greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/09/91)
[I had to post this because rn kept throwing up when I tried to follow up.] Michael D Mellinger <melling@cs.psu.edu> writes: The basic NeXTstation is great for use on a network. If NeXT put a larger drive on the low-end machine, it would cost more and then people who network a dozen machines would have something to complain about. It's not the ideal system for a single user system, but it's such a great deal that it's hard to pass up. It's _not_ a great deal in any way for the single user. That was exactly what I was saying before. Steve Jobs markets it as all a student needs for college, when it's definitely the _wrong_ box if you're not putting it on a network, and I have only heard of one college that was planning on putting ethernet jacks in the dorm rooms... Most users don't know that they can buy a NeXT. It's a Mac and IBM world. I think Apple charges the similar prices for RAM and HD. How about Commodore? I doubt Apple actually charges nearly $3000 for 8MB of RAM, but I wouldn't put it past them either. In the Commodore market the OEM equipment is sometimes slightly more and sometimes slightly less than competitors. For example the A590 hard drive & interface is higher than average in A500 HD prices. However, the Display Enhancer card costs something like $100-$150 less than the competing flickerFixer board and works with the new video modes which aren't supported by the fF. OEM equipment isn't nearly as outrageously priced from C= than from Apple, IBM, or NeXT. Me> With 30,000 machines what kind of user groups can you expect? It's Me> possible that you _might_ know someone else who owns a NeXT, but it's a Me> small chance. I know three people. Think about it. What other machine are computer literate people going to buy? Hmmm... Now considering the national ranking of the UT CS department, I'd be willing to bet that a good number of the people here are computer literate. :) Well, I don't know a single person who is still looking at buying a NeXT, including those who were planning on it a couple months ago. What computer literate person _would_ buy a NeXT? You get a non-standard Unix port on a box that has shipped less than 30,000 units built buy a company that several competent businesspeople have predicted will fail within a year. Sounds like a _great_ investment to me... I can tell you right now that if I was looking for a high speed Unix box I'd be buying a SPARC. If I was looking for a practical Unix box with a standard OS I'd be buying an A3000UX. Under NO circumstances would I buy a NeXT. (Of course, right now I'd be waiting for the next generation RISC boxes anyway.) Me> BTW, how much does Improv cost now? Not sure, somewhere b/w $495 and $695. I see. Lotus is trying to make some money while they still can. -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
pselver@euler.mit.edu (Peter Selverstone) (04/09/91)
In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > ... >However, the Display Enhancer card costs something like $100-$150 less than >the competing flickerFixer board and works with the new video modes which >aren't supported by the fF. Neither of these statements is correct. Don't believe everything you read on the net. Several commercially oriented postings have contained very misleading information. It's a shame that a long-term record of fairness and accuracy in usenet postings has been compromised. > ... >-- > 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 -- Peter Selverstone - Spy Pond Systems - Arlington, MA - (617)648-7468 pselver@euler.mit.edu bix:pselverstone PLINK:pselverst CIS:72527,2652
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr9.123457.9779@galois.mit.edu> pselver@euler.mit.edu (Peter Selverstone) writes: >In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: [...] >>However, the Display Enhancer card costs something like $100-$150 less than >>the competing flickerFixer board and works with the new video modes which >>aren't supported by the fF. > >Neither of these statements is correct. Don't believe everything you >read on the net. Several commercially oriented postings have contained >very misleading information. It's a shame that a long-term record of >fairness and accuracy in usenet postings has been compromised. Please tell us what is incorrect and exactly what is incorrect, if you are convinced that this posting is in error. Unless the prices changed recently, the Commodore display enhancer board was selling for about $300 (actually I've seen it much cheaper than this), while the FF was selling for around $450. If you think this is wrong please correct these figures with specific numbers. Also, it was my understanding that the Commodore display enhancer is able to display full overscan, and the FF was not able to do this (I believe there is some number of overscan pixels that get left out). Again, if you think this is wrong, please correct it with some detail. I'm not flaming; I really want to know if this is not true; it's just that a statement of, "Neither of these statements is correct," just isn't very convincing. _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com --
