WIRED Pink article
sea...@ac.dal.ca
not running on Moto. chips. It was basically saying that the Taligent OS was
complete, but that Apple & IBM didn't want anyone to know, so they could keep
on selling their current line of stuff. Of course, as the original poster said,
there was no real evidence for this. The author was probably just trying to
flush some rumours out of the woodwork from the secretive Taligent clan.
Sean
Christopher A. Cox
I can't seem to dig up the post which this one has been posted in
reference to. What was the issue (not the magazine, the post)?
Chris
--
---------- If you cut here you'd probably ruin your monitor -------------
c...@iear.arts.rpi.edu Christopher A. Cox
c...@itchy.geog.albany.edu I think, therefore
cc8...@rachel.albany.edu am confused.
GRUBB
>This was my understanding of that WIRED article as well, though
>I can't seem to dig up the post which this one has been posted in
>reference to. What was the issue (not the magazine, the post)?
The post concerned was 6861 which I repost for those who cannot get it.
cvad...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (writes):
>In article <argent.7...@vincent2.iastate.edu>, arg...@iastate.edu (The Great Grendel-Khan) writes:
>> In <gurgleC8...@netcom.com> gur...@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>>>Yes, but not because of the Amiga. Clones, m'boy, clones. PowerOpen
>>>and Pink and Newton may save Apple, but the last Mac architecture
>>>ships this summer.
This is WRONG. The PowerPC out on Jan 24, 1994 is a *MAC*. Where in the
#$%%* is this #*$&% stupidity coming from any how? {Sorry about that net
but I HAVE been posting for the last FOUR MONTHS on the PowerPC mac and that
Apple is still supporting the Mac into *1994*. I dislike D U M B statements
from the Twilight Zone like this (Sorry Rob)}.
>> What do you mean by: "last Mac architecture?" What comes next?
The Mac/IBM hybred architecture. What else :-).
>I too have heard about the Macintosh's demise.. Looks like they are going to
>drop the whole macintosh line due to lack of sales (ms-dos machines being the
>cause). I think this is sad because the mac>ibm... but: amiga>mac>ibm.
I repeat WHERE is this weirdness COMING from? I checked ALL may copies of
PC Week and MacWeek {going back over a YEAR} and I find NO support for this
rumor. In fact BOTH PC Week and MacWeek conferm the the mac WILL be around
in 1994 (PC Week 04/12/93; PC Mag 4/27/93:138; MacWeek 4/26/93;
PC Week 4/12/93; MacWeek 5/10/93; MacWeek 3/22/93).
>Looks like the only thing apple has left going for it (I hear they are to drop
>the mac line this summer) is poweropen and newtwon. Somehow I dont think
WHERE are you hearing this? Give us some articles we can look up.
>Newton will catch on all that much. The macintosh can just no longer compete.
Say WHAT?!? Mac sales are still GOING UP. The Mac is holding a 12-15% of the
US market.
>The userbase is going to be stuck with old, discontinued machines that will
>never be upgradable.
Apple has annonced work on a PCI <-> NuBus adapter (PC Week 5/31/93;
MacWeek 5/31/93) Get with the program.
> Right now is a great time to get rid of your mac and move
>to another platform, either better -> Amiga, or worse -> peecee. Dont get
>stuck with a discontinued piece of equipment that apple no longer plans to
>support. I've been an avid mac fan from the beginning, but by actually opening
>my eyes and seeing how much more an Amiga can do, and how apple plans to
>discontinue the mac.. IM OUTTA here.
Might want to check the reliablity of those rumors before you do anything.
Might want to get back in reality while your at it.
This rumor is NUTS. Searching for backup through my electronic versions of
MacWeek and PC Week had produced a goose ege. As in zip, nada, nothing,
non-extant. Unless SOMEONE can come up with an article to support this
I will right this off as a PC lovers wet dream with little or no factual
substance.
>As soon as the mac line is dropped, watch out for dramatic price reductions in
>machines, which will affect us all. This will wipe out the net worth of our
>used machines, try selling a discontinued computer to anyone....
This rumor is so off in left field that it is SILLY.
