Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Jason Smith
solution for the office's computing needs is... flawed. We need 5 to 10
stations, networked, with the ability to share file systems dynamically. The
main purposes are going to be word processing, accounting, communications, and
informational research.
He wants raw power (who doesn't? :) ) and has decided on 486's running
Windows For Workgroups, even though it hasn't been released yet. He emphasized
easy networking and being able to add features easily.
Sounds to me like it's just screaming for System 7. But, I need to be
able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
I don't think he's realized the added cost of networking cards and
the $249/user price MS is reportedly going to be asking for WFW (Windows User,
Feb '93). Perhaps Quadra 700's with ENet? ( I know, I know, its not going to
be *that* close in price...)
Jason Smith
University of Washington
Physics / Math
David Schroeder
there's not much that can be done to change it (sigh)...
The most telling reason to use Macs appears in one of Apple's
recent commercials -- the one where dozens of help desk people
are taking calls to support DOS and Windows and the lone Mac
support person is reading a book looking like the lonely Maytag
repair man.
The cost of a system should be examined in terms of lifetime
resource expenditures and capabilities. In my experience as
a manager of small LANs of the sort you describe, the people
using Macs (assuming typical white-collar work, like you said
they'll be doing) spend their time figuring out how to do neat
stuff _with_ their programs, not how to use them in the first
place. Your support costs are much lower and your output is
much better -- ease of use counts for a lot.
And, to be honest, there's no reason that you need Quadra's
for any of the applications you mentioned. Machines based
on 68030's will do quite well at all the tasks you mentioned
(word processing, accounting, communications, and informational
research). 486-based systems need lots of "raw power" to handle
windowing environments -- Mac's don't.
Apple has a number of white papers doing comparisons of groups
trying to get real work done using both kinds of systems. You
might try contacting them to get copies to help make your case.
Don't try to get your boss to change his mind based on hardware
costs -- sell capabilities, ease of use, and life-time support costs.
Good luck -- Dave
Daniel M Silevitch
|> I need a rational argument to convince my employer that his proposed
|> solution for the office's computing needs is... flawed. We need 5 to 10
|> stations, networked, with the ability to share file systems dynamically. The
|> main purposes are going to be word processing, accounting, communications, and
|> informational research.
|>
|> He wants raw power (who doesn't? :) ) and has decided on 486's running
|> Windows For Workgroups, even though it hasn't been released yet. He emphasized
|> easy networking and being able to add features easily.
|>
Windows for Workgroups has been out for at least three months.
|> Sounds to me like it's just screaming for System 7. But, I need to be
|> able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
|> his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
|>
|> I don't think he's realized the added cost of networking cards and
|> the $249/user price MS is reportedly going to be asking for WFW (Windows User,
|> Feb '93). Perhaps Quadra 700's with ENet? ( I know, I know, its not going to
|> be *that* close in price...)
|>
From Egghead Software, two copies of WfWg, two Ethernet cards, cable, etc,
bundled cost $350. One copy of WfWg w/ network card is $179. Microsoft also
sells 5-user, 10-user, and 20-user packs.
Kaya Bekiroglu
> I need a rational argument to convince my employer that his proposed
>solution for the office's computing needs is... flawed. We need 5 to 10
>stations, networked, with the ability to share file systems dynamically. The
>main purposes are going to be word processing, accounting, communications, and
>informational research.
Sorry for this, but your position begs for a reply. :)
>
> He wants raw power (who doesn't? :) ) and has decided on 486's running
>Windows For Workgroups, even though it hasn't been released yet. He emphasized
>easy networking and being able to add features easily.
NeXT.
>
> Sounds to me like it's just screaming for System 7. But, I need to be
>able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
>his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
How about giving him NeXTSTEP 486 when it is released? For the price
of a network of Quadras you could get far faster machines with
a far faster operating system.
>
> I don't think he's realized the added cost of networking cards and
>the $249/user price MS is reportedly going to be asking for WFW (Windows User,
>Feb '93). Perhaps Quadra 700's with ENet? ( I know, I know, its not going to
>be *that* close in price...)
Indeed.
>
>Jason Smith
>University of Washington
>Physics / Math
>
No flames! No flames! No flames!
Fire!
--
Kaya Bekiroglu
ka...@world.std.com
If you were looking for something amusing here, you've just found it.
Eric M Hermanson
>In article <1jb57h...@shelley.u.washington.edu> jae...@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
>> I need a rational argument to convince my employer that his proposed
>>solution for the office's computing needs is... flawed. We need 5 to 10
>>stations, networked, with the ability to share file systems dynamically. The
>>main purposes are going to be word processing, accounting, communications, and
>>informational research.
>
>Sorry for this, but your position begs for a reply. :)
>
>>
>> He wants raw power (who doesn't? :) ) and has decided on 486's running
>>Windows For Workgroups, even though it hasn't been released yet. He emphasized
>>easy networking and being able to add features easily.
>
>NeXT.
>
>>
>> Sounds to me like it's just screaming for System 7. But, I need to be
>>able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
>>his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
>
>How about giving him NeXTSTEP 486 when it is released? For the price
>of a network of Quadras you could get far faster machines with
>a far faster operating system.
I second that motion. If your boss wants a truly professional low cost
solution, then NeXTSTEP is the only way to go. In addition, if he NEEDS
to have windows running, that is ok too with NeXT, since NeXTSTEP 486
has full Windows and DOS support. The NeXTSTEP OS controls the CPU, and
WIndows and DOS programs can be run, taking advantage of NeXT's multitasking
environment. You can have multiple Windows windows, DOS windows, and
NeXTSTEP windows running side by side in the multitasking environment.