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (04/10/91)
In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >[I had to post this because rn kept throwing up when I tried to follow up.] > >Michael D Mellinger <melling@cs.psu.edu> writes: > >It's _not_ a great deal in any way for the single user. That was exactly what ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You get some good software and a powerful computer. Software is Mathematica, Webster, Shakespeare, Writenow, TeX, etc. Basically all a single user would need for day to day computing. >I was saying before. Steve Jobs markets it as all a student needs for >college, when it's definitely the _wrong_ box if you're not putting it on a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why? My stand-alone system is great. >network, and I have only heard of one college that was planning on putting >ethernet jacks in the dorm rooms... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are a couple but that is beside the point. > > > >Me> With 30,000 machines what kind of user groups can you expect? It's ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quite a few as a matter of fact and the number IS growing. >Me> possible that you _might_ know someone else who owns a NeXT, but it's a >Me> small chance. I own one and I know more than a couple of people that own them. > >Hmmm... Now considering the national ranking of the UT CS department, I'd be >willing to bet that a good number of the people here are computer literate. :) >Well, I don't know a single person who is still looking at buying a NeXT, >including those who were planning on it a couple months ago. If that is the case they were never too serious about buying one in the first place. > >What computer literate person _would_ buy a NeXT? You get a non-standard Unix ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well I would and did. Let's see I hold a BSEE and am about to complete my MSEE in computer and digital systems design. I think that qualifies me as computer literate, since I've designed full computer systems. >port on a box that has shipped less than 30,000 units built buy a company that Tell me please, what is so non-standard about the Unix on a NeXT? I looks very much like SunOS. But then I guess Sun has a non-standard port. The standard in educational circles is an AT&T port with BSD extensions. This is what Sun and NeXT have. The MACH kernal is not the standard kernal in the industry but it is widely accepted as a very good kernal. The NeXT kernal allows installable drivers. This means that if you have a device driver and it doesn't work you can back it out of the kernal and not rebuild it. It also means that you don't need to rebuild the kernal everytime you want to add a device. >several competent businesspeople have predicted will fail within a year. Oh! Those people could not be wrong. NeXT is a company worth more than $600,000,000 this is actually before they produced a single machine. Last year they made ~$100 million. >Sounds like a _great_ investment to me... > >I can tell you right now that if I was looking for a high speed Unix box I'd >be buying a SPARC. If I was looking for a practical Unix box with a standard You could buy a SPARC then go out and buy the compiler and all the you need to run at some crazy price. BTW SPECmarks show the '040 NeXT at the same level of performance as a SPARC 1+. >OS I'd be buying an A3000UX. Under NO circumstances would I buy a NeXT. (Of ~~~~~~~~~~ An expensive box with NO Unix software. I don't mean game software for the Amiga but real Unix software. How many orders are in for the A300UX. I bet it isn't 20,000. Compare likes with likes. The only thing close to a NeXT is the A3000UX and it comes up short. >course, right now I'd be waiting for the next generation RISC boxes anyway.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yea, you can wait because there will always be something faster in the pipeline. Face it the NeXT WILL be around for a while. One machine, be it NeXT, Amiga, Atari ST/TT, PC (clone), Mac is not the answer to everyone's needs. Mine are varied and the NeXT doesn't suit them all, but I have a PC clone to pick up the slack. I say find the software you like then buy a machine that you like that can run the software. > > >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 -- /* -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 */
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/10/91)
In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
It's _not_ a great deal in any way for the single user. That was exactly what
I was saying before. Steve Jobs markets it as all a student needs for
college, when it's definitely the _wrong_ box if you're not putting it on a
network, and I have only heard of one college that was planning on putting
ethernet jacks in the dorm rooms...