I am begining to suppect that this is tied to Apple announcement of fazing
in PCI and fazing out NuBus. Now repeat after me. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT
ON JAN 24, 1994 IS A MAC. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT ON JAN 24, 1994 IS A MAC.
Very good. Now that thing is clear {at least to those who can do research
and don't believe EVERY DUMB rumor that comes around.}
The WIRED connection comeup though several posts in the 7000s.
{stated as some weird idea that the PowerPC would not work on a Mac but
would work ONLY on Intel. From later posts an obvious misquote and
miscomprehension of what the article REALLY talked about.}
Lynda Botez
Macintosh. I'm sure it is because they want to hold on to their
established base and take them with 'em when they move over to the new
platform.
Of course, there will be the "diehard" mac users that will never quit
using their mac pluses and classics. They will keep chugging along with
system 6 and be quite happy, I am sure.
Those that move over to the powerpc will be glad that the OS will look
the same as what they are familar with. Later on, they can try out the
Taligent OS. Or who knows what OS.
As far as that article in WIRED; I really can't swallow all that stuff
about Pink being wrapped up and in the bag. I'm sure it's looking pretty
good by now, but I would imagine there are tons of other things that a
totally new OS requires that have to be done before it will ever be
released. I can't believe that Apple and IBM would sit on something so
powerful as Pink when there are things like NeXTStep, and (argh) NT and
Solaris around as we speak.
G.D. Landweber
>Apple is smart if they can pull off having the PowerPC come across as a
>Macintosh. I'm sure it is because they want to hold on to their
>established base and take them with 'em when they move over to the new
>platform.
I sure hope Apple doesn't mess up their marketing on this one. Yes, the
PowerPC will look and behave just like a Macintosh, running a variant of
System 7 and nearly all stardard Mac apps. It will have the same ports,
slots, etc, as a Mac. However, if they don't put "Macintosh" in the name,
they'll have a hell of a time convincing the public that it is a Mac.
Then when partially informed people get wind of the "680x0 emulation mode",
misconceptions will fly (as we have seen in this newsgroup).
How about calling it the Macintosh PowerPC? That's the best of both worlds.
Or for people who are compatibility conscious, they could call it the
Macintosh <insert silly Japanese car sounding name ending in -a>
with a little sticker that says "Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC inside".
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
P.S. I can't wait to get one of these. If over 90% of applications work
unmodified on a PowerPC now, what will it be like in January?! If this
baby has a DSP (or DSP emulation), then I'd love to do some computer music.
The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of its power,
interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software. Now maybe Apple will
fill that void...
Harry Myhre
>As far as that article in WIRED; I really can't swallow all that stuff
>about Pink being wrapped up and in the bag.
I agree with you on this, Lynda. If it were wrapped and in the bag, they'd
be selling it. They can't waste any time against Pentium.
--
+---+
\ \ Harry Myhre
\ \ har...@netcom.com
| |
\ * \ Los Angeles
+____+
Dariusz Bolski
>c...@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Cox) writes:
>#$%%* is this #*$&% stupidity coming from any how? {Sorry about that net
>but I HAVE been posting for the last FOUR MONTHS on the PowerPC mac
>>> What do you mean by: "last Mac architecture?" What comes next?
>The Mac/IBM hybred architecture. What else :-).
Sounds like Amiga/PC in Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000 hybrid architecture.
>>I too have heard about the Macintosh's demise.. Looks like they are going to
>>to another platform, either better -> Amiga, or worse -> peecee. Dont get
>>stuck with a discontinued piece of equipment that apple no longer plans to
>>support. I've been an avid mac fan from the beginning, but by actually opening
>>my eyes and seeing how much more an Amiga can do, and how apple plans to
>>discontinue the mac.. IM OUTTA here.
>This rumor is NUTS.
>This rumor is so off in left field that it is SILLY.
>Now repeat after me. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT
>ON JAN 24, 1994 IS A MAC. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT ON JAN 24, 1994 IS A MAC.
>
>Very good.
Now please stop preaching and explain to us, non-believers why PowerPC running
MacOS is more a Mac than a Quadra running SoftPC is a PC clone.
