> IBM licensed NeXTStep1.0 to run on the very first RS6000's. They got it > as far as Beta testing (never saw it myself, but rumors were it was > solid), then couldn't figure out how to market it. I guess they needed > do avoid competing with AIX, or whatever else they were running then. > They then basically sat on it for a while, until they forgot they'd done > it at all.
The RS6000 was to slow to run the NeXT-OS properly, as far as I know of.
In article <m0sdwg4-000btOC@a-gain>, Stefan Huelf <ste...@a-gain.hanse.de> wrote:
>The RS6000 was to slow to run the NeXT-OS properly, >as far as I know of.
Approximately a year ago, someone who was in the know posted about what really happened with NextStep on the RS/6000. He/she basically said that IBM tried to make NextStep run on top of AIX, rather than a true port. IBM did get it to work, but like you said, it was very slow.
-- Mike Shandony | Telephone: (214) 684-7303 Bell-Northern Research, Inc. | BNR/NT Internal: (ESN) 444-7303 2201 Lakeside Blvd. MS D0307 | Fax: (214) 684-3710 Richardson, TX 75082-4399 | E-Mail: vanha...@bnr.ca
In article <m0sdwg4-000btOC@a-gain>, Stefan Huelf <ste...@a-gain.hanse.de> wrote:
>The RS6000 was to slow to run the NeXT-OS properly, >as far as I know of.
Gee, I wonder what that says about NeXT's own relatively sluglike "Turbo" machines.
Speed is relative, but relatively speaking, even the first generation of POWER machines was a lot faster than the turbo slabs in every way. Had HP not surprised a lot of people with PA, IBM would have grabbed a lot more market share than they did.
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 95 10:34:57 +0100, Stefan Huelf <ste...@a-gain.hanse.de> said: > The RS6000 was to slow to run the NeXT-OS properly, as far as I know > of.
I had NeXTSTEP 1.0 on RS/6000 for a while. It was faster than NS 1.0 on a 68030 Cube. However, about the time IBM would have released it, NS 2.0 came out on 68040 processors. NeXT made considerible OS performance improvements with NS 2.0 and those combined with the 68040 made it comparable to NS 1.0 on a RS/6000 model 320. -- Paul F. Kunz Paul_K...@slac.stanford.edu (NeXT mail ok) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University Voice: (415) 926-2884 (NeXT) Fax: (415) 926-3587
pf...@hpkaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul F. Kunz) wrote: : >>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 95 10:34:57 +0100, Stefan Huelf <ste...@a-gain.hanse.de> said: : > The RS6000 was to slow to run the NeXT-OS properly, as far as I know : > of.
: I had NeXTSTEP 1.0 on RS/6000 for a while. It was faster than NS : 1.0 on a 68030 Cube. However, about the time IBM would have released : it, NS 2.0 came out on 68040 processors. NeXT made considerible OS : performance improvements with NS 2.0 and those combined with the 68040 : made it comparable to NS 1.0 on a RS/6000 model 320.
And we ran it on an RS/6000 model 540 (with 63MB of RAM no less) -- it was pretty fast. The thing that killed it is Steve Jobs wanted IBM pay more money for 2.0. They had only _just_ finished porting 1.0 to AIX (it did run on top of AIX -- and there were several hacks made to accomodate it -- but it did run fine). When NeXT was shipping 2.0, IBM felt they wouldn't be able to sell 1.0 (there we some rather dramatic improvements between 1.0 and 2.0). They also didn't want to spend more money on it (as SJ was demanding for 2.0), and they didn't feel like porting 2.0 would take any less time (meaning they wouldn't get done until NeXT released a newer version). All that considered -- IBM abandoned NS.
This wasn't a "bad decision" by SJ (per se), but I can see IBM's view on this easier than I can see NeXT's...
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- *** These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine! *** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Robin D. Wilson ro...@pencom.com Pencom Software 701 Canyon Bend Dr. 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy Pflugerville, TX 78660 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 251-1737 (512) 343-6666
In article <405dv4$...@digdug.pencom.com>, <ro...@pencom.com> wrote: >This wasn't a "bad decision" by SJ (per se), but I can see IBM's view on >this easier than I can see NeXT's...