You can even cut and paste between the windows! This OS will be available
in early June from NeXT. By the way, I just saw the beta version of
NeXTSTEP 486 and it is truly amazing. It does everything NeXT says it will
do. You would swear a black NeXTSTATION was sitting there if you didn't
know you were looking at NeXTSTEP 486. It is a TOTAL reproduction of the
NeXTSTEP OS ported to a 486 chip.
Eric
Mark G. Tacchi
>In article <1jb57h...@shelley.u.washington.edu> jae...@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
>> I need a rational argument to convince my employer that his proposed
>>solution for the office's computing needs is... flawed. We need 5 to 10
>>stations, networked, with the ability to share file systems dynamically. The
>>main purposes are going to be word processing, accounting, communications, and
>>informational research.
>> He emphasized
>>easy networking and being able to add features easily.
>NeXT.
>>
>> Sounds to me like it's just screaming for System 7. But, I need to be
>>able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
>>his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
>How about giving him NeXTSTEP 486 when it is released? For the price
>of a network of Quadras you could get far faster machines with
>a far faster operating system.
>
If he is stubborn and insists to have a 486, try and sell him on the NeXTSTEP
486 3.0. That way both of you will be happy.
-Mark
--
Mark G. Tacchi tac...@next01.cc.umanitoba.ca
Unix Support Group (NeXT Mail Welcome)
University of Manitoba Computer Services
"My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer."
Brian Kendig
>
>I second that motion. If your boss wants a truly professional low cost
>solution, then NeXTSTEP is the only way to go. In addition, if he NEEDS
>to have windows running, that is ok too with NeXT, since NeXTSTEP 486
>has full Windows and DOS support. The NeXTSTEP OS controls the CPU, and
>WIndows and DOS programs can be run, taking advantage of NeXT's multitasking
>environment. You can have multiple Windows windows, DOS windows, and
>NeXTSTEP windows running side by side in the multitasking environment.
>You can even cut and paste between the windows! This OS will be available
>in early June from NeXT. By the way, I just saw the beta version of
>NeXTSTEP 486 and it is truly amazing. It does everything NeXT says it will
>do. You would swear a black NeXTSTATION was sitting there if you didn't
>know you were looking at NeXTSTEP 486. It is a TOTAL reproduction of the
>NeXTSTEP OS ported to a 486 chip.
I'd stay far away from NeXTStep 486 for several reasons:
(1) The company's stability. NeXT hasn't released any new hardware
that I've heard about for a very long time now, and the only software
I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
operating system. IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big
changes to keep up with the rapidly-advancing computer industry, and I
just don't see NeXT doing that, especially with their meager sales
record to date.
(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
seen how slowly they go? And no emulator will EVER run software as
well as the real thing.
(3) Competition. I thought NeXTStep 486 was due out this past fall?
If it's being delayed further until the middle of next year, then
Windows NT will probably beat it to market, killing it before it even
gets a foot in. Look at the GEOS operating system, after all -- a
good design, well-implemented, but crushed by Windows.
If you're just starting out with computer equipment, buy Macintosh
hardware. If you already have a considerable investment in MS-DOS
software, then get 486's and DOS/Windows, OS/2, or Windows NT. If you
want a neat machine and you don't feel a need to worry about it
becoming obsolete (this isn't a worry in some cases), then try
NextStep 486.
--
_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/ bske...@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/ Nolite te bastardes Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/ carborundorum. -- Rousseau
Kaya Bekiroglu
>zmon...@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>>
>>I second that motion. If your boss wants a truly professional low cost
>>solution, then NeXTSTEP is the only way to go. In addition, if he NEEDS
>>to have windows running, that is ok too with NeXT, since NeXTSTEP 486
>>has full Windows and DOS support. The NeXTSTEP OS controls the CPU, and
>>WIndows and DOS programs can be run, taking advantage of NeXT's multitasking
>>environment. You can have multiple Windows windows, DOS windows, and
>>NeXTSTEP windows running side by side in the multitasking environment.
>>You can even cut and paste between the windows! This OS will be available
>>in early June from NeXT. By the way, I just saw the beta version of
>>NeXTSTEP 486 and it is truly amazing. It does everything NeXT says it will
>>do. You would swear a black NeXTSTATION was sitting there if you didn't
>>know you were looking at NeXTSTEP 486. It is a TOTAL reproduction of the
>>NeXTSTEP OS ported to a 486 chip.
>
>I'd stay far away from NeXTStep 486 for several reasons:
>
>(1) The company's stability. NeXT hasn't released any new hardware
>that I've heard about for a very long time now, and the only software
>I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
>operating system. IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big
>changes to keep up with the rapidly-advancing computer industry, and I
>just don't see NeXT doing that, especially with their meager sales
>record to date.
True, but the hardware was just plain unlucky. The 80110 (?) just
died on NeXT, and they had to start again from scratch. What
they're doing now I have no idea, but it is rumored to involve
HP (who has been able to keep up with everyone nicely) and talks
take time. All IBM, Microsoft and Apple are doing is catching
up with NeXT. I think NeXT's '040 line is waiting on Motorola,
NS 486 is waiting on the new RISC hardware, and the hardware is
waiting for HP. Maybe they've stopped waiting by now.
>
>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
Does Windows even run Windows reliably? :)
Besides, NS 486 is NS 3.1 - a very stable operating system. And it
is UNIX, with all the advanced memory handling and multitasking
and whatnot that the lack of on Windows crushes programs.
>and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
>seen how slowly they go? And no emulator will EVER run software as
>well as the real thing.
True. But Executor on the NeXT runs Mac programs twice as fast
as a IIci. There's a lot of crap floating around in operating
systems today that can be eliminated. But it remains to be seen
about NS 486 - but SoftPC Professonal for the '040 runs Windows
at 386SX speeds, and that's emulating an Intel. How much better
can NeXT do?
