mode, then switch back to run MS-DOS. Windows-386 is better, too. I'd say that when you can build a better computer, for a competitive price, and people buy the dumb one, instead, you have a standard. Apple has created a standard Mac, Commodore has created a standard Amiga,... How many CPU boards would GVP have sold if they didn't run Amiga software? Dan Taylor /* My opinions, not NCR's. */
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/30/91)
In article <48101@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. Excuse me while a laugh a while... There. That's better. Please bother to get some experience with the PeeCee line before trying to make statements like that. Ask any person who has developed for that line how many times they have had to "port" their code to a different configuration of this so-called "standard" machine. It can be a significant amount of the development time in graphics-related applications like the ones I have done. Also, try working with more than the 640K DOS memory limit. There are different ways to do it depending on the CPU and what kind of memory it is. I don't call that standard by any means. There are over 25 million IBM compatibles(probably many more), so it is the standard. I think that we are arguing about two different things here. And obviously I don't think much of the "standard". >Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. >Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. Why? C++ is already an accepted standard. I've never even seen an ad for an Objective C compiler (not that I've been looking for one). Besides, ease of learning is generally an opinion. Well, that's because only one computer company uses Objective C as its standard programming language. Stepstone does sell Obj. C for several platforms, and I have seen a verion for the PeeCee. And before you go spouting off about how great C++ is, could you check out Eiffel or Smalltalk? >If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they >release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that >you've always wanted. Bzzt. Interface-building software has been available for the Amiga longer than the 040 NeXT has been available. Could you rattle off a few names so that I could look at them? You sound like the kind of guy that would Bzzt me even all the IB's were not quite up to par. -Mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/30/91)
In article <48101@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they >release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that >you've always wanted. Bzzt. Interface-building software has been available for the Amiga longer than the 040 NeXT has been available. That's been 6 months, and Commodore doesn't ship one with the Amiga. The NeXT IB has been shipping free with the computer since 1988(89?). How long has NeXT been in business? They kind of didn't "officially" release the machines until 89. Oh well, my point was: "bzzt, you're wrong. You didn't read my original posting very well." -Mike
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (04/30/91)
From article <922@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, by dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor): > History: the STANDARD was XT, 4.77 MHz, ISA, IBM BIOS. There were > several MS-DOS computers that DIED because they weren't as slow and > stupid as the PC or XT, so the programs written for IBM PC's didn't > run on them. > > NOW: the STANDARD is XT, 4.77 MHz, ISA, IBM BIOS. There's still a LOT > of software that won't run properly on anything else. So, MS-DOS still > uses the 640K. And 386's and 486's run in STUPID mode, most of the time. > Why do you think so may boxes have clock "slow-down" modes? Also, there > are enough clones out that they have created a [34]86/EISA/Super VGA/ > Phoenix BIOS standard of their own. No, these are the standard IBM. NOT the standard computer. Possibly the _POPULAR_ computer, but definitely not standard. > I'd say that when you can build a better computer, for a competitive price, > and people buy the dumb one, instead, you have a standard. Apple has > created a standard Mac, Commodore has created a standard Amiga,... No, but does an Amiga with a mac label on it make it a mac? No, no more than a 2000 without a label and a toaster in it makes it anything less than a 2000 with a toaster in it. > How many CPU boards would GVP have sold if they didn't run Amiga software? > Wouldn't that matter if GVP had made it so it didn't run the software, but had software out? And if you put a GVP card into an Amiga and it doesn't run amiga software anymore, then it's not really an amiga, is it? Sure, it's got everything to BE an amiga, but it can't run the software, so it's not... And just because we can run finder and IBM software doesn't mean the amiga is a Mac or an IBM. So far, no computer is standard outside of its own genre. There's a standard mac, a standard Amiga, and a standard IBM. And though IBM is the most popular, that doesn't mean it's standard. And if you really think it is, then why didn't you buy them instead of what you may have? Because the Amiga is a better computer. Computers are too preferential to label one with a "standard". Greg -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (05/01/91)
In article <48101@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >you. Any half-decent programmer can which can have its user interface ^^^^^^^^^^ >changed without too much of a headache. Which part of my user interface would I like changed, fingers, mouth, eyes? I think that all of them could give me a headache and it would be most painful. Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu Anything above the line beneath the line below is false. ________________The Line Beneath________________________
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/01/91)
In article <-54Gwp=?1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >There are over 25 million IBM compatibles(probably many more), so it >is the standard. I think that we are arguing about two different >things here. And obviously I don't think much of the "standard". It's still not standard, especially from a programming standpoint. I am a programmer, so the lack of standards would be very apparent to me. You started this by saying, "IBMs are standard. Why don't you use them?" You brought the IBM up when I mentioned that Obj. C is not standard. Have you changed your meaning of the word "standard" since then? > Why? C++ is already an accepted standard. I've never even seen an ad for > an Objective C compiler (not that I've been looking for one). Besides, > ease of learning is generally an opinion. > >Well, that's because only one computer company uses Objective C as its >standard programming language. Stepstone does sell Obj. C for several >platforms, and I have seen a verion for the PeeCee. Ok, so there is one compiler available. That means no competition. Competition keeps prices low and quality high. Without it... >And before you go spouting off about how great C++ is, could you check >out Eiffel or Smalltalk? I didn't say C++ was the be-all, end-all of languages. I said it was good and standard. If Eiffel or Smalltalk gain more acceptance and get more support I might consider them. As of now, neither is a suitable development language for the work we do. Also, what we have done has been in C. After upgrading our compilers to C++ we have been able to directly continue updating the software without having to do any porting. >Could you rattle off a few names so that I could look at them? You >sound like the kind of guy that would Bzzt me even all the IB's were >not quite up to par. One to check out is Power Windows. I haven't directly worked with the others. Also, I didn't claim that they were as complete as NeXT's IB. What I _was_ saying was that NeXT's IB isn't a totally new idea thought up by Stevie himself. You continually infer these things. Also, why don't you "rattle off" about what it would take to do some normal window functions on the NeXT under DP. Under the Amiga OS opening a window, for example, simply involves passing a NewWindow structure pointer to a function. Other functions are similarly easy to do. Because of this many programmers haven't had to bother with IB style programs. You can roll your own windows in no-time. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/01/91)
In article <z=6Gb8#?1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >That's been 6 months, and Commodore doesn't ship one with the Amiga. >The NeXT IB has been shipping free with the computer since 1988(89?). >How long has NeXT been in business? They kind of didn't "officially" >release the machines until 89. Oh well, my point was: "bzzt, you're >wrong. You didn't read my original posting very well." No. My statement of several posts ago was that the Amiga interface- building software generated source. You responded with the statement, "Tell that to C= when they ship an IB in 1999..." which is simply inflammatory, and quite unrelated. The fact is that IB style programs are available for the Amiga, and have been for longer than the 040 NeXT has been available, like I said. Most programmers haven't seen the need for them, since the UI is easy enough to work with that they simply code it themselves. It would be a waste to include such software with the Amiga, since it would see very little use. NeXT's IB is "included" with their machine, yes. (Included is in quotes since they seem to have their own definition of the word.) It's only included with the more expensive configurations. Others have to buy more storage space before they can get it. Of course, without the compiler you won't be using it anyway. :) At least AmigaVision is included with all Amigas. Does NeXT include any multimedia authoring software? Maybe in 1999... ;-) >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/01/91)
In article <48158@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
It's still not standard, especially from a programming standpoint. I am a
programmer, so the lack of standards would be very apparent to me. You
started this by saying, "IBMs are standard. Why don't you use them?" You
brought the IBM up when I mentioned that Obj. C is not standard. Have you
changed your meaning of the word "standard" since then?