I think MIT is putting ethernet in the dorm rooms. And why can't you
use a 105MB NeXTstation do write papers, play games, or do spreadsheet
work?
I know three people. Think about it. What other machine are computer
literate people going to buy?
Hmmm... Now considering the national ranking of the UT CS department, I'd be
willing to bet that a good number of the people here are computer literate. :)
Well, I don't know a single person who is still looking at buying a NeXT,
including those who were planning on it a couple months ago.
What can I say, perhaps there is a difference b/w the students as Penn
State and the ones at UT CS :-).
What computer literate person _would_ buy a NeXT? You get a non-standard Unix
port on a box that has shipped less than 30,000 units built buy a company that
several competent businesspeople have predicted will fail within a year.
Sounds like a _great_ investment to me...
Why is the Unix non-standard?
I can tell you right now that if I was looking for a high speed Unix box I'd
be buying a SPARC. If I was looking for a practical Unix box with a standard
OS I'd be buying an A3000UX. Under NO circumstances would I buy a NeXT. (Of
course, right now I'd be waiting for the next generation RISC boxes anyway.)
A Sparc II? I think NeXT has better price performance than Sun. At
least they did with the older models. Anyway, HP has the machines to
beat. $12,000 will buy you a 57 mip monochrome machine.
-Mikejph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.123457.9779@galois.mit.edu> pselver@euler.mit.edu (Peter "The Clue" Selverstone) writes: >In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >> ... > >>However, the Display Enhancer card costs something like $100-$150 less than >>the competing flickerFixer board and works with the new video modes which >>aren't supported by the fF. > >Neither of these statements is correct. Don't believe everything you >read on the net. Several commercially oriented postings have contained >very misleading information. It's a shame that a long-term record of >fairness and accuracy in usenet postings has been compromised. > >> ... > He's right. Ask Scott Hood. (He designed the thing, you know...) Commodore's board is basically the same thing thats in the 3000. -- // Joseph Hillenburg/Blackwinter, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group \X/ jph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@gnu.ai.mit.edu "Project: Desert Storm is also known as ``The Mother of All Ass-Kickings.''"
pselver@galois.mit.edu (Peter Selverstone) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr09.161348.8573@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > ... >Unless the prices changed recently, the Commodore display enhancer board >was selling for about $300 (actually I've seen it much cheaper than this), >while the FF was selling for around $450. > >If you think this is wrong please correct these figures with specific numbers. > Here are the advertised prices from a number of flickerFixer vendors from the last 18 issues of Amiga World. These are mail-order prices; most dealers are a bit higher. Note that the price dropped below $450 about a year ago and has been dropping ever since. Creative Computability GoAmigo SafeHarbor Manta May 91 279 249 ... ... 239 Apr 91 279 249 ... ... 239 Mar 91 299 ... ... ... 235 Feb 91 299 285 ... ... ... Jan 91 374 355 374 299 ... Dec 90 374 ... 374 369 ... Nov 90 374 375 374 375 ... Oct 90 378 375 409 375 ... Sep 90 378 379 409 375 ... Aug 90 399 379 409 375 ... Jul 90 399 379 439 460 Jun 90 479 429 469 460 ... May 90 479 429 469 460 ... Apr 90 479 429 469 460 ... Mar 90 ... 429 469 ... ... Feb 90 ... 455 469 460 ... Jan 90 ... 455 469 460 ... Dec 89 ... 455 469 ... ... -- Peter Selverstone - Spy Pond Systems - Arlington, MA - (617)648-7468 pselver@euler.mit.edu bix:pselverstone PLINK:pselverst CIS:72527,2652
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.123457.9779@galois.mit.edu> pselver@euler.mit.edu (Peter Selverstone) writes: >In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >>However, the Display Enhancer card costs something like $100-$150 less than >>the competing flickerFixer board and works with the new video modes which >>aren't supported by the fF. > >Neither of these statements is correct. Don't believe everything you >read on the net. Several commercially oriented postings have contained >very misleading information. It's a shame that a long-term record of >fairness and accuracy in usenet postings has been compromised. (I was gonna write one of those "Bzzzt. Thank you for playing anyway." posts but I guess I'm just too nice. :) ) Uh, exactly where did you get this info? I've seen the DEB priced consistently less than the fF. Also, the fF doesn't work correctly with overscan and some of the new ECS display modes. No offense, but you can't say someone is wrong (which I admit I sometimes am -- I'm human) and not back it up. Please _do_ back it up if it's true. I'd be glad to know that the fF had been reduced to the price of the DEB and that it had been updated to support the new ECS modes and overscan. Believe me. I don't take marketroid trash as anything other than a derivative of what once _was_ the facts... ;) >Peter Selverstone - Spy Pond Systems - Arlington, MA - (617)648-7468 >pselver@euler.mit.edu bix:pselverstone PLINK:pselverst CIS:72527,2652 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