Even OS/2? From what I've read, it's not so shabby - and runs
Windows quite crisply. Anyone care to comment?
>
>(3) Competition. I thought NeXTStep 486 was due out this past fall?
>If it's being delayed further until the middle of next year, then
>Windows NT will probably beat it to market, killing it before it even
>gets a foot in. Look at the GEOS operating system, after all -- a
>good design, well-implemented, but crushed by Windows.
Windows NT and NS 486 are not going to be heading for the same
people. Surely you see the difference between the two?
>
>If you're just starting out with computer equipment, buy Macintosh
>hardware. If you already have a considerable investment in MS-DOS
>software, then get 486's and DOS/Windows, OS/2, or Windows NT. If you
>want a neat machine and you don't feel a need to worry about it
>becoming obsolete (this isn't a worry in some cases), then try
>NextStep 486.
>
NS 486 (so I've heard) can also co-exist with other OS's on the same
hard disk. So how does the hardware become obselete?
>--
>_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/ bske...@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
> / Nolite te bastardes Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> / carborundorum. -- Rousseau
--
Kaya Bekiroglu
ka...@world.std.com
[If you're looking for something witty and amusing here, then
congratulations, you've just found it]
Brian Kendig
>
>All IBM, Microsoft and Apple are doing is catching
>up with NeXT.
What does NeXT have that the others don't? Its plus may be speed,
sure, but minuses are that it still doesn't have nearly the amount of
software available that Mac, DOS, and Windows platforms have, and its
software still ain't cheap. The ability to run Unix is nice, but most
people in business need a machine that can run DOS, not Unix.
>I think NeXT's '040 line is waiting on Motorola,
>NS 486 is waiting on the new RISC hardware, and the hardware is
>waiting for HP.
... which means that they're standing still, basically. Like I said,
I haven't heard of anything major from them in years.
>>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>
>Does Windows even run Windows reliably? :)
>
>Besides, NS 486 is NS 3.1 - a very stable operating system. And it
>is UNIX, with all the advanced memory handling and multitasking
>and whatnot that the lack of on Windows crushes programs.
NS 486 1.0 can't hope to run Windows programs nearly as well as
Windows 3.1 can. Like I said: I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY
operating system. I remember NeXTStep 1.0... plainful memories...
>Executor on the NeXT runs Mac programs twice as fast as a IIci.
I was only aware that it ran Word currently; does it now do full
emulation?
>There's a lot of crap floating around in operating
>systems today that can be eliminated.
Like what? If you mean 'start from scratch and forget about backwards
compatibility', then you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
>Windows NT and NS 486 are not going to be heading for the same
>people. Surely you see the difference between the two?
I don't, no; what's the difference?
>NS 486 (so I've heard) can also co-exist with other OS's on the same
>hard disk. So how does the hardware become obselete?
The hardware doesn't, the software does. If you make a large
investment in one operating system -- mainly by purchasing large
amounts of software that runs under it, over time -- and the operating
system then goes out of style, your investment is at risk.
NeXTStep 486 is a nice idea that would probably do very well if all it
were up against were DOS. However, businesses run on machines that
have to be as compatible, powerful, and inexpensive as possible;
bringing a new standard into the works is a risky thing. I just don't
see NeXTStep 486 being much more than an interesting diversion over
the next few years.
Eric M Hermanson
>>
>>I second that motion. If your boss wants a truly professional low cost
>>solution, then NeXTSTEP is the only way to go. In addition, if he NEEDS
>>to have windows running, that is ok too with NeXT, since NeXTSTEP 486
>>has full Windows and DOS support. The NeXTSTEP OS controls the CPU, and
>>WIndows and DOS programs can be run, taking advantage of NeXT's multitasking
>>environment. You can have multiple Windows windows, DOS windows, and
>>NeXTSTEP windows running side by side in the multitasking environment.
>>You can even cut and paste between the windows! This OS will be available
>>in early June from NeXT. By the way, I just saw the beta version of
>>NeXTSTEP 486 and it is truly amazing. It does everything NeXT says it will
>>do. You would swear a black NeXTSTATION was sitting there if you didn't
>>know you were looking at NeXTSTEP 486. It is a TOTAL reproduction of the
>>NeXTSTEP OS ported to a 486 chip.
>
>I'd stay far away from NeXTStep 486 for several reasons:
>
>(1) The company's stability. NeXT hasn't released any new hardware
>that I've heard about for a very long time now, and the only software
>I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
>operating system. IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big
>changes to keep up with the rapidly-advancing computer industry, and I
>just don't see NeXT doing that, especially with their meager sales
>record to date.
IBM, Microsoft and Apple are making big changes to keep up with NeXT! They
are all trying to produce what NeXT has already done, and that is produce
open systems based on object oriented technology (i.e. Taligent, Cairo).
Apple is finally realising that MacOS SUCKS. Their new Quadra "server"
mahcines will run AU/X, NOT MacOS. Even Apple concedes that MaCOS is not
powerful enough to do a basic server tasks; tasks which Unix based systems
do in their sleep. MacOS sucks and THAT is why Apple is trying to re-invent
the wheel with Taligent. The origianl poster wanted to find ways of
convincing his boss to buy Mac over 486, but to buy a Mac to do any type
of serious work is a mistake.
>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
>seen how slowly they go? And no emulator will EVER run software as
>well as the real thing.
First of all, NeXTSTEP 486 is NOT version 1.0, it runs under NeXTSTEP 3.0,
the current NeXT operating system that has been refined many times since
the first NeXTSTEP 1.0 of six years ago. I have seen NeXTSTEP 486 run,
and it is just as fast as you would expect from a powerful 486 based chip.