I work on an IBM at work, and I menioned Objective C on the IBM
because you said something to the effect that the NeXT was the only
machine that one uses Objective C on.
Ok, so there is one compiler available. That means no competition.
Competition keeps prices low and quality high. Without it...
By IBM PCs. Plenty of competition for everything.
I didn't say C++ was the be-all, end-all of languages. I said it was good
and standard. If Eiffel or Smalltalk gain more acceptance and get more
support I might consider them. As of now, neither is a suitable
development language for the work we do.
If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind
of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard.
Also, what we have done has been in C. After upgrading our compilers to
C++ we have been able to directly continue updating the software without
having to do any porting.
So, any change that you make will have to be slowly over time. And
your old C code will compile with Objective C too. The are both
supersets of C(although C++ is different in a few ways).
One to check out is Power Windows. I haven't directly worked with the
others. Also, I didn't claim that they were as complete as NeXT's IB.
What I _was_ saying was that NeXT's IB isn't a totally new idea thought up
by Stevie himself. You continually infer these things.
I already knew that it wasn't new. Windows weren't new on the Mac
either.
Also, why don't you "rattle off" about what it would take to do some normal
window functions on the NeXT under DP. Under the Amiga OS opening a
window, for example, simply involves passing a NewWindow structure pointer
to a function. Other functions are similarly easy to do. Because of this
many programmers haven't had to bother with IB style programs. You can
roll your own windows in no-time.
On the NeXT, I visually create a window by dragging it onto my screen
from a palette(a tool kit). I don't write any code. The same with
sliders, buttons, etc. IB gives me a a way of communicating(a
pointer) with the objects. I guess after initialization, a lot of
stuff is similar in both cases. You just call the appropriate
methods. However, being able design your interface visually can be
very helpful at times -- it takes some of the guessing work out of it.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/01/91)
In article <48163@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
No. My statement of several posts ago was that the Amiga interface-
building software generated source. You responded with the statement,
"Tell that to C= when they ship an IB in 1999..." which is simply
inflammatory, and quite unrelated. The fact is that IB style programs are
available for the Amiga, and have been for longer than the 040 NeXT has
been available, like I said. Most programmers haven't seen the need for
them, since the UI is easy enough to work with that they simply code it
themselves. It would be a waste to include such software with the Amiga,
since it would see very little use.
On what basis are you making your conclusion?
NeXT's IB is "included" with their machine, yes. (Included is in quotes
since they seem to have their own definition of the word.) It's only
included with the more expensive configurations. Others have to buy more
storage space before they can get it. Of course, without the compiler you
won't be using it anyway. :)
We've been through this about half a dozen times. NeXT doesn't
include it because all the software that they give you doesn't fit.
You can get the extended from other sources(like me). In all honesty,
though, I would want a 16MB machine with at least a 400MB hard disk
for "real" development. However, many people just "play", and the can
put IB and friends on the HD when they want to "play."
The best way to buy a NeXT, and the way that I intend to, is to buy
the cheap system($3250), add 8 or 12MB of RAM($400-$600) then buy a
660MB drive($1400).
At least AmigaVision is included with all Amigas. Does NeXT include any
multimedia authoring software? Maybe in 1999... ;-)
Chalk one up for the Amiga. Now if only Commodore could get WP or
some other decent word processor(and spreadsheet) so that the people
can buy their machines. Amiga Vision might be neat, but many people
(a big part of the market)use a computers for word processing and
spreadsheets(databases too -- NeXT is weak here too).
-Mikemykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/01/91)
In article <z=6Gb8#?1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48101@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > >If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they > >release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that > >you've always wanted. > > Bzzt. Interface-building software has been available for the Amiga longer > than the 040 NeXT has been available. > >That's been 6 months, and Commodore doesn't ship one with the Amiga. >The NeXT IB has been shipping free with the computer since 1988(89?). >How long has NeXT been in business? They kind of didn't "officially" >release the machines until 89. Oh well, my point was: "bzzt, you're >wrong. You didn't read my original posting very well." > >-Mike > Get a life :) PowerWindows is an interface builder that's been around for years. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/01/91)
In article <48163@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > inflammatory, and quite unrelated. The fact is that IB style programs are > available for the Amiga, and have been for longer than the 040 NeXT has > been available, like I said. Most programmers haven't seen the need for > them, since the UI is easy enough to work with that they simply code it > themselves. It would be a waste to include such software with the Amiga, > since it would see very little use. Propoganda getting to you, mate? Speaking as a programmer who has seen the need for an IB, I can say that the reason Power Windows isn't getting much attention is simply because it sucks. The objects provided by the O/S are too low level (even if they're better than what X has to offer) for an IB that just provides them to be worthwhile. > At least AmigaVision is included with all Amigas. I've got AmigaVision. It sucks too. Not only does it require more RAM than I have, but that "iconic" programming interface is a total loss. Hypercard on the Mac is a complete hit, for all it require people to type in commands. Seriously, if all Amigavision provided was the object editor and an interface program you could call from AREXX it'd be a better product. These "integrated" application things are the antithesis of good Amiga programs. Luckily there *are* good Amiga multimedia programs out there... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/01/91)
In article <v#4Gu$*-1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >I work on an IBM at work, and I menioned Objective C on the IBM >because you said something to the effect that the NeXT was the only >machine that one uses Objective C on. Well, when you originally brought up the IBM you made no mention of Obj. C. You were responding to my statement about how I use C++ over Obj. C because it is more standard. You said nothing about Obj. C compilers for the PeeCee. You simply said what is in quotes above. Stop changing history. >By IBM PCs. Plenty of competition for everything. ...except for compilers of little-used languages. >If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind >of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard. WHAT?! You're using a NeXT, which at most has 20-30,000 siblings currently in use! There are more than 2,000,000 Amigas in use. You think the NeXT is anywhere _near_ a standard? If you're just looking for standard Unix, you should be using an Intel- based box. After all, using your own reasoning, there are many more of then than NeXTs. Certainly if you're looking for a standard Unix box you don't want one with a proprietary GUI. >On the NeXT, I visually create a window by dragging it onto my screen >from a palette(a tool kit). I don't write any code. The same with >sliders, buttons, etc. IB gives me a a way of communicating(a >pointer) with the objects. I guess after initialization, a lot of >stuff is similar in both cases. You just call the appropriate >methods. However, being able design your interface visually can be >very helpful at times -- it takes some of the guessing work out of it. Yes. I know. You see, I've used an interface-builder or two on my Amiga. :-) IB, as nice as it is, isn't anything revolutionary. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/02/91)
In article <+b5G-i&-1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48163@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > The fact is that IB style programs are > available for the Amiga, and have been for longer than the 040 NeXT has > been available, like I said. Most programmers haven't seen the need for > them, since the UI is easy enough to work with that they simply code it > themselves. It would be a waste to include such software with the Amiga, > since it would see very little use. > >On what basis are you making your conclusion? Well, interface-builders have been around since version 1.1 of the OS, according to a couple people. That's 5 years. In that time, some rather good programs have been written. Still, they haven't gained very widespread use. In groups like comp.sys.amiga.programmer (and its predecessor, comp.sys.amiga.tech) IB style programs have been discussed. Several programmers spoke up at times and said that they didn't need software like that -- that the Amiga's GUI was simple enough to program as it is. -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/02/91)
In article <v#4Gu$*-1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <48158@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > > If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind > of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard. > So you're saying the nExt is standard??