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (04/10/91)
In article <> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shepard) writes: >Tell me please, what is so non-standard about the Unix on a NeXT? I looks ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >very much like SunOS. But then I guess Sun has a non-standard port. >The standard in educational circles is an AT&T port with BSD extensions. >This is what Sun and NeXT have. The MACH kernal is not the standard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >kernal in the industry but it is widely accepted as a very good kernal. Congratulations upon having answered your own question. >Oh! Those people could not be wrong. NeXT is a company worth more than >$600,000,000 this is actually before they produced a single machine. Last >year they made ~$100 million. Just out of curiosity -- where are you getting your numbers? I was under the impression that NeXT was a privately held company. Furthermore, I heard that they had sold only 15,000 of their original machines. At ten-thousand a shot, something doesn't add up -- unless, *gasp* there were 15,000 suckers born last year. :) 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
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (04/10/91)
In article <46907@ut-emx.uucp>, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > [I had to post this because rn kept throwing up when I tried to follow up.] > > Michael D Mellinger <melling@cs.psu.edu> writes: > > The basic NeXTstation is great for use on a network. If NeXT put a > larger drive on the low-end machine, it would cost more and then > people who network a dozen machines would have something to complain > about. It's not the ideal system for a single user system, but it's > such a great deal that it's hard to pass up. > > It's _not_ a great deal in any way for the single user. That was exactly what > I was saying before. Steve Jobs markets it as all a student needs for > college, when it's definitely the _wrong_ box if you're not putting it on a > network, and I have only heard of one college that was planning on putting > ethernet jacks in the dorm rooms... Aargh! Talk about fruitless discussion. The fact that you say some computer is _right_ or some computer is _wrong_ tells something about your attitude... I, for one, don't have the possibility to network my NeXT yet from my home. Still, I bought it. 105 MB hard disk is too small if you want to to development, but you can sure run applications like Improv with it. I also bought a 660MB Fujitsu (since I need much space for computer music research). > > Me> With 30,000 machines what kind of user groups can you expect? It's > Me> possible that you _might_ know someone else who owns a NeXT, but it's a > Me> small chance. > > I know three people. Think about it. What other machine are computer > literate people going to buy? > > Hmmm... Now considering the national ranking of the UT CS department, I'd be > willing to bet that a good number of the people here are computer literate. :) > Well, I don't know a single person who is still looking at buying a NeXT, > including those who were planning on it a couple months ago. Well, perhaps all the people you know belong to your own favourite Amiga-club :-) I guess it doesn't mean anything, but several people have sent me mail that they want to buy a NeXT and asked for more information. I don't know anybody who has even considered buying a high-end Amiga... (I don't mean to say there aren't any.) > > What computer literate person _would_ buy a NeXT? You get a non-standard Unix > port on a box that has shipped less than 30,000 units built buy a company that > several competent businesspeople have predicted will fail within a year. > Sounds like a _great_ investment to me... Well, I guess you haven't read any article about NeXT. All the magazines I have seen a NeXT review in have written _very_ positively about it/them. Such are, "Mac World", "Mac User", "Byte", "Personal Computer World", to name a few. And did you know that "Computer Language" gave their award for "the best development system of the year" for NeXTstep 2.0 with Interface Builder and Objective C. So, you see, _your_ opinion is not very popular. Surprised you? > -- > 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 Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/11/91)