The DOS and Windows windows will run as separate windows under the NeXTSTEP
environment, which is MULTITASKING. Therefore, users will see no degradation
in speed. Lastly, the DOS and Windows support is NOT run under an emulator.
It is the actual thing with NeXTSTEP 486, the only difference is NeXTSTEP
will control the CPU.
>
>(3) Competition. I thought NeXTStep 486 was due out this past fall?
>If it's being delayed further until the middle of next year, then
NeXTSTEP is due to ship in June of THIS year (1993), BEFORE Windows NT.
Eric
Eric M Hermanson
>ka...@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>>
>>All IBM, Microsoft and Apple are doing is catching
>>up with NeXT.
>
>What does NeXT have that the others don't? Its plus may be speed,
>sure, but minuses are that it still doesn't have nearly the amount of
>software available that Mac, DOS, and Windows platforms have, and its
>software still ain't cheap. The ability to run Unix is nice, but most
>people in business need a machine that can run DOS, not Unix.
NeXT is based on an object oriented paradigm. The same paradigm Apple, IBM,
and Microsoft are trying to reproduce with Taligent and Cairo, respectively.
NeXT has ALL the software available for it that IBM and Mac does. There is
a DOS/Windows 3.1 emulator called SoftPC for NeXT which runs at around the
speed of an 80286 with the current NeXT processor. NeXTSTEP 486 will run
ALL DOS/Windows applications at 80486 speeds, AND it will run NeXTSTEP.
>
>>I think NeXT's '040 line is waiting on Motorola,
>>NS 486 is waiting on the new RISC hardware, and the hardware is
>>waiting for HP.
>
>... which means that they're standing still, basically. Like I said,
>I haven't heard of anything major from them in years.
NeXT is talking with Hewlett Packard. It seems HP is ready to liscence
NeXTSTEP to run on all of its hardware. An announcement is expected by the
end of January. You can look in the Wall Street Journal issue from a few
weeks ago to see the article they did on the deal. Also, NeXT released
it's Turbo line of computers last January (only one year ago). When NS486
comes out, you can add the 80x86 line of processors to it's hardware list.
>
>>>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>>>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>>>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>>
>
>NS 486 1.0 can't hope to run Windows programs nearly as well as
>Windows 3.1 can. Like I said: I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY
>operating system. I remember NeXTStep 1.0... plainful memories...
>
Brian, why do you keep saying version 1.0 of NS 486?? NS 486 will run under
NeXTSTEP 3.1 when it is released. NS 3.1 is a very proven, stable OS.
>>Executor on the NeXT runs Mac programs twice as fast as a IIci.
>
>I was only aware that it ran Word currently; does it now do full
>emulation?
Execututor runs a majority of Mac programs, but not all. It runs most major
applications at a speed of two times what a IIci will give.
>NeXTStep 486 is a nice idea that would probably do very well if all it
>were up against were DOS. However, businesses run on machines that
>have to be as compatible, powerful, and inexpensive as possible;
>bringing a new standard into the works is a risky thing. I just don't
>see NeXTStep 486 being much more than an interesting diversion over
>the next few years.
>
>--
>_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
NeXTSTEP 486 is totally totally totally compatible with DOS, Windows, etc.
The only difference is, now you can run GOOD software on your 486 along with
the Windows stuff.
Eric
cvad...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Get one Q800 for server and LCIIIs for everyone.
The networking on Mac is far far better then PCs. Specially when e mail is
used.
ok. technology reason: LCIII (coming in Feb) will be as speeding as IIci, which
is as speedy as 486 sx based one the benchmarks. there is no headache on
installing. easier to use... and all the old argument.
economic reason. i don't know if all the guys in your office knows computer.
anyway, generally, the training cost, supporting cost of pc is twice as high as
that of macs. plus the cost of software, network, and extra time required to do
the same work on pc. if you know financial management, you can give him a very
sound analysis.
however, if you guys are using pcs now, the story of cost will be very
different.
In article <1jb57h...@shelley.u.washington.edu>, jae...@carson.u.washington.edu (Jason Smith) writes:
Andrew Loewenstern
>>
>>I second that motion. If your boss wants a truly professional low cost
>>solution, then NeXTSTEP is the only way to go. In addition, if he NEEDS
>>to have windows running, that is ok too with NeXT, since NeXTSTEP 486
>>has full Windows and DOS support. The NeXTSTEP OS controls the CPU, and
>>WIndows and DOS programs can be run, taking advantage of NeXT's multitasking
>>environment. You can have multiple Windows windows, DOS windows, and
>>NeXTSTEP windows running side by side in the multitasking environment.
>>You can even cut and paste between the windows! This OS will be available
>>in early June from NeXT. By the way, I just saw the beta version of
>>NeXTSTEP 486 and it is truly amazing. It does everything NeXT says it will
>>do. You would swear a black NeXTSTATION was sitting there if you didn't
>>know you were looking at NeXTSTEP 486. It is a TOTAL reproduction of the
>>NeXTSTEP OS ported to a 486 chip.
>
>I'd stay far away from NeXTStep 486 for several reasons:
>
>(1) The company's stability. NeXT hasn't released any new hardware
>that I've heard about for a very long time now, and the only software
>I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
>operating system. IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big
>changes to keep up with the rapidly-advancing computer industry, and I
>just don't see NeXT doing that, especially with their meager sales
>record to date.
NeXT is a very stable company. It has financial backing and a large
line of credit from Canon, Ross Perot, and Steve Jobs. They are
profitable this quarter, and their sales have been growing
significantly every year (during a recession noless when Apple was
loosing money).