Or Sun running Mac emulator or Amiga running Mac or PC emulator.
Oops, Amiga running Mac emulator is closer to the Mac than PPC. At least
there is no need to emulate a different micropocessor.
Please explain your difference in opinion,
Regards,
Dariusz Bolski
de...@xaos.com
Ishir Bhan
>Now please stop preaching and explain to us, non-believers why PowerPC running
>MacOS is more a Mac than a Quadra running SoftPC is a PC clone.
>Or Sun running Mac emulator or Amiga running Mac or PC emulator.
No reason other than it probably will be called a Macintosh. This is just
a name game. It will run Mac software. That is the bottom line.
--
******************************************************************************
Ishir Bhan * "It takes years to find the nerve..."
ib...@husc.harvard.edu * -New Order, "All The Way"
******************************************************************************
Werner Uhrig
<>MacOS is more a Mac than a Quadra running SoftPC is a PC clone.
<>Or Sun running Mac emulator or Amiga running Mac or PC emulator.
<
>No reason other than it probably will be called a Macintosh. This is just
>a name game. It will run Mac software. That is the bottom line.
would YOU choose a name that could give people the idea that you
could use Microsoft OS products, instead of buying the (unbundled?)
OS-software from Apple or IBM?!? Remember, both Apple and IBM want
to compete with MS and be(come) software companies... now, for that
to happen, they can't give away their software with the hardware any-
more (but they probably will continue to do so, giving away the core
of the OS to try and tie the customer them, and then sell him "enabling"
software.... but will that work when the parts end up more expensive
then the whole caboodle from MS?!?)
but IBM may well insist on something like MacPC or PC/MAC (but that is
so ugly that someone will probably realize that a name which contains
neither PC nor MAC is the best choice... how about FP for Future
Platform? quick now, how do I get to put a (tm) after that ?!? :-)
there is a lot of silly speculation going on here, some folks even
posting "demands" - get real, folks! clearly, the introduction is
of major importance to both IBM and Apple, as their future depends
on it, not just the rest of the nineties, but FUTURE <period>, and
it is beyond doubt that the decisions and steps are not taken lightly
nor hastily (not that that seems to always have helped the quality
or success of the outcome in the past)
--
wer...@cs.utexas.edu | ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | wer...@UTXVM.bitnet
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-----------------> I'm still mad about Tiananmen Square !!! <---------------
Mutant for Hire
>would YOU choose a name that could give people the idea that you
>could use Microsoft OS products, instead of buying the (unbundled?)
>OS-software from Apple or IBM?!? Remember, both Apple and IBM want
>to compete with MS and be(come) software companies... now, for that
>to happen, they can't give away their software with the hardware any-
>more (but they probably will continue to do so, giving away the core
>of the OS to try and tie the customer them, and then sell him "enabling"
>software.... but will that work when the parts end up more expensive
Bear in mind that Apple has already stopped giving free upgrades to the
Mac OS. The software now theoretically costs money for new buyers, its
just buried in the hardware costs, and it does cost money for anyone
making an upgrade. There is bundling, and I'll be real surprised if IBM
soon doesn't start bundling OS/2 with their machines and try to get
other people to do likewise.
>IBM may well insist on something like MacPC or PC/MAC (but that is
>so ugly that someone will probably realize that a name which contains
>neither PC nor MAC is the best choice... how about FP for Future
>Platform? quick now, how do I get to put a (tm) after that ?!? :-)
I was always fond of the "PowerMac" or "Power Macintosh". It makes
reference to the POWER architecture of IBM, and it's clearly a Mac at
the end. They do need to come up with some name though, to distinguish
it from the 680x0 machines. They'll probably come up with something
like "Futura" or the like as they've done with "Quadra" and "Centris".
All I'm really hoping for future Macs is they stabilize their bus
architecture and not have a different standard for each machine. PCI
for the desktops and some other big standard for the portables, that
is also used on non-Mac machines.