In <yd8G8k8l1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Why is the Unix non-standard? 1) ONLY the NeXT runs that kernel; it is not System V, it is NOT bsd4.3 (any version) or bsd4.4, it is NOT OSF (as if they actually shipped one). SunOS is not a standard kernel, either, but they've shipped enough that some people think it is. 2) it has NON-standard mailers (voice is nice, why not an OSI standard?). 3) it has a non-standard graphics interface; it is NOT X11R4, which is only non-proprietary GUI standard. DPS has nice features, but it isn't a standard, it's proprietary licensed technology. As an aside, other than watching goldfish, what practical use is the transparency? Dan Taylor
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (04/11/91)
In article <12622@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shepard) writes: >>Oh! Those people could not be wrong. NeXT is a company worth more than >>$600,000,000 this is actually before they produced a single machine. Last >>year they made ~$100 million. > >Just out of curiosity -- where are you getting your numbers? > >I was under the impression that NeXT was a privately held company. >Furthermore, I heard that they had sold only 15,000 of their original >machines. At ten-thousand a shot, something doesn't add up -- unless, >*gasp* there were 15,000 suckers born last year. :) > > >David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu NeXT is a privately held company. I don't know how much venture capital was put up to get it rolling. I also agree that the chances that NeXT make about $100 million last year are very slim. According to press reports, Steve Jobs last week admitted that NeXT shipped only 10,000 of its first line of machines, the ones which were unveiled in October 1988 for $9,995. To _gross_ $100 million on all of the original NeXT's sold would have required an average sale price of $10000. These 10000 machines were actually sold over a two year period, so I doubt very much that NeXT had a $100 million profit last year. Also since previously Jobs kept his sales figures secret, I imagine that numbers such as profit and net worth have also been withheld (as is their right). Jobs also does not expect to ship more than 50000 machines this year. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (04/11/91)
In article <12622@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shepard) writes: > >>Oh! Those people could not be wrong. NeXT is a company worth more than >>$600,000,000 this is actually before they produced a single machine. Last >>year they made ~$100 million. > >Just out of curiosity -- where are you getting your numbers? > >I was under the impression that NeXT was a privately held company. >Furthermore, I heard that they had sold only 15,000 of their original >machines. At ten-thousand a shot, something doesn't add up -- unless, >*gasp* there were 15,000 suckers born last year. :) They are a privitely held company. Forbes and other magazines estimated the worth of the company based on investment from Cannon, Roth Periot, Steve Jobs, and a couple of others that own a piece of the pie. What doesn't add up? 15k * 10k = 150 million. Now all machines didn't sell for 10k, some sold for less so my figure of ~$100 million is valid. > >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 BTW - for all of you who think a NeXT is slow, I have news for you. My '030 cube was not slow and now that I have a '040 upgrade board it really is NOT slow. Also there are a couple of animation demos in the software release and they are NOT slow. Before you blast a NeXT on how slow it is, work on one. 2.0 also has a faster kernal and some other speed improvements. I wouldn't trade my NeXT for any other computer on the market. Oh yea, my NeXT has faster response than the SPARCstation 1+ on my desk running Motif. Kent -- /* -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 */
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (04/12/91)
In article <b0bN02bW06s401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: > >BTW - for all of you who think a NeXT is slow, I have news for you. >My '030 cube was not slow and now that I have a '040 upgrade board it >really is NOT slow. Also there are a couple of animation demos in the >software release and they are NOT slow. Before you blast a NeXT on how >slow it is, work on one. I've been using NeXTs daily for a year and a half. The '030 was slow. Compared to what? Compared to any other '030 machine on the market. The '040 is not as slow. The OS still drags it down, from what I hear of the optimal response of an '040. Granted, the animations are much faster, but they are *quite* jerky, even without paging. And every