NeXT has not released hardware because they are not Apple. Apple
continually recycles their product lines by producing "new" computers
that are basically warmed over versions of previous models. NeXT only
releases machines when there is something new to be had. Future NeXT
machines are tied to processor availability - like the 40mhz 040 and
the PowerPC. You won't see NeXT kill a machine only to come out with
a "new" one that is almost identical.
>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
>seen how slowly they go? And no emulator will EVER run software as
>well as the real thing.
NeXTSTEP 486 is version 3.1 of NeXTSTEP. Windoze software will run at
native speeds. Since the underlying hardware is a 486, there is no
processor emulation. Much of the DOS and Windoze emulation pacakge
was licensed from Insignia.
>(3) Competition. I thought NeXTStep 486 was due out this past fall?
>If it's being delayed further until the middle of next year, then
>Windows NT will probably beat it to market, killing it before it even
>gets a foot in. Look at the GEOS operating system, after all -- a
>good design, well-implemented, but crushed by Windows.
NS486 was delayed for 2 reasons: Since it is identical to NS on NeXT
computers, they had to wait till version 3 was completed. Also, NeXT
is making an effort to support many more hardware configurations than
they previously announced. Writing drivers for the plethora of PC
hardware options in a nightmare...
NT won't kill it. NS is primarily focused at custom app development.
NT is simply better plumbing for Windoze and doesn't make it any
better, more elegant, easier to use, or easier to program. GEOS was
not significantly different from Windoze, and there was no software
that ran on it.
Also, I bet that NS486 is out long before NT. Also, NT is a 1.0
operating system from a company who's track record for producing
shitty operating systems is second to none. It's incredible that
people are already supporting it when it is completely unproven and
not even shipping.
andrew
--
and...@cubetech.com | "We cannot dwell in the time that is to come,
Andrew Loewenstern | lest we lose our now for a phantom of our
Cube Technologies, Inc. | own design." - Erendis FYEO Public Key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Christopher Murphy
>
>able to give him a sound technological, economical base upon which to change
>his mind. Simply saying "I hate Windows" won't do. :/
>
>
oh-oh... the first 486 vs. Mac controversy of the year. It's best to not
come out and directly say one computer is better than another without
being prepared to get many flames. :) ('course I own a Mac IIci) Especially
on this network.
Tell me how it goes.
Mohamed F. Lafeer
where we are choosing a number of 20-30 computer networks for custom apps
as well as general business productivity. We have users, administrators and
programmers who have experience with NeXT, Mac, DOS, UNIX, Windows. Our team
includes one staunch NeXT advocate. I know that some of you NeXT fans are
going to be very suprised, but we're going with the Mac.
Just a couple of points on what I've read so far:
The NeXT is not as fast as you guys say it is. We bought 3 machines for
evaluation purposes: A NeXTstation, a Quadra, and a Mac IIci. Our impression
is that in general use the NeXT is no faster than the IIci. It does *certain*
things faster. It can probably calculate a satellite trajectory faster. It
can move windows faster. But when it comes to general business use: opening
files, starting applications, saving files, etc, the Quadra seems faster.
NS486:
Early in the project we were told that NS486 would be perfect for us. But
it is an unproven technology. It may be based on version 3.1 for the 68040,
but as far as I am concerned it is version 1.0 for the 486. It also is very
expensive. It will cost $1000 for users, $2500 for developers, plus the
extra cost of at least 16megs of RAM (I saw one faq which said more), a large
hard drive, and a fast drive controller. And we still haven't seen it.
I have talked with a few NeXT fans who read this group as well as a few
Mac fans about this project. The NeXT fans think I'm a Mac fan and the Mac fans
think I'm a NeXT fan. This is because when I investigate something I like
to play devil's advocate. But it is true that when I gathered my *initial*
research, we were all but certain that we would go with NeXT. But months
of real evaluation have changed that.
I am extremely skeptical of the claims I here from NeXT advocates.
They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
changing the log in screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
No one has a solution.
They told me Executor was really awesome. Runs twice as fast as a IIci.
Wrong. It does certain tasks twice as fast as a IIci. It does most things
much slower than a IIci. It implements a limited subset of the MacOS. It does
not run a majority of the Mac software we have. It does not support *any*
of the additions Apple made with system 7. Not a single one.
They talked about the wonders of Objects and how NeXT can add any feature to
their OS and every application will merrily take advantage of it. But we
found out that NS3.0 broke a lot of software. One implementation of X we saw
won't run on a color station, but will run on a color turbo.
They said software wouldn't be a problem. We have all kinds of problems running
WordPerfect. And WordPerfect doesn't seem too excited about developing a new
version. Improv is awful (buggy), and no fixes in site there.
They said IB and Objective C and the NeXT app framework would all but write
our applications for us. But then we saw Serius Developer, Component Workshop,
AppMaker, Prograph, etc. NeXT *used to* have a big lead in software
development tools.
We bought a fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
of high productivity?
Windows and Mac may not be the state of the art in computer technology. But
both are widely used, accepted, and supported. There are hundreds of
wonderful business applications available. We can buy cheap LC's for people
who don't really need a lot of power. Other users can choose VX's or the
upcoming Centris. I personally use a Quadra 950. All of these machines mix
and match beautifully. NeXT doesn't have this sort of flexibility and won't
even if NS486 turns out to be more than the usual exaggerated NeXT claim.
-M.Firoze Lafeer
mfla...@athena.mit.edu
Kaya Bekiroglu
>I am neither a Mac advocate nor a NeXT advocate. I am involved in a project
>where we are choosing a number of 20-30 computer networks for custom apps
>as well as general business productivity. We have users, administrators and
>programmers who have experience with NeXT, Mac, DOS, UNIX, Windows. Our team
>includes one staunch NeXT advocate. I know that some of you NeXT fans are
>going to be very suprised, but we're going with the Mac.