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/02/91)
In article <+b5G-i&-1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <48163@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > [stuff deleted about nExt interface builder vs Amiga interface builders] > > Chalk one up for the Amiga. Now if only Commodore could get WP or > some other decent word processor(and spreadsheet) so that the people > can buy their machines. Amiga Vision might be neat, but many people > (a big part of the market)use a computers for word processing and > spreadsheets(databases too -- NeXT is weak here too). > > -Mike Well, Amiga has got WP, from what people say, it's not all that great, but I use it for all my papers and I think it's just fine. Now there is DBMAN, which is (from what I hear) a compiler that compiles DBASE code, I guess that it needs more advertising or something. I think that a better word processor choice would be MS Word, even though the wordprocessors available on the Amiga are pretty good, they don't have MS Word's notoriety.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <48227@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: WHAT?! You're using a NeXT, which at most has 20-30,000 siblings currently in use! There are more than 2,000,000 Amigas in use. You think the NeXT is anywhere _near_ a standard? Ok asshole. I was being sarcastic. Of course I will use things that are non-standard. I should have said, if you insist on using standards then why are you using the Amiga? If you're just looking for standard Unix, you should be using an Intel- based box. After all, using your own reasoning, there are many more of then than NeXTs. Certainly if you're looking for a standard Unix box you don't want one with a proprietary GUI. I can run X on the NeXT if I want. And an Intel based box would cost me more money for what I get. How much does a 17" display cost? SCO Unix runs a few hundred backs(or is it more like $1000-$1500?). >On the NeXT, I visually create a window by dragging it onto my screen >from a palette(a tool kit). I don't write any code. The same with >sliders, buttons, etc. IB gives me a a way of communicating(a >pointer) with the objects. I guess after initialization, a lot of >stuff is similar in both cases. You just call the appropriate >methods. However, being able design your interface visually can be >very helpful at times -- it takes some of the guessing work out of it. Yes. I know. You see, I've used an interface-builder or two on my Amiga. :-) The why ask how it's done with an IB. IB, as nice as it is, isn't anything revolutionary. Neither were windows on a computer in 1984. They had been around since the 70's, and Sun had them on their computers. -Mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <48228@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
Well, interface-builders have been around since version 1.1 of the OS,
according to a couple people. That's 5 years. In that time, some rather
good programs have been written. Still, they haven't gained very
widespread use.
In groups like comp.sys.amiga.programmer (and its predecessor,
comp.sys.amiga.tech) IB style programs have been discussed. Several
programmers spoke up at times and said that they didn't need software like
that -- that the Amiga's GUI was simple enough to program as it is.
I question that I can't answer so maybe you can. Are the Amigas IB's
and Objects as refined as the ones on the NeXT?
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <1538@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > > If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind > of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard. > So you're saying the nExt is standard?? Of course not..... The guy that I am arguing with keeps throwing the word standard back in my face. I just have a hard time dealing with this when it comes from an Amiga user. Neither the Amiga or NeXT is a standard. -Mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <1540@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
Well, Amiga has got WP, from what people say, it's not all that great,
but I use it for all my papers and I think it's just fine. Now there is
DBMAN, which is (from what I hear) a compiler that compiles DBASE code, I
guess that it needs more advertising or something. I think that a better
word processor choice would be MS Word, even though the wordprocessors
available on the Amiga are pretty good, they don't have MS Word's notoriety.
Version 4.2 of WP exists for the Amiga, and has for a couple of years.
And I've heard several Amiga people state the word processing isn't up
to par on the Amiga.
-Mike
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (05/02/91)
In article <+b5G-i&-1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > The best way to buy a NeXT, and the way that I intend to, is to buy > the cheap system($3250), add 8 or 12MB of RAM($400-$600) then buy a > 660MB drive($1400). > Hmm. I just got my very own NeXTstation and even if all say otherwise, you can work quite well with only 8MB RAM. I haven't got the extented software yet, so I don't know if using the development tools makes the things harder, though. (Oh, I will have an 660MB hard disk after a week or two!) Jouni
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May2.003842.1@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
Hmm. I just got my very own NeXTstation and even if all say otherwise,
you can work quite well with only 8MB RAM. I haven't got the extented
software yet, so I don't know if using the development tools makes the
things harder, though. (Oh, I will have an 660MB hard disk after a
week or two!)
It might work well, but the NeXT is much better with 16MB, especially
if you open several apps at once. Large programs like Mathematica
benefit from the extra RAM too.
-Mikejbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/02/91)
Quoted from <v#4Gu$*-1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind > of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard. Hurm. Didn't you say you use a NeXT? What is that supposed to be standard for? The NeXT is posited like a hi-end Mac - the same way Compaq, say, looks like a hi-end PClone. > -Mike -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/02/91)
Quoted from <yc6Gxqm_1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > And I've heard several Amiga people state the word processing isn't up > to par on the Amiga. Who knows, who cares. The important applications (writing code, writing scripts for ray tracers, etc) have things like CED and UEdit, along with the standards like MicroEMACS, "mg", all the "deep-VI-your files" clones, etc. Another important factor that folks overlook when discussing the core three user applications (word processing, spreadsheets, and databases, according to the old C= 64 days (haw)) is that the people with the $$ also want to share the data across machines. So already owning a particular machine within a corporate group has a big impact on their decisions about standards. Thus the PClone's success, and the success of platforms that aim to handle that market in a similar fashion (Mac, PC-Unix, etc). Macs, I think, have ridden the backs of yuppies to get into corporate positions. Like Unix and C have been pushed by CS students into mainstream areas. > -Mike -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/03/91)
In article <566G8jm_1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48227@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > WHAT?! You're using a NeXT, which at most has 20-30,000 siblings currently > in use! There are more than 2,000,000 Amigas in use. You think the NeXT > is anywhere _near_ a standard? > >Ok asshole. I was being sarcastic. Of course I will use things that >are non-standard. I should have said, if you insist on using >standards then why are you using the Amiga? Now, that was uncalled-for, but not unexpected from you. Your supposedly sarcastic statement was on par with your others and contained nothing to imply sarcasm (can you say _smiley_?), BTW. The whole standards thing began because I talked about how I want to be able to use a particular language on many platforms. Which platform is being used is completely irrelevant to that discussion. You're the one that keeps bringing that subject up... needlessly... Your continuance in bringing up irrelevant things is starting to annoy me. Please try to determine what is a relevant thing to write before doing so. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/03/91)
In article <y86Gmlm_1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >I question that I can't answer so maybe you can. Are the Amigas IB's >and Objects as refined as the ones on the NeXT? I have never seen code to work with the NeXT GUI so I can't say. I've heard from a few NeXT programmers that the IB is basically a requirement due to the time it would take to write the code by hand. However, that is someone else's opinion. That's certainly not the case with the Amiga. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/03/91)
In article <#a6Gpom_1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1538@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > > So you're saying the nExt is standard?? > >Of course not..... The guy that I am arguing with keeps throwing the >word standard back in my face. I just have a hard time dealing with >this when it comes from an Amiga user. Neither the Amiga or NeXT is a >standard. You don't understand, do you?! I didn't bring up hardware standards and they are not what concerns me. My concern is with language and code portability. Porting between systems doesn't bother me as long as _good_ compilers can be found for each system. In the case of Obj. C, there aren't enough compilers on enough platforms to cause the competition to create fast enough, good enough compilers. Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (05/03/91)
In article <48298@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >You don't understand, do you?! I didn't bring up hardware standards and >they are not what concerns me. My concern is with language and code >portability. Porting between systems doesn't bother me as long as _good_ >compilers can be found for each system. > >In the case of Obj. C, there aren't enough compilers on enough platforms to >cause the competition to create fast enough, good enough compilers. The sources for the NeXT compiler are freely distributable. Once the FSF has taken care of them, there will be fast, good Objective C compilers for almost every machine. This is irrelevant anyway, since the only part of a NeXT program that has to be in Objective C is the user interface (which wouldn't be portable no matter what it's written in). >Greg Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <48296@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
The whole standards thing began because I talked about how I want to be
able to use a particular language on many platforms. Which platform is
being used is completely irrelevant to that discussion. You're the one
that keeps bringing that subject up... needlessly...
Ah now I remember why I told you Objective C was available on the PC
and those other machines! In your one of your previous posts, you ask
me why I told you. Boy, is it hard to argue with Amigoids.
Your continuance in bringing up irrelevant things is starting to annoy me.
Please try to determine what is a relevant thing to write before doing so.
My points aren't irrelavant, you just keep forgetting your questions :-).
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <48297@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
I have never seen code to work with the NeXT GUI so I can't say. I've
heard from a few NeXT programmers that the IB is basically a requirement
due to the time it would take to write the code by hand. However, that is
someone else's opinion.
I don't know, I've never tried to program w/o IB.
That's certainly not the case with the Amiga.
Then why isn't there more software other than games? If it's so easy,
maybe you can convince Lotus to port Improv to the Amiga.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <48298@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
You don't understand, do you?! I didn't bring up hardware standards and
they are not what concerns me. My concern is with language and code
portability. Porting between systems doesn't bother me as long as _good_
compilers can be found for each system.
In the case of Obj. C, there aren't enough compilers on enough platforms to
cause the competition to create fast enough, good enough compilers.
Which machines do you write for? If you say the Mac, then you win.
There isn't an Objective C compiler for it. Of course there is only
one C++ compiler if Zortech hasn't finished their port.
-Mikempierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/03/91)
In article <yc6Gxqm_1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <1540@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > > Version 4.2 of WP exists for the Amiga, and has for a couple of years. > And I've heard several Amiga people state the word processing isn't up > to par on the Amiga. > > -Mike > Well, I never got version 4.2, I'm still using 4.1, quite effectively too I might add. I know several people who own Amigas who think that their wp software is just fine. Really, there are so many wp apps out there that there is no problem finding one that suits. Personally, for programming, I use MicroEmacs, the text editor that is included with the Amiga operating system, it suits my needs just fine. -Matt Pierce
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (05/03/91)
From article <8b6Gw!m+1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > Then why isn't there more software other than games? If it's so easy, > maybe you can convince Lotus to port Improv to the Amiga. > Thank you no, and what you just said is the reason that ANY program will fail on an Amiga. I don't want a _PORT_. I want an amigatized program from the ground up. DBMan V will be getting an arexx port soon, or so I hear. I'd rather get that. Improv may be nice on the NeXT, but your standards for good software are FAR different from an amiga user's viewpoint. We expect integrated packages... And what's the size of Improv, anyways? And just how well would it run on a stock 68000? These are things just at the tip of the iceberg to think of... And if everything IS in objective c, I could always convert it to c++... Compile it on the amiga, and watch how many people turn away from it. It's less than what an amiga user expects. Which explains WordPerfect Perfectly. Greg -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <11710@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
Thank you no, and what you just said is the reason that ANY program
will fail on an Amiga. I don't want a _PORT_. I want an amigatized
program from the ground up. DBMan V will be getting an arexx port
soon, or so I hear. I'd rather get that. Improv may be nice on the
NeXT, but your standards for good software are FAR different from an
amiga user's viewpoint. We expect integrated packages... And what's
the size of Improv, anyways? And just how well would it run on a
stock 68000? These are things just at the tip of the iceberg to think
of... And if everything IS in objective c, I could always convert it
to c++... Compile it on the amiga, and watch how many people turn
away from it. It's less than what an amiga user expects. Which
explains WordPerfect Perfectly.
Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I
remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud
enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it.
Here is the size of Improv and its help.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv*
-rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp
To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To
bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to
your satisfaction.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <1541@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
Well, I never got version 4.2, I'm still using 4.1, quite effectively too I
might add. I know several people who own Amigas who think that their wp
software is just fine. Really, there are so many wp apps out there that there
is no problem finding one that suits.
The one problem might be file compatibility. If people use 5.1 at
work, and they can only get 4.2 for the Amiga, they might be
discouraged from buying one. Commodore, unlike NeXT, is in the
perfect position to sell home computers to N million American who
would like to catch up on their work at home. It's either the Mac or
PC for these people.