animation I've seen on the NeXT-- even the '040, is nowhere *near* the smooth 60fps+ you can get on a 'Miga. It's a different market. The NeXT won't do animation. Period. You want animation, get another machine, or a NeXTDimension; if you have a good deal of money to spend, that is. >I wouldn't trade my NeXT for any other computer on the market. Hey, likewise for an A3000, pal. You won't be converting many in THIS newsgroup, chummer. >/* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ Note: the above opinions have nothing to do with the fact that I am a NeXT rep heh, heh, heh (hey, it's a living ;-) Dave Hopper | /// Anthro Creep | Academic Info Resources, Stanford |__ /// . . | Macincrap/UNIX Consultant bard@jessica. |\\\/// Ia! Ia! | -- Just remember: love is life, and Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | hate is living death. :Black Sabbath
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (04/12/91)
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <yd8G8k8l1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Why is the Unix non-standard? >1) ONLY the NeXT runs that kernel; it is not System V, it is NOT bsd4.3 >(any version) or bsd4.4, it is NOT OSF (as if they actually shipped one). >SunOS is not a standard kernel, either, but they've shipped enough that >some people think it is. I dare you to find a single significant difference between the programming interface to NeXT's Mach and a pure 4.3BSD system. We have several machines here (lots of Suns/Stardents/Silicon Graphics/NeXTs/Macintosh-AUX/VAXs/IBMRT). We have ONE pure 4.3 system - The IBM RT (first generation). And the NeXTs are the second choice for "generic" computers. Where do all those VAXs running Ultrix fall in your classification? >2) it has NON-standard mailers (voice is nice, why not an OSI standard?). Don't really know what you're talking about here. Sendmail is still the underlying delivery method and SMTP is the connection to the outside world. >3) it has a non-standard graphics interface; it is NOT X11R4, which is >[the] only non-proprietary GUI standard. DPS has nice features, but it >isn't a standard, it's [a] proprietary licensed technology. 1) Thank God. 2) So what? >As an aside, other than watching goldfish, what practical use is the >transparency? Try programming one sometime. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.
conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) (04/13/91)
How about renaming this news section as comp.amiga.next.wars, Come on
people you are wearing this one out. THe NeXT is a good machine for
what it does and no one can prove otherwise. Just because it is not an
Amiga, and it runs in the same Processor Family, does not mean it is
open season for a kill. Besides if most of you could own a NeXT you
would. Or at Least I would. Why not perform some useful function as to
advocate the introduction of Virtual Memory on the Amiga, or even certain
programming styles and principles. Lets get useful and not critical.
In other words get constructive not destructive.
A concerned subscriber,
--
Robert Faulkner conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
/// Recursion: Thinking
\\\/// University of Texas about
\\// Amiga Computers Thinkingmpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (04/14/91)
In article <47113@ut-emx.uucp>, conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) writes: [stuff deleted in interest of brevity.] > open season for a kill. Besides if most of you could own a NeXT you > would. Or at Least I would. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's right, at least YOU would, I on the other hand would NOT! I like my Amiga, a lot better than nExt, and have made this decision from experience! > Why not perform some useful function as to > advocate the introduction of Virtual Memory on the Amiga, or even certain I don't want virtual memory on the Amiga, because that would mean that I would have to buy a bigger harddisk, and it would slow down my apps. I have three megs of RAM and a 44meg syquest, VM would screwup my setup and push the Amiga past my finacial capabilities. > programming styles and principles. Lets get useful and not critical. > In other words get constructive not destructive. > > A concerned subscriber, > -- > > Robert Faulkner conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu > /// Recursion: Thinking > \\\/// University of Texas about > \\// Amiga Computers Thinking
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (04/14/91)
In article <1524@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
I don't want virtual memory on the Amiga, because that would mean that I
would have to buy a bigger harddisk, and it would slow down my apps. I have
three megs of RAM and a 44meg syquest, VM would screwup my setup and push
the Amiga past my finacial capabilities.