D'Oh! What will Jafar say?
>
>Just a couple of points on what I've read so far:
>
>The NeXT is not as fast as you guys say it is. We bought 3 machines for
>evaluation purposes: A NeXTstation, a Quadra, and a Mac IIci. Our impression
>is that in general use the NeXT is no faster than the IIci. It does *certain*
>things faster. It can probably calculate a satellite trajectory faster. It
>can move windows faster. But when it comes to general business use: opening
>files, starting applications, saving files, etc, the Quadra seems faster.
All disk-intensive. That's due to the SCSI driver for the NeXT's,
which frankly sucks. I wish they'd write a new one - it'd close
so many deals. :) Maybe if you sent a letter to NeXT?
>
>NS486:
>Early in the project we were told that NS486 would be perfect for us. But
>it is an unproven technology. It may be based on version 3.1 for the 68040,
>but as far as I am concerned it is version 1.0 for the 486. It also is very
>expensive. It will cost $1000 for users, $2500 for developers, plus the
>extra cost of at least 16megs of RAM (I saw one faq which said more), a large
>hard drive, and a fast drive controller. And we still haven't seen it.
True. I don't know how much the academic discounts will be - probably
around 25% off list. But you have to understand that beyond hardware
implementation details and drivers, everything's blue sky. The only
bugs I can see would be with the Windows emulation. If you ask NeXT
for a copy of NS 486 beta they'll probably give one to you. Still, if
you add the price of the drives, ram, and NS 486, (or a vanilla NeXT)
are they more expensive than the Quadras?
>
>I have talked with a few NeXT fans who read this group as well as a few
>Mac fans about this project. The NeXT fans think I'm a Mac fan and the Mac fans
>think I'm a NeXT fan. This is because when I investigate something I like
>to play devil's advocate. But it is true that when I gathered my *initial*
>research, we were all but certain that we would go with NeXT. But months
>of real evaluation have changed that.
>
>I am extremely skeptical of the claims I here from NeXT advocates.
>
>They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>changing the log in screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
Yikes. How'd you do that? Did you use a bad tiff for the login window?
If so, couldn't you just login over the net and change it?
>
>Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>No one has a solution.
D'Oh! Does this have anything to do with the login window?
>
>They told me Executor was really awesome. Runs twice as fast as a IIci.
>Wrong. It does certain tasks twice as fast as a IIci. It does most things
>much slower than a IIci. It implements a limited subset of the MacOS. It does
>not run a majority of the Mac software we have. It does not support *any*
>of the additions Apple made with system 7. Not a single one.
Still, probably having to do with disk access. Which still doesn't
solve the problem. From what I gather, the problems with Executor
have more to do with the dirt-poor nature of ARDI than with technical
problems. They can only test software that Mac software houses send 'em.
Hopefully NS 486 will give a boost to NeXT developers.
>
>They talked about the wonders of Objects and how NeXT can add any feature to
>their OS and every application will merrily take advantage of it. But we
>found out that NS3.0 broke a lot of software. One implementation of X we saw
>won't run on a color station, but will run on a color turbo.
System 7 and Quadras also break software, probably for the same reasons.
>
>They said software wouldn't be a problem. We have all kinds of problems running
>WordPerfect. And WordPerfect doesn't seem too excited about developing a new
>version. Improv is awful (buggy), and no fixes in site there.
There is Mesa, PasteUp, and a host of others. Framemaker, for example.
Personally, I wouldn't use WP to save my life. Software is still a problem.
>
>They said IB and Objective C and the NeXT app framework would all but write
>our applications for us. But then we saw Serius Developer, Component Workshop,
>AppMaker, Prograph, etc. NeXT *used to* have a big lead in software
>development tools.
Hmmm... what did are they - code libraries? Can't comment, never seen 'em.
>
>We bought a fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
>we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
>beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
>of high productivity?
Have you seen Dfax?
>
>Windows and Mac may not be the state of the art in computer technology. But
>both are widely used, accepted, and supported. There are hundreds of
>wonderful business applications available. We can buy cheap LC's for people
>who don't really need a lot of power. Other users can choose VX's or the
>upcoming Centris. I personally use a Quadra 950. All of these machines mix
>and match beautifully. NeXT doesn't have this sort of flexibility and won't
>even if NS486 turns out to be more than the usual exaggerated NeXT claim.
Ouch.
>
>-M.Firoze Lafeer
>mfla...@athena.mit.edu
Eric M Hermanson
>where we are choosing a number of 20-30 computer networks for custom apps
>as well as general business productivity. We have users, administrators and
>programmers who have experience with NeXT, Mac, DOS, UNIX, Windows. Our team
>includes one staunch NeXT advocate. I know that some of you NeXT fans are
>going to be very suprised, but we're going with the Mac.
>
Seeing as your team only includes one staunch NeXT advocate, I am not
surprised you chose Mac. Your loss.
>Just a couple of points on what I've read so far:
>
>The NeXT is not as fast as you guys say it is. We bought 3 machines for
>evaluation purposes: A NeXTstation, a Quadra, and a Mac IIci. Our impression
>is that in general use the NeXT is no faster than the IIci. It does *certain*
>things faster. It can probably calculate a satellite trajectory faster. It
>can move windows faster. But when it comes to general business use: opening
>files, starting applications, saving files, etc, the Quadra seems faster.