--
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Synchronicity Daemon, Priest of Shub-Internet
Disclaimer: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but flames are just ignored
mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu mfte...@pucc.bitnet wi....@n7kbt.rain.com
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Garance A. Drosehn
> bgr...@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
> >c...@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Cox) writes:
> > This rumor is so off in left field that it is SILLY.
> > Now repeat after me. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT ON JAN 24, 1994
> > IS A MAC. THE APPLE POWERPC OUT ON JAN 24, 1994 IS A MAC.
> >
> >Very good.
>
> Now please stop preaching and explain to us, non-believers why
> PowerPC running MacOS is more a Mac than a Quadra running SoftPC
> is a PC clone. Or Sun running Mac emulator or Amiga running Mac
> or PC emulator.
The basic (native) toolbox on the machine will be the one described in
Inside Macintosh. Thus, people wanting the most excellent supremo
performance out of this PowerPC box will be writing Macintosh software.
If you take an old 68040 program and run it on the PowerPC, that will be
(basically) an emulator -- with the difference that all system calls (calls
to the Mac ToolBox) will not need to be translated. However, to turn that
into a "Mac"-PowerPC application, you just recompile it on the PowerPC
hardware. You don't "port" it. You don't change from Mac OS calls to
Windows calls.
There's a shift in thinking required here (and one which is long overdue, in
my opinion). Applications should be able to be written to the operating
system and "toolbox like" subroutines of that system, and *not* be tied to
any particular hardware chip. PowerPC is hardware, and not a new operating
system. If applications are written to the operating system, then which
chip happens to be used will become increasingly irrelevent.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
Darryl Trujillo
ib...@husc8.harvard.edu writes:
>>Now please stop preaching and explain to us, non-believers why
PowerPC running
>>MacOS is more a Mac than a Quadra running SoftPC is a PC clone.
>>Or Sun running Mac emulator or Amiga running Mac or PC emulator.
>
>No reason other than it probably will be called a Macintosh. This is
just
>a name game. It will run Mac software. That is the bottom line.
Actually, there is a much better reason than this. It's true that
when the PowerPC machines are released, much of the toolbox will
still be emulated, but a good deal of the os code will be running in
native mode. The trend is toward a native mode OS, with present and
future OS enhancements in native mode. Application developers with
their act together will (probably and hopefully) be releasing either
native or fat versions of their apps when the first 601 machines are
available.
This is a *much* different stuation than a Quadra running SoftPC:
emulation is a transition strategy, not a final one. The Apple
PowerPC machines *will* be Macintoshes, and not in name only.
IMHO, the _Wired_ article was unabashed dreck that mars what was
otherwise a somewhat interesting magazine. It served more to point
out the author's ignorance of hardware and operating system
development than anything else.
Get a clue, folks: the Macintosh isn't dying, it's evolving. The
new platform has a lot more potential, IMHO. I don't agree with
everything Apple is doing, but I am impressed by the amount of work
that's being done to ease the transition.
Rather than compare PPC macs with Quadras running SoftPC, why don't
you compare Apple's transition efforts with those of Sun when it
moved from the 68k to the Sparc, and with Microsoft and it's hacks
to get the "top 200" windows programs running under NT ?
Bill Coleman
>
> P.S. I can't wait to get one of these. If over 90% of applications work
> unmodified on a PowerPC now, what will it be like in January?!
Even better!
> If this baby has a DSP (or DSP emulation), then I'd love to do some
> computer music.
I'd like to point out that the PowerPC doesn't NEED a DSP. The PowerPC is
fast enough to implement real-time DSP algorithms on sound data with no
problem.
> The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of its power,
> interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software. Now maybe Apple will
> fill that void...
Odd, this is the first time I've ever heard of a NeXT being used for music.
Maybe there's less of a void than you think....
--
Bill Coleman, AA4LR ! CIS: 76067,2327 AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA ! Internet: bcoleman%ha...@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
Stefano Pagiola
> > The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of
> > its power, interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software.
> > Now maybe Apple will fill that void...
>
> Odd, this is the first time I've ever heard of a NeXT being used
> for music.