Why does that mean you would need a bigger hard disk? Apple is giving
its user virtual memory, and their basic configuration is 2MB of RAM
and a 40MB hard drive. Shouldn't the option at least be available?
After all disk prices are getting cheap. A 105MB drive can be had for
$400, and I've seen 660MB drives for $1500.
-Mikempierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (04/15/91)
In article <au4Gj-vo1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <1524@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > > I don't want virtual memory on the Amiga, because that would mean that I > would have to buy a bigger harddisk, and it would slow down my apps. I have > three megs of RAM and a 44meg syquest, VM would screwup my setup and push > the Amiga past my finacial capabilities. > > Why does that mean you would need a bigger hard disk? VM needs swap-space, My HD is pretty full of apps, I have no room for swap- space; therefore, to use VM, I would need to buy a larger HD, and I cannot afford to buy another HD at ANY price, yes I have absolutely no money for expenses beyond basic living and school. Also, VM requires a >=68020 CPU and MMU, there is absolutely no way I can afford a machine that includes thos items and the architecture to use them (even though the Amiga can, I can't get it). > > -Mike
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/16/91)
In <greg.671421995@travis> greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: >>>Why is the Unix non-standard? >I dare you to find a single significant difference between the programming >interface to NeXT's Mach and a pure 4.3BSD system. Have you ever launched a lightweight process (thread) on a bsd system? No, because bsd doesn't have them, Mach does. And they are available at the user-process level. Threads are considered a VERY significant difference. I can compile and run bsd programs on OS-9/68k. too. Is that now a standard UNIX? There's a lot more to a "Unix" than the minimal programming interface. There are comptiblity libraries and headers for PCs and System V. But the OS is also the file handlers (bsd on NeXT, last I looked), the process scheduling (pure? Mach), the IPC mechanisms (I believe bsd sockets), the user interface provided (pure NeXT), networking ....... Some of these are "standard" on NeXT, some are not. The question was: how not? >>2) it has NON-standard mailers (voice is nice, why not an OSI standard?). >Don't really know what you're talking about here. Sendmail is still the >underlying delivery method and SMTP is the connection to the outside >world. However, the interface will package data for sendmail, and SMTP, that is unreadable on any other system. It's still non-standard. Read the original question. >>3) it has a non-standard graphics interface; it is NOT X11R4, which is >>[the] only non-proprietary GUI standard. DPS has nice features, but it >>isn't a standard, it's [a] proprietary licensed technology. >1) Thank God. 2) So what? Because its NOT a standard, and that's what the original question was. >>As an aside, other than watching goldfish, what practical use is the >>transparency? >Try programming one sometime. That is not an answer. I would really like a list of applications, or proposed applications that NEED transparency at the window manager level. There is already an animation program (Disney) on the Amiga that uses an internal form of transparency to allow you to see several frames at once to judge the smoothness of your motion. But why does the window manager need it? >Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 However, did you read the ORIGINAL question? I simply listed the non- standard implementations of the OS. There was no heavy value judgement, and everything I listed is unique to NeXT, or, at least, not available in the System V, bsd, or OSF distributions. This is not a flame of the NeXT computer, per se, but why are so many NeXToids unable to hold an intellegent conversation, without shouting the virtues (?) of their machine at everyone else? Are they trying to convince us, or themselves? Dan Taylor
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (04/17/91)