Personally, for programming, I use MicroEmacs, the text editor that is
included with the Amiga operating system, it suits my needs just fine.
How about the real thing: GNU Emacs? That's what I use. I was never
a WP fan, but if a company wants to sell millions of computers they
have to satisfy the needs of millions of users. There are only so
many computer geeks in the world, you know :-).
-Mikees1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/03/91)
In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I >remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud >enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it. > At that time they left 3 people on it. I don't know what is happening now. >-Mike -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
judge@alchemy.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) (05/03/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <11710@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > > Thank you no, and what you just said is the reason that ANY program > will fail on an Amiga. I don't want a _PORT_. I want an amigatized > program from the ground up. DBMan V will be getting an arexx port > soon, or so I hear. I'd rather get that. Improv may be nice on the > NeXT, but your standards for good software are FAR different from an > amiga user's viewpoint. We expect integrated packages... And what's > the size of Improv, anyways? And just how well would it run on a > stock 68000? These are things just at the tip of the iceberg to think > of... And if everything IS in objective c, I could always convert it > to c++... Compile it on the amiga, and watch how many people turn > away from it. It's less than what an amiga user expects. Which > explains WordPerfect Perfectly. > > Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I > remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud > enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it. > > Here is the size of Improv and its help. > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* > -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp > > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. > > -Mike Gee, NewTek makes some cool games, don't they? rory
doubt@wahoo.rice.edu (Douglas Benjamin Triggs) (05/03/91)
In article <1541@ewu.UUCP>, mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: |> In article <yc6Gxqm_1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: |> Personally, for programming, I use MicroEmacs, the text editor that is |> included with the Amiga operating system, it suits my needs just fine. Yeah, it's funny. After a semester of heavy programming on Suns and such, when I resumed using the amiga on a regular basis, I found that I could no longer stand using LSE (lattice screen editor). GNUEmacs was so well programmed into my system that I ended up using MEmacs within a day... 'Course, I found out you could use CTRL-K in WordPerfect to delete lines -- it was so reflexive that I didn't notice I was doing it until I had been doing it for some time... (^: doubt (I think I'd have to rate WP as my favorite amiga word processor just because of that one little thing... (^:) +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "...practicing the fine art of stream-of-consciousness E-mail..." | +------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | // Douglas Triggs | COMPUTER IS HUNGRY. | doubt@owlnet.rice.edu | | \X/ GM # 8400000E | PLEASE FEED. | Rice University | +------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ Disclaimer: All opinions of Rice University are their own. (^:
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/04/91)
In article <z=6Gb8#?1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48101@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > >If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they > >release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that > >you've always wanted. > > Bzzt. Interface-building software has been available for the Amiga longer > than the 040 nExt has been available. > >That's been 6 months, and Commodore doesn't ship one with the Amiga. >The nExt IB has been shipping free with the computer since 1988(89?). >How long has nExt been in business? They kind of didn't "officially" >release the machines until 89. Oh well, my point was: "bzzt, you're >wrong. You didn't read my original posting very well." > >-Mike You didn't read his posting very well, Mike. He said that interface building software has been available for longer than the nExt, and he is right. Okay, so Power Windows is not shipped with an Amiga. But there are numerous public domain programs that have been available for a long time, which allow people to make window structures, gadgets, menus, and even add menus to the Amiga Workbench. You're just upset because the Amiga can fill so many markets. Not everyone who buys a computer needs an interface builder, so don't make such a big deal about it. Last, there is a nExt demonstration here at Stony Brook in 40 minutes. I will go look at it, and then see how it is for myself. And from all of your posts, I should expect it to be very impressive...we shall see. -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (05/04/91)
From article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I > remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud > enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it. I wasn't the one crying out. And of course the majority of people who do Word Processing don't use WP because it doesn't have any graphics support. THat doesn't mean I don't want WP. It just means that I want it better than it exists now. And what of the people that bought it? You think they want to go and buy another just because it sucked? No, now that they're here, I want continued support. WP dropped the amiga because their product sucked. All of the magazines said so. And nobody except for the few bought it. Frankly, there are lots of better wp's than WP. I use PenPal, and there's many others... Of course, you've never used a one of them, so watch the comments. > > Here is the size of Improv and its help. > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* > -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp That's a tad too large for an executable. I understand now why you think like you do. Of course, I pity you. If you need that much space on your hard disk for one application, you need much more storage than is easily attainable by your greedy little hands, I take it... I imagine the NeXT might actually be decent when you use a 1.2 GB drive. > > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. > And it's a shame that you think about as often as you speak intelligently... Once in a blue moon. Of course, flames aren't necessary, and if you feel it necessary to use them, be my guest, but I won't stand idly by, either. I can chew your shaggy, ugly butt out as easily as the next guy. And frankly, I'm sure I can do things with my Amiga that you probably couldn't think of... You don't have IPC, do you? Or large amounts of software? And at least I can relax with a game. Either you are seriously sexually repressed, or you could use a vacation. Even a computer as sorry as a Mac can do the things you say, albeit for more money, assuming you don't get the Next with 16mb of ram and a 1.2 gb hd to hold your system software... And even then they'll have color on you. 24 bit, not that 12 bit crap. Christ, even the lowly Amiga has $500 24 bit color... Sway your comments toward dev/null, pal. I'm sure your system will appreciate the only support it will get. Slightly PO'ed, Greg -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (05/04/91)
From article <iv9Gv8u+1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > a WP fan, but if a company wants to sell millions of computers they > have to satisfy the needs of millions of users. There are only so > many computer geeks in the world, you know :-). > > -Mike About 20-30,000 of them... And they all sing your praises. -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