Stanford University's Center for Computer Research in Music and
Acoustics (CCRMA) is essentially a NeXT shop. NeXTs also seem quite
commom at other academic music departments. What's going to happen
now that NeXTs no longer have the DSP, I don't know. Maybe they'll
move to Mac Cyclones (is that the one with the DSP?).
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spag...@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spag...@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Tracy M Nelson
: Bill Coleman writes
: > > The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of
: > > its power, interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software.
: > > Now maybe Apple will fill that void...
: >
: > Odd, this is the first time I've ever heard of a NeXT being used
: > for music.
:
: Stanford University's Center for Computer Research in Music and
: Acoustics (CCRMA) is essentially a NeXT shop. NeXTs also seem quite
: commom at other academic music departments. What's going to happen
: now that NeXTs no longer have the DSP, I don't know. Maybe they'll
: move to Mac Cyclones (is that the one with the DSP?).
Hmmm, maybe in academia, where you can get equipment grants, but out
in the "music world" (as *definately* opposed to the "real world"),
most musicians prefer either the Mac (better sequencing software) or
the Atari ST line (excellent MIDI software and hardware). Most of the
musicians I've spoken with expressed a desire for a Mac "because they're
the best, man", but most of them would rather get a new guitar and some
more rack effects first.
Tracy Nelson
DISCLAIMER: I have three guitars and a five-song repetoire.
Maurice Shihadi
>Stefano Pagiola (spag...@frinext.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: Bill Coleman writes
>: > > The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of
>: > > its power, interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software.
>: > > Now maybe Apple will fill that void...
>: >
I disagree completely. NeXT seems pretty firmly established in the field
of electronic music and even without the black box there is still Ariel to
contend with. Their PC boards based on the 56000 series DSP are pretty
serious. The 92000 series is even scarier--and upward compatible--although
still a bit pricy.
Its too bad Mark of the Unicorn and Coda never fulfilled their original
commitments to port their software over, that would have been real cool.
Can't blame them much though since it would have cost too much in providing
shrinkwrap rather than object libraries which was the whole idea behind
getting a NeXT to begin with. Maybe when Apple stops selling hardware
manufacturers will get with it and get off the Mac and Windows/DOS
money cow bandwagon which is also going nowhere from an artistic perspective.
As it is, our Mac and Dos midi interfaces multiplex data and our computers
have serious problems with actively multitasking. Try programming a sample
dump (over midi) during a sequence or getting the texture of an orchestra
without hiring one. So far, midi has offered serious musicians neat little
sketch pads to outline their ideas on and desktop publishing of notation of
course. However, the headroom to allow one person to cheaply produce a
recording is not there yet. Maybe with the PowerPC or Pentium but not
with what we have so far.
"The Object is the Advantage" as NeXT so
nicely put it at one time. Technically, there is no comparison to Apple
because Apple is shrinkwrap oriented. Besides, giving users the ability
to change and better their apps according to their individual needs is not
as profitable as spoonfeeding users and charging them again and again for
upgrades.
Apple's operating system was heading toward the end of its cycle years ago--
although I'm not sure whats happening lately with their new efforts.
NeXTSTEP's main advantage is that its got a long way to grow if it survives
and I hope it does. The next few years will be quite interesting as
companies consolidate and acquire each other. Just look at what Sound Blaster
now offers for under $500.
Enough rambling, oh...gotta change that tape. Bye.
maurices
cbs...@ccnga.waterloo.edu
In article <1993Jun28....@telesciences.com> tne...@fluorite.telesciences.com (Tracy M Nelson) writes:
>Stefano Pagiola (spag...@frinext.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: Bill Coleman writes
>: > > The NeXT has become a standard in computer music labs because of
>: > > its power, interface, DSP, and excellent Music Kit software.
>: > > Now maybe Apple will fill that void...
>: >
[..much ado about NeXT's wonderfull MIDI stuff deleted..]
"The Object is the Advantage" as NeXT so
nicely put it at one time. Technically, there is no comparison to Apple
because Apple is shrinkwrap oriented. Besides, giving users the ability
to change and better their apps according to their individual needs is not
as profitable as spoonfeeding users and charging them again and again for
upgrades.