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <greg.671421995@travis> greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) writes: >>>>Why is the Unix non-standard? It is not. >>I dare you to find a single significant difference between the programming >>interface to NeXT's Mach and a pure 4.3BSD system. >Have you ever launched a lightweight process (thread) on a bsd system? >No, because bsd doesn't have them, Mach does. And they are available at >the user-process level. Threads are considered a VERY significant difference. >I can compile and run bsd programs on OS-9/68k. too. Is that now a >standard UNIX? Ok, I've read your entire posting. What you're saying is that you're bothered by the additional functionality that the NeXT machine provides over a generic 4.3BSD machine. You are NOT complaining that NeXT provides a non-standard or incomplete 4.3 UNIX box. Only that they provide extensions. So what? Ignore them. Ignore the extra manual pages. >There's a lot more to a "Unix" than the minimal programming interface. There >are comptiblity libraries and headers for PCs and System V. But the OS is >also the file handlers (bsd on NeXT, last I looked), the process scheduling >(pure? Mach), the IPC mechanisms (I believe bsd sockets), the user interface >provided (pure NeXT), networking ....... Some of these are "standard" on >NeXT, some are not. The question was: how not? Exactly. "How not?" Only in the extensions. If you approach the NeXT as a generic 4.3 box, it will reward you by behaving likewise. Everything is standard up to and including the 4.3BSD level. There are NO surprises. >>>2) it has NON-standard mailers (voice is nice, why not an OSI standard?). >>Don't really know what you're talking about here. Sendmail is still the >>underlying delivery method and SMTP is the connection to the outside >>world. >However, the interface will package data for sendmail, and SMTP, that is >unreadable on any other system. It's still non-standard. Read the >original question. Only NeXTMail. NeXTMail is an extension. As I said, if you don't like it, ignore it. The NeXT comes with all the standard Berkeley mailers. I think NeXTMail sux and I don't use it. I don't have to. They ARE providing the choice. Read my posting. >>>3) it has a non-standard graphics interface; it is NOT X11R4, which is >>>[the] only non-proprietary GUI standard. DPS has nice features, but it >>>isn't a standard, it's [a] proprietary licensed technology. >>1) Thank God. 2) So what? >Because its NOT a standard, and that's what the original question was. Please define what a standard is - does it mean non-proprietary? That flies in the face of several "standards" that I can think of. Or is a standard defined by fiat? If so, NeXTStep might well be one in a few years. I've already got a bunch of my manuals on my desk that lay down the world according to NeXTStep. I consider this a large part, if not the only part, of becoming a "standard." >>>As an aside, other than watching goldfish, what practical use is the >>>transparency? >>Try programming one sometime. >That is not an answer. I would really like a list of applications, or >proposed applications that NEED transparency at the window manager level. >There is already an animation program (Disney) on the Amiga that uses >an internal form of transparency to allow you to see several frames at >once to judge the smoothness of your motion. >But why does the window manager need it? I don't think you understand the concept of a unified display/printing model. It is not generally visible on the application level. However, it is visible on the programming level. No application NEEDs transparency at any level. It's simply more work for the programmer to supply it at the application level than it is for the windowserver (which should REALLY be called the "PostScript server") to supply it. I don't really know what you're confusing "transpency" with but I'm beginning to think that it has nothing to do with the issue of a transparent display/print model. >However, did you read the ORIGINAL question? I simply listed the non- >standard implementations of the OS. There was no heavy value judgement, >and everything I listed is unique to NeXT, or, at least, not available >in the System V, bsd, or OSF distributions. Again. The OS is STANDARD 4.3BSD. Period. It is NOT non-standard. Rip out all those pages in the manuals that describe features not available on a generic 4.3BSD machine and you should be happy. What you're saying, in essence, is that no company is allowed to improve upon a "UNIX" box unless those improvements have been previously implemented by AT&T/Berkeley/OSF. A rather limiting set of circumstances I think. >This is not a flame of the NeXT computer, per se, but why are so many >NeXToids unable to hold an intellegent conversation, without shouting >the virtues (?) of their machine at everyone else? Are they trying to >convince us, or themselves? Jeeze. You should try and convince Amiga owners that there might be some flaws in their machine sometime. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.