Oh so general business use is defined as: opening files, starting
applications, and saving files?? Sounds like your team is going to get
A LOT of work done. Give me a break. The NeXT development environment
is the best around by far. Many major corporations have bought into NeXT
on that fact alone (Chrysler, First Bank of Chicago, Swiss Bank). The Mac
systems are SLOW, Appletalk is SLOW and error-prone. Even Apple concedes
these facts. Take for instance the new Mac "server" systems to be released.
Apple is running AU/X INSTEAD of MacOS on thoses systems because MacOS
is not even powerful enought to do menial tasks such as file serving,
and network control.
>NS486:
>Early in the project we were told that NS486 would be perfect for us. But
>it is an unproven technology. It may be based on version 3.1 for the 68040,
>but as far as I am concerned it is version 1.0 for the 486. It also is very
>expensive. It will cost $1000 for users, $2500 for developers, plus the
>extra cost of at least 16megs of RAM (I saw one faq which said more), a large
>hard drive, and a fast drive controller. And we still haven't seen it.
>
The LIST price is what you have mentioned above. No one will be paying that
price. Educational users get roughly 40% discounts, developers get
roughtly 40%. Also, there have been numerous rumors that the price will
drop significantly once the shipping date of early June arrives. And lastly,
NeXTSTEP 486 IS a proven technology. Go to any NeXT computer and see what
I mean . NeXTSTEP 486 will be the same exact thing, except it will run
on a box that is not black.
>I have talked with a few NeXT fans who read this group as well as a few
>Mac fans about this project. The NeXT fans think I'm a Mac fan and the Mac fns
>think I'm a NeXT fan. This is because when I investigate something I like
>to play devil's advocate. But it is true that when I gathered my *initial*
>research, we were all but certain that we would go with NeXT. But months
>of real evaluation have changed that.
>
Please tell me what "months" of real evaluation is Mohammed? It seems that
in playing devils advocate, you have totally missed what NeXT is all about.
>I am extremely skeptical of the claims I here from NeXT advocates.
>
>They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>changing the log in screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>
>Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>No one has a solution.
These are the BIGGEST lines of bull I have ever heard. It sounds like YOU
screwed something up when YOU changed the login screen incorrectly, the
same way YOU could screw up a Macintosh if you start messing around with
the operating system. And by the way, NeXT offers the best support around.
Just like Apple, you have to qualify to become a NeXT reseller and service
center.
>
>They told me Executor was really awesome. Runs twice as fast as a IIci.
>Wrong. It does certain tasks twice as fast as a IIci. It does most things
>much slower than a IIci. It implements a limited subset of the MacOS. It does
>
Boy, you are vauge! I guess you'll say anything just to knock NeXT.
>They talked about the wonders of Objects and how NeXT can add any feature to
>their OS and every application will merrily take advantage of it. But we
>found out that NS3.0 broke a lot of software. One implementation of X we saw
>won't run on a color station, but will run on a color turbo.
NeXTSTEP 3.0 broke NO software. When the new ADB NeXT keyboards were released,
a FEW pieces of software had to be patched since the developers who wrote
them did not follow the guidelines in reading keystrokes from the keyboard.
Developers were warned about the new keybaord well in advance, and most did not
even have to worry since they used the proper methods all along.
>
>They said IB and Objective C and the NeXT app framework would all but write
>our applications for us. But then we saw Serius Developer, Component Workshop,
>AppMaker, Prograph, etc. NeXT *used to* have a big lead in software
>development tools.
And they still do. NeXT's IB is a standard way to write programs. All
programs written with it (i.e. al NeXT programs) have a standard feel to them.
It is the best development environment around, if you don't believe me, just
read InfoWorld, or Object Technology Magazine.
>
>We bought a fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
>we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
>beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
>of high productivity?
This is another line of BULL. NeXT makes it easy to add on peripherals,
most of the time just plugging them in is all you need to do. It seems like
you people are just so used to Mac that anything else is just too confusing
for you to comprehend. Thats ok, when MacOS becomes obsolete around Talignet
time (1995), you will be forced to learn something new.
>
>Windows and Mac may not be the state of the art in computer technology. But
>both are widely used, accepted, and supported. There are hundreds of
>wonderful business applications available. We can buy cheap LC's for people
>who don't really need a lot of power. Other users can choose VX's or the
>upcoming Centris. I personally use a Quadra 950. All of these machines mix
>and match beautifully. NeXT doesn't have this sort of flexibility and won't
>even if NS486 turns out to be more than the usual exaggerated NeXT claim.
>
>-M.Firoze Lafeer
>mfla...@athena.mit.edu
NeXT will continue to have much superior flexibility than Mac. NeXTSTEP
486 will fully support Windows and DOS. Macintosh emulation at next
spoeeds will continue to be available with the Executor emulator. Hewlett
Packard is ready to liscence NeXTSTEP to run on its chip line (Wall Street
Journal report, announcement to come before Jan. 31). NeXT is busy porting
NeXTSTEP to other chip lines. NeXTSTEP is here to stay.
Eric Hermanson
zmon...@athena.mit.edu
Eric M Hermanson
>In article <1993Jan18.0...@athena.mit.edu> mfla...@athena.mit.edu (Mohamed F. Lafeer) writes:
>>We boughta fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
>>we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
>>beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
>>of high productivity?
>
>This is another line of BULL. NeXT makes it easy to add on peripherals,
>most of the time just plugging them in is all you need to do. It seems like
>you people are just so used to Mac that anything else is just too confusing
>for you to comprehend. Thats ok, when MacOS becomes obsolete around Talignet
>time (1995), you will be forced to learn something new.
Let me clarify something. When I said "you people are just so used to Mac
that anything else is just too confusing for you to comprehend", I did NOT
mean the general Mac audience. I was directing that comment to the group
of people with whom the original poster (Mohamed F. Lafeer) works. I meant
no insult to the general readers of this newsgroup. I am adamant in my
support of NeXT, and used harsh language only to counter the untrue criticism
I keep hearing from this certain individual.