Hey, we as programmers should be excited. (I guess everyone out there is
not a programmer, but still.) As long as the market is silly enough to
go with the shrink wrapped concept, we will be payed big money to play
around with code they don't understand. I actually have a fear that
someday OOP will turn programming into an assembly line operation much
like the auto industry. Better for the users, probably, but better for
the programers? probably not. Easier to program? you bet! Anyway, so
long as the market is silly enough to follow that principle, I'll be
happy. ;-)
Apple's operating system was heading toward the end of its cycle years ago--
although I'm not sure whats happening lately with their new efforts.
NeXTSTEP's main advantage is that its got a long way to grow if it survives
and I hope it does. The next few years will be quite interesting as
companies consolidate and acquire each other. Just look at what Sound Blaster
now offers for under $500.
If Apple's OS was at the end of it's product cycle I'd like to know
where Microsoft's was. Looking at what Microsoft is doing now, I'd say
Apple's OS has a big future. If Windows can survive, certainly MacOS
can (at least on capability alone).
--Chris
--
Christopher Smith
cbs...@boomer.uwaterloo.ca
cbs...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
DC 3527
(519) 885-1211x3581
Jonathan Hendry
: Hmmm, maybe in academia, where you can get equipment grants, but out
: in the "music world" (as *definately* opposed to the "real world"),
: most musicians prefer either the Mac (better sequencing software) or
: the Atari ST line (excellent MIDI software and hardware). Most of the
: musicians I've spoken with expressed a desire for a Mac "because they're
: the best, man", but most of them would rather get a new guitar and some
: more rack effects first.
I think the difference is that the NeXT is used mostly for research and
experimentation, especially with synthesized sound, etc. There is a cool
app called SPASM for the NeXT which is a simulation of the human vocal
apparatus. You can alter the characteristics of a "person's" nasal
passages, throat, etc. and it will synthesize the sound that would be
produced. The shape of the mouth, tongue, etc are displayed in cross
section.
As for composing/performing/recording, yes the Atari and Mac definitely
are way ahead. But for esoteric music and sound research, the NeXT was
a very nice platform. Especially with a 5 dsp quintprocessor board, I'd
imagine (bringing the grand total to 6).
--
Jonathan W. Hendry It's a hundred classes, give or take a few,
Drexel University I'll be writing more in a week or two.
CIS I can make it deeper if you like the style,
I can change it round and I want to be an ObjectWare writer,
ObjectWare Writer!
Sean Luke
tne...@fluorite.telesciences.com (Tracy M Nelson) wrote:
>
> Stefano Pagiola (spag...@frinext.stanford.edu) wrote:
> : Stanford University's Center for Computer Research in Music and
> : Acoustics (CCRMA) is essentially a NeXT shop. NeXTs also seem quite
> : commom at other academic music departments. What's going to happen
> : now that NeXTs no longer have the DSP, I don't know. Maybe they'll
> : move to Mac Cyclones (is that the one with the DSP?).
>
> Hmmm, maybe in academia, where you can get equipment grants, but out
> in the "music world" (as *definately* opposed to the "real world"),
> most musicians prefer either the Mac (better sequencing software) or
> the Atari ST line (excellent MIDI software and hardware). Most of the
> musicians I've spoken with expressed a desire for a Mac "because they're
> the best, man", but most of them would rather get a new guitar and some
> more rack effects first.
The NeXT has become popular in sound, signal, and music *research*.
Now that the black boxes are gone, and NeXT has pulled away from
the sound/music market (dropping the MusicKit, dropping MIDI in 3.2,
downplaying the soundkit since PCs don't have very good sound support),
I'm not sure if NeXT's hold on that market will continue. I hope so...
it's a great environment.
The Mac definitely holds sway in music *production*. Although
the PC is gaining. The ST is popular in music production, but I think its
popularity is waning fast as Atari's mismanagement of its market has
become acute.
The NeXT has but one MIDI sequencer available, and much as I like it,
it's not Performer- or Vision-level. As a result, the NeXT has little if
any
market share in musi production.
Sean Luke
Brigham Young University
se...@digaudio.byu.edu