accangel@amix.commodore.com (Mark Gardner) (05/04/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. > > -Mike You know, I am getting DAMN sick of your snide little comments that the only quality Amiga software is represented by games. But I'll let that go. And so.... **** FLAME ON **** Amiga users, strangely enough, APPRECIATE tight code. 1 1/2 megabytes for one program is a bit steep, to put it mildly. Does that fancy Objective C compiler you keep harping about do ANY code optimization whatsoever? Or is most of that space taken up by buttons and sliders created with the wonderful NeXT interface builder, which has to draw ALL the graphic elements in Display Postscript? What the heck does Lotus Improv do, anyway? Y'see, if I really like a program, use it a lot, etc., I put it on my hard drive. No problem. If I only use it once or twice, I'd like to be able to keep it and its associated files on one or two floppy disks. HOWEVER, your fine example of bloated and overweight code would need a bloody SHOEHORN to squeeze onto a high-density floppy, and leave no room for a user's documents, macros, batch files, whatever. This is a program which I would not consider buying unless I really, REALLY needed it. So please, take your overinflated program (dare I say overinflated ego, too?) and talk about portability somewhere else. Improv sounds about as portable as a sperm whale. **** FLAME OFF **** In closing, I must say that these NeXTwars here are dragging on a little too much. Don't you guys have your own newsgroups? -MG "And thus the Lord spake, and the masses cried out, 'Huh?'" ---------- Mark Gardner UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!accangel Internet: undrground!accangel@amix.commodore.com
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/04/91)
In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I >remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud >enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it. > >Here is the size of Improv and its help. > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* >-rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp > >To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To >bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to >your satisfaction. > >-Mike You know, its looking more and more like NeXT is not going to make it. You might be interested to read the article about NeXT and Steve Jobs in the latest issue of Forbes. I'm personally very tired of hearing about NeXT on comp.sys.amiga.advocacy and especially garbage like that written above. NCW
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/04/91)
Quoted from <48297@ut-emx.uucp> by greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp): > heard from a few NeXT programmers that the IB is basically a requirement > due to the time it would take to write the code by hand. However, that is Same thing with Windows. If NeXT is dishing this stuff out free with their machine, they are a step ahead of Microsoft as far as this sort of thing goes. > That's certainly not the case with the Amiga. Naturally. Our interface is a good one. > Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/04/91)
Quoted from <iv9Gv8u+1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > How about the real thing: GNU Emacs? That's what I use. I was never GNU Emacs _isn't_ the "real thing". > -Mike -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/04/91)
In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <11710@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: [bunch of WP stuff deleted] > > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. > > -Mike Mike, what is your objective here? I suspect that you have a desire to sell us readers on the merrits of the nExt computer, but if you look at your above statement, you appear as effective as a vacuum cleaner salesman who enters a potential customers home, urinates on his beloved vacuum cleaner, wipes excrement on his floors and walls, insults him, and trys to sell him/her a kerby using overbearing and rude tactics! I mean really, how can you expect to carry on an intelegent discussion with a group that is growing very tired of you by using statements like that? (I hope that I'm not overstepping my bounds by assuming that this group is tiring of Mike, if so, let me know). I own very few games - they are so good that I would preoccupy myself with them - the majority of my software is DTP, WP, Graphics, Utilities, and Compilers/interpreters, all of which fit my standards. I'm not saying that you should use these, I'm just saying that you should know what you' re talking about before speaking. -Matt Pierce
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/04/91)
In article <iv9Gv8u+1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <1541@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > > Well, I never got version 4.2, I'm still using 4.1, quite effectively too I > might add. I know several people who own Amigas who think that their wp > software is just fine. Really, there are so many wp apps out there that there > is no problem finding one that suits. > > The one problem might be file compatibility. If people use 5.1 at ^^^^^ You should probably check this out if you're gonna bring it up, I don't know if there is a problem with WP formatted file transfers, but you can always save them as ASCII text and import them back in where they will be automatically re-formatted (you'll still have to go back and take care of boldings/italics/underlines). I'll check on the file compatibilty problems and report back. > Personally, for programming, I use MicroEmacs, the text editor that is > included with the Amiga operating system, it suits my needs just fine. > > How about the real thing: GNU Emacs? That's what I use. I was never > -Mike I use MicroEmacs because it suits my needs - I don't NEED GNU Emacs. I also here that GNU Emacs is quit large, while MEmacs is > 63K. If I needed it, I would get it, but I don't - so I won't. -Matt Pierce
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/04/91)
In article <1544@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
[ I have been getting out of hand deleted]
I own very few games - they are so good that I would preoccupy myself with
them - the majority of my software is DTP, WP, Graphics, Utilities, and
Compilers/interpreters, all of which fit my standards. I'm not saying that
you should use these, I'm just saying that you should know what you'
re talking about before speaking.
I admit that comments some of the recent comments that I have said
shouldn't have been made. Bit I get tired of Amiga users complaining
about points like the software size and that C++ is a better
language(read a few comp.lang.* groups for an education -- C++ has
it's problems -- but hey, it is standard).
It's important to have quality software on a computer. Software size
is the last thing that is a problem, unless it affects the peformance.
NeXT has a machine with a least common denomitator of 15mips,
2.5MFlops, 8MB of RAM with virtual memory, and the DSP. That makes it
easier to develop software for their machine, which hasn't happened as
much as I would have liked because companies are jumping on the IBM
bandwagon.
Software is the key part of a computer, and why Apple sells more
computers than Commodore when pound for pound the Mac cannot touch the
Amiga. There is where I think the NeXT has a good chance of hitting
it big. It's an easy (relative -- writing software is hard work) to
write software for it.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/04/91)
In article <1546@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
You should probably check this out if you're gonna bring it up, I don't
know if there is a problem with WP formatted file transfers, but you can
always save them as ASCII text and import them back in where they will be
automatically re-formatted (you'll still have to go back and take care
of boldings/italics/underlines).
I'll check on the file compatibilty problems and report back.
WP 4.2 doesn't have some of the features in 5.1 and it was written
before it so I thought that it was safe to assume that it wasn't
backwards compatable. On the NeXT, version 5.0 won't allow one to
change the features (tables and equations) done in 5.1, but you can
still alter the file(not ideal, I do admit).
I use MicroEmacs because it suits my needs - I don't NEED GNU Emacs. I also
here that GNU Emacs is quit large, while MEmacs is > 63K. If I needed it, I
would get it, but I don't - so I won't.
GNU Emacs is about 1/2 MB, and it's going to get larger. Now you know
why I need a NeXT :-).