Thank You,
Eric Hermanson
zmon...@athena.mit.edu
Tim Smith
>(2) Compatibility. Sure, NeXTStep 486 might purport to run DOS and
>Windows programs, but does it do so (1) reliably and (2) at an
>acceptable speed? I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY operating system,
>and besides, even OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs -- but have you
>seen how slowly they go? And no emulator will EVER run software as
>well as the real thing.
Have you used OS/2 to run DOS programs? Regular DOS programs run at around
the same speed as they do under DOS. DOS programs that play around with
extended/expanded memory or use the various protected mode interfaces
tend to run *FASTER* than they do under DOS. Compare compile time,
for example, under Borland or Metaware C under OS/2 and under DOS.
You should find that it is faster under OS/2.
My recommendation to people who *only* need to run DOS programs is to
buy OS/2, open a full-screen DOS window, and pretend you have DOS. You
get almost perfect compatibility, better performance, and if you decide
you want to multitask all you have to do us ask for another window.
You may be right about Windows programs (I've never used Windows programs
under OS/2).
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>If he is stubborn and insists to have a 486, try and sell him on the NeXTSTEP
>486 3.0. That way both of you will be happy.
Oh, really? When was this released?
--Tim Smith
Andrew Loewenstern
>where we are choosing a number of 20-30 computer networks for custom apps
>as well as general business productivity. We have users, administrators and
>programmers who have experience with NeXT, Mac, DOS, UNIX, Windows. Our team
>includes one staunch NeXT advocate. I know that some of you NeXT fans are
>going to be very suprised, but we're going with the Mac.
>
>Just a couple of points on what I've read so far:
>
>The NeXT is not as fast as you guys say it is. We bought 3 machines for
>evaluation purposes: A NeXTstation, a Quadra, and a Mac IIci. Our impression
>is that in general use the NeXT is no faster than the IIci. It does *certain*
>things faster. It can probably calculate a satellite trajectory faster. It
>can move windows faster. But when it comes to general business use: opening
>files, starting applications, saving files, etc, the Quadra seems faster.
Indeed, rather than find someone knowledgable with the machine and
getting them to demonstrate how you would use it to achieve your
particular task, you purchased your own machine and evaluated it with
your own bias.
As a whole 040 NeXT computers are definitely faster than a Quadra.
How much RAM did you say was in that NeXT? I would bet money is was
not enough. NeXTSTEP is a real operating system - a "There is not
enough memory to open "xxxxx" (xxxxK needed, xxxK available). To
make more memory available, try quitting "xxxxx"." does not exist in
NeXTSTEP (I have one of those dialogs up on my IIci right now...).
When you run out of memory, you page. You were paging and it seemed
slow. Get enough memory to do the things you want to do and it will
be very fast.
>They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>changing the log in screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
complain about the stability of the OS. I bet I can make my Mac crash
in a hurry if I put on a blindfold and double click on ResEdit.
Furthermore, there was no need to reinstall the OS - you just didn't
know what you were doing.
>Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>No one has a solution.
If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>They told me Executor was really awesome. Runs twice as fast as a IIci.
>Wrong. It does certain tasks twice as fast as a IIci. It does most things
>much slower than a IIci. It implements a limited subset of the MacOS. It does
>not run a majority of the Mac software we have. It does not support *any*
>of the additions Apple made with system 7. Not a single one.
It is not NeXT's fault if you believe the Net over the actual
manufacturer of the product. ARDI makes no claim that Executor runs
any commercial packages other than Excel and Word at this time. They
also make no claim as to supporting any System 7 features. Read the
literature or ask the manufacturer before flaming.
>They talked about the wonders of Objects and how NeXT can add any feature to
>their OS and every application will merrily take advantage of it. But we
>found out that NS3.0 broke a lot of software. One implementation of X we saw
>won't run on a color station, but will run on a color turbo.
3.0 broke no commercial software. If you purchased a real X
implementation from Cub'X, Pencom, or WhitePine, you would not have
problems. Instead you picked up a freeware hack that was not well
written. Again it is your fault, not NeXT's.
>They said software wouldn't be a problem. We have all kinds of problems running
>WordPerfect. And WordPerfect doesn't seem too excited about developing a new
>version. Improv is awful (buggy), and no fixes in site there.
WordPerfect is only one out of many packages, and yes it is buggy.
Try using Mesa or Questor instead of Improv, which is no longer
supported.
>They said IB and Objective C and the NeXT app framework would all but write
>our applications for us. But then we saw Serius Developer, Component Workshop,
>AppMaker, Prograph, etc. NeXT *used to* have a big lead in software
>development tools.
bzzzzzt. Try using Serius, CW, AppMaker, and Prograph *together.*
Try using *any* of them together. While you have many disparate
toolkits that ease development to a certain extent, you come nowhere
close to the level of integration that you get with NeXTSTEP. If the
above packages really were nearly as good as NeXTSTEP, Taligent would
not exist.
>We bought a fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
>we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
>beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
>of high productivity?
Question: are you blind? (valid question...) Plugging in a cable and
performing *two* mouse clicks in PrinterManager can't be all that
difficult for an MIT student (or are you a professor?).
>Windows and Mac may not be the state of the art in computer technology. But
>both are widely used, accepted, and supported. There are hundreds of
>wonderful business applications available. We can buy cheap LC's for people
>who don't really need a lot of power. Other users can choose VX's or the
>upcoming Centris. I personally use a Quadra 950. All of these machines mix
>and match beautifully. NeXT doesn