How can you possibly say that? It would have been the best thing that could have happened to NeXT in NeXT's history had they had an OpenStep -like solution (NS/RS6k ran on AIX, not Mach2.5) on a solid platform that early in the game.
Another boneheaded move by Steve Jobs.
-- ---- Windows 95 and NT: IBM's OS choices for IBM hardware, x86 and PowerPC ---- "That's not our primary target. There are people out there who love [OS/2 Warp] on the desktop, but our focus is on large enterprise customers." -- chief executive officer Louis Gerstner (IBM) (July, 1995)
>In article <405dv4$...@digdug.pencom.com>, <ro...@pencom.com> wrote: >>This wasn't a "bad decision" by SJ (per se), but I can see IBM's view on >>this easier than I can see NeXT's...
I can see both positions really... Why should NeXT hold up v2 of NeXTSTEP just so the RS/6000 version could catch up?
Forking over $$$ for source is a normal reasonable expectation in the computing realm....
But on the other hand, it's real hard to fork over $$$ for more source when you have not seen any return on investment.
>How can you possibly say that? It would have been the best thing that >could have happened to NeXT in NeXT's history had they had an OpenStep >-like solution (NS/RS6k ran on AIX, not Mach2.5) on a solid platform >that early in the game.
Yup, sad but true. It's hard to say how much impact it would have had on the computing realm.
>Another boneheaded move by Steve Jobs.
There ya go, let's play the blame game..... today our first contestant... RS Rodgers.
-- Hakuna Matata! Tom
#include <std-disclaimer.h> |o| Tom Gall "Where's the ka-boom? There was supposed to be |o| |o| IBM Rochester an earth shattering ka-boom!" -Marvin Martian |o| |o| tom_g...@vnet.ibm.com (NeXTMail -- Sure!) |o| "Out the Token Ring, through the router, down the fiber, off another router, down the T1, past the firewall.....nothing but Net."
: but it did run fine). When NeXT was shipping 2.0, IBM felt they wouldn't : be able to sell 1.0 (there we some rather dramatic improvements between 1.0 : and 2.0). They also didn't want to spend more money on it (as SJ was
In other words, IBM wanted the rather dramatic improvements for free. I see NeXT's viewpoint, but I also see they missed a fabulous trojan horse opportunity.
: : but it did run fine). When NeXT was shipping 2.0, IBM felt they wouldn't : : be able to sell 1.0 (there we some rather dramatic improvements between 1.0 : : and 2.0). They also didn't want to spend more money on it (as SJ was
: In other words, IBM wanted the rather dramatic improvements for free. : I see NeXT's viewpoint, but I also see they missed a fabulous trojan : horse opportunity.
Basically -- yes. However, IBM did have a reasonable point too: NEXTSTEP took them so long to port that NeXT passed them by. Why spend _more_ money (and considerable development effort) on another round when NeXT was likely to bypass them again for the subsequent (I am avoiding the obvious pun here) major versions of the OS.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- *** These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine! *** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Robin D. Wilson ro...@pencom.com Pencom Software 701 Canyon Bend Dr. 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy Pflugerville, TX 78660 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 251-1737 (512) 343-6666
R S Rodgers (rsrod...@wam.umd.edu) wrote: : In article <405dv4$...@digdug.pencom.com>, <ro...@pencom.com> wrote: : >This wasn't a "bad decision" by SJ (per se), but I can see IBM's view on : >this easier than I can see NeXT's...
: How can you possibly say that? It would have been the best thing that : could have happened to NeXT in NeXT's history had they had an OpenStep : -like solution (NS/RS6k ran on AIX, not Mach2.5) on a solid platform : that early in the game.
Maybe, but if the rumors about NS-on-AIX's performance problems were true, then maybe neither AIX nor the market would have been ready for it -- despite religious issues over microkernels.
: Another boneheaded move by Steve Jobs.
Maybe not, maybe so. Don't forget that you have the benefit of hindsight, and the handicap of incomplete knowledge.
-- ____/| | Pohl Longsine, OpenStep Software Developer \ o.O| GPF! | "I don't do Windows." =(_)= CTLALTDLT! | plon...@inetnebr.com (Internet Nebraska) U (Bill Gates, The Cat) | NeXT & MIME mail formats accepted.
|