-Mikedac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (05/04/91)
In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu>, Michael D Mellinger writes: > Here is the size of Improv and its help. > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* > -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp > > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. Cor! Talk about code-bloat! 1.5Mb of executable code, eh! And only 1.2Mb of help text: usually help runs at 2 - 3 * code size. Then again, I'm presupposing that this 'Improv' does something useful... [:-) for the humour impaired.] Dac --
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/05/91)
In article <11710@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > NeXT, but your standards for good software are FAR different from an > amiga user's viewpoint. We expect integrated packages... No, we expect integratable ones. Why combine a decent spreadsheet, a mediocre graphics program, and a mediocre editor and call it 1-2-3? Better have your spreadsheet use REXX ports to talk to a good editor and a good graphics package? Would you rather use Lotus or the Video Toaster for a presentation video? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/05/91)
In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > Here is the size of Improv and its help. > -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* > -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp Barf. That's more than triple the memory of most Amigas right there, and that's before you include shared libraries, BSS, etc... No wonder NeXT needs 16 MB to be happy. My UNIX box is happy with 4 MB and could get along with 2, and PC folks consider *that* a hog. Some people like Caddilacs. Some people like Corvettes. But most people are quite satisfied with a Chevy. > To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To > bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to > your satisfaction. Pity Commodore doesn't have a black budget. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/06/91)
In article <wd6G.2n+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48298@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > You don't understand, do you?! I didn't bring up hardware standards and > they are not what concerns me. My concern is with language and code > portability. Porting between systems doesn't bother me as long as _good_ > compilers can be found for each system. > > In the case of Obj. C, there aren't enough compilers on enough platforms to > cause the competition to create fast enough, good enough compilers. > >Which machines do you write for? If you say the Mac, then you win. >There isn't an Objective C compiler for it. Of course there is only >one C++ compiler if Zortech hasn't finished their port. <Sigh...> I left what I wrote _once_ _again_ for your benefit. If only one or two Obj. C compilers exist for a platform and they haven't existed for very long, the compiler is not going to be very good. It's a simple fact that compilers improve with revisions and competition. BTW, I code for Amigas, PeeCees, and Suns (and whatever else I can get ahold of). Excellent C compilers are available for all of them. C++ is, of course, available on all of them, too. Comeau C++ has just been ported to the Amiga, BTW. Do you know why there isn't an Obj. C compiler for the Amiga? Lack of interest... Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/06/91)
In article <8b6Gw!m+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48297@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > That's certainly not the case with the Amiga. > >Then why isn't there more software other than games? If it's so easy, >maybe you can convince Lotus to port Improv to the Amiga. You _don't_ have a clue, do you? I'll give you an example of how much software (i.e. not games) exists for the Amiga. Take _just_ the public domain stuff. Now, a man named Fred Fish has taken upon himself to collect PD software and distribute it in a library of disks called Fish Disks (praise Fred!). Currently, there are 480 of these 880K disks full of software written by Amiga users around the world, of which a very small percentage is games (less than 10% easily). The Fish archive represents at most about 60% of the actual PD software out there for the Amiga. Now, go to a dealer. Generally, they have one wall committed to games and another committed to productivity software. You should _really_ look at what you are talking about before making such moronic statements. You may think that most Amiga software is just games, but you'll have a hard time convincing the several hundred disks and 140MB hard disk I have sitting here of that. At most I have 20 floppies and _maybe_ 15MB on my HD filled with games. Everything else is either apps, music, or graphics. Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/06/91)
In article <+86G#*m+1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <48296@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > The whole standards thing began because I talked about how I want to be > able to use a particular language on many platforms. Which platform is > being used is completely irrelevant to that discussion. You're the one > that keeps bringing that subject up... needlessly... > >Ah now I remember why I told you Objective C was available on the PC >and those other machines! In your one of your previous posts, you ask >me why I told you. I have never been concerned with Obj. C on the PeeCee. I don't see that I ever _will_ be concerned with it. How long do you have to think to make this stuff up, anyway? > Boy, is it hard to argue with Amigoids. If you can't take it, get the hell out. Until then I'm not going to stand idly by and watch you spread NeXT propaganda. Don't you realize that you're just a tool of Steve Jobs? He's found a few wackos and sold them on his new toy, then they go out and do his dirty work for him. > Your continuance in bringing up irrelevant things is starting to annoy me. > Please try to determine what is a relevant thing to write before doing so. > >My points aren't irrelavant, you just keep forgetting your questions :-). You're confused, and pretty screwy. End of thread... Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <48467@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
I'll give you an example of how much software (i.e. not games) exists for
the Amiga. Take _just_ the public domain stuff. Now, a man named Fred
Fish has taken upon himself to collect PD software and distribute it in a
library of disks called Fish Disks (praise Fred!). Currently, there are
480 of these 880K disks full of software written by Amiga users around the
world, of which a very small percentage is games (less than 10% easily).
The Fish archive represents at most about 60% of the actual PD software out
there for the Amiga.
Hmmm. There are thousands of Unix programs that run on the NeXT. But
that isn't going to mean anything to most people. There are probably
dozens of programs that do more or less the same thing on the Fish
disks. I'm talking about the kind of software that compaines and
schools buy to get some work done. How much of that software is of
commmercial quality? Now quit going off on a tangent. If I count
Unix programs, the NeXT has a whole shitload of programs.
Now, go to a dealer. Generally, they have one wall committed to games and
another committed to productivity software.
It really is hard to find a dealer, but I will look around. With all
this productivity software, why can't Commodore sell computers to
businesses?
You should _really_ look at what you are talking about before making such
moronic statements. You may think that most Amiga software is just games,
but you'll have a hard time convincing the several hundred disks and 140MB
hard disk I have sitting here of that. At most I have 20 floppies and
_maybe_ 15MB on my HD filled with games. Everything else is either apps,
music, or graphics.
I read Commodore's pamphlet and over half of it was devoted to games.
They really should advertise the productivity side a little more.
Hell, companies could save a fortune. How much does a Fish disk cost?
$12.95?
-Mikebillc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) (05/06/91)
In article <1917021f.ARN1cdd@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes: >In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu>, Michael D Mellinger writes: >> Here is the size of Improv and its help. >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* >> -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp >> To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To >> bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to >> your satisfaction. Oh come on... There are quite a few "high-standard" productivity products available. >Cor! Talk about code-bloat! >1.5Mb of executable code, eh! [stuff deleted] >Dac Er, uh... 1.5M == code bloat? Well, uh, I've got a confession about a certain Amiga program that not only has a big box ;-). It's not code bloat though, in fact it's split into 3 programs since the 64k global area kept getting blown. -- +------+ William J. Coldwell Amiga Attitude Adjuster Cryogenic Software /| /| PLink: CRYO, BIX: wjcoldwell, UUCP:...tektronix!percy!cryo!billc +-|----+ | NAG-BBS: 503/656-7393, NES-BBX: 503/640-9337, Work: 503/254-8147 | +----|-+ // PP&S has an old "black box" 1000 - Jobs isn't very original. |/ |/ \X/ Amiga Call 1-800-3Dis4me (so good you can't imagine it). +------+ STD_DSCLMR "All opinions above are mine, and you can't have them."
s609@cs.utexas.edu (Classroom Account) (05/06/91)
[Reply to my other account if needed... (greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)] In article <k.bGns#*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: In article <48467@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: Hmmm. There are thousands of Unix programs that run on the NeXT. But that isn't going to mean anything to most people. There are probably dozens of programs that do more or less the same thing on the Fish disks. I'm talking about the kind of software that compaines and schools buy to get some work done. How much of that software is of commmercial quality? Now quit going off on a tangent. If I count Unix programs, the NeXT has a whole shitload of programs. There are _hundreds_ of programs that are more or less the same thing available PD for Unix. That was not my point. My point was that not all Amiga software is games. You seem to think that all we have is Shadow of the Beast (which I don't own and have never played). I don't call responding to your wild ideas about the Amiga software base going off on a tangent. Also, most of the software is quite sufficient for the job at hand, and some of it surpasses commercial software of similar purpose. Also, you may be surprised at the number of programs ported to the Amiga from Unix. BTW, you might check the FTP site ab20.larc.nasa.gov and see how many megabytes of PD software is there. Very little of it is redundant. Ask Tad Guy how much storage is being taken up by the Amiga directories... It really is hard to find a dealer, but I will look around. With all this productivity software, why can't Commodore sell computers to businesses? Do you have cable? If Penn State isn't in a civilized enough area for an Amiga dealer maybe there isn't cable TV, either. Otherwise you'd see an example of a business that is eating up Toaster-equipped Amiga systems in some cases much faster than dealers can provide them. The San Antonio Amazing Computers (an Amiga-only dealership) just closed their highest-volume month of sales -- mostly Toaster-equipped systems. I read Commodore's pamphlet and over half of it was devoted to games. They really should advertise the productivity side a little more. Hell, companies could save a fortune. How much does a Fish disk cost? $12.95? That pamphlet will hopefully be going away. Seeing most of the recent developments in C='s marketing strategies, I would expect it. Fish disks are normally distributed through user groups for something like $5 per disk. They can also be purchased directly from Fred for a slightly lower price (I believe) or they can be FTPed from a few sites around the world. I doubt the providers of the software would appreciate Fred or anyone else making a profit from the business. Greg
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/06/91)
Quoted from <k.bGns#*1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > It really is hard to find a dealer, but I will look around. With all > this productivity software, why can't Commodore sell computers to > businesses? Same reason NeXT can't (assuming you're talking about businesses that don't buy Amigas, unlike the video companies, TV companies, software companies, Apple, etc). > -Mike -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <48466@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
[ C++ vs Objective C flames deleted ]
Ech. Sound like a couple of Fortran programmers arguing Ratfor versus EFL.
C++ and Objective C are just kludges. Oh, they'll be around for a few years
yet, until the object oriented language world settles down. But they are
to C what Ratfor and EFL were to Fortran: something to give a modicum of
features to a language that isn't on the leading edge any more.
(don't get me wrong, I program in C pretty much, for the same reason you're
using ObjC or C++. But I don't fool myself arguing over the aesthetics of
a couple of preprocessors)
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <k.bGns#*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > It really is hard to find a dealer, but I will look around. With all > this productivity software, why can't Commodore sell computers to > businesses? Why can't NeXT? Or Apple, really. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May6.111827.8067@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
(don't get me wrong, I program in C pretty much, for the same reason you're
using ObjC or C++. But I don't fool myself arguing over the aesthetics of
a couple of preprocessors)
I don't use Objective C or C++ preprocessors. They're too slow.
-Mikeallbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) (05/07/91)
As quoted from <k.bGns#*1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): +--------------- | It really is hard to find a dealer, but I will look around. With all | this productivity software, why can't Commodore sell computers to | businesses? +--------------- Well, now I know where you went when it finally dawned on you that the Mac folks weren't going to convert en masse.... Why can't Commodore sell computers to businesses in the U.S.? Because they have never had anything even remotely resembling a decent marketing strategy here. Not even back when the CBM series was pretty close to---if not at---the top of the line in small computers. (And does anyone else remember the SuperPET? "Games machine" indeed.) In Europe, CBM has always been a strong contender. Commodore has been trying to shuck the "game machine" image since the PET. (Atari's been in a similar situation.) Neither's really done the job right (as you observed about the emphasis on games for the Amiga), but both have had the hardware to do it---and even the programs---for some time. The problem is, to make it in business you have to have the abominable attitude of an IBM or an Apple, and you have to *de*emphasize the things that make a machine interesting to home buyers (i.e. games...). C= is trying to straddle both with the A500 vs. the A500P, but still has that "games machine" image. ++Brandon (P.S. I'm familiar with the business attitude, having had to work with those types for the past 10 years. The only conclusion I can draw is that Corporate America has a screw loose somewhere.) -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA 10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (restricted HF at present) Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/08/91)
In article <HPcD21w162w@alchemy.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us> judge@alchemy.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) writes: >melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >> >> In article <11710@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >> >> Good reasoning: we really don't want those packages anyway. And if I >> remember correctly WP had dropped the Amiga, but there was a loud >> enough out cry that that gave one person the job of maintaining it. >> >> Here is the size of Improv and its help. >> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* >> -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp >> >> To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To >> bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to >> your satisfaction. >> >> -Mike > >Gee, NewTek makes some cool games, don't they? > >rory Doesn't nEWtEK make Blazemother? Or something like that...oh yeah, BlazeMonger. That's it. I bet Blazemonger doesn't run on a nExt. Well, I they could store it on a streaming tape backup... -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/08/91)
In article <2940.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it. I'm the kind > of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard. Hurm. Didn't you say you use a NeXT? What is that supposed to be standard for? The NeXT is posited like a hi-end Mac - the same way Compaq, say, looks like a hi-end PClone. > -Mike Again, I was being sarcastic. -Mike
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <b5bG3um&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > I don't use Objective C or C++ preprocessors. They're too slow. Either you're arguing about implementation, or I'm totally confused. Were you not just defending ObjC against the slings and arrows of C++? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.173528.361@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > I don't use Objective C or C++ preprocessors. They're too slow. Either you're arguing about implementation, or I'm totally confused. Were you not just defending ObjC against the slings and arrows of C++? You said something about using preprocessors languages, and I was simply stating(subtly) that on the NeXT neither implementations are preprocessors. You're right it is just an implementation detail, but the one implementation will drive you crazy. -Mike
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (05/09/91)
billc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) writes: >It's not code bloat though, in fact it's split into 3 programs since >the 64k global area kept getting blown. WHAT 64K "global area"? Such a thing does not exist in the 68000, nor in the Amiga. It is not required that you use only relative short addressing modes, you know. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/10/91)
In article <w?aGagh#1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > In article <1991May8.173528.361@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > You said something about using preprocessors languages, The language design is a front-end to C along with a runtime library. How it's implemented can't change that. Neither language is what one would call a good fundamental OO language. They're both about as good as can be given the constraints, but it's certainly not worth arguing the merits of one over the other. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/10/91)
In article <1917021f.ARN1cdd@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au writes: >In article <0o9Gv_t+1@cs.psu.edu>, Michael D Mellinger writes: > >> Here is the size of Improv and its help. >> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 me wheel 1668841 Jan 23 09:57 Improv* >> -rw-r--r-- 1 me wheel 1397626 Jan 23 09:57 bbqref.hlp >> >> To much for you to handle? Amiga users have such high standards. To >> bad the game companies are the only ones that can deliver products to >> your satisfaction. > >Cor! Talk about code-bloat! > >1.5Mb of executable code, eh! And loading off of a hard drive at 28ms must take at least 10 seconds... imagine loading it off of those awesome cd roms they used to have! Or maybe off of a streaming tape drive...ZZZZzzzzzz..... > >And only 1.2Mb of help text: usually help runs at 2 - 3 * code size. > >Then again, I'm presupposing that this 'Improv' does something useful... > >[:-) for the humour impaired.] > >Dac >-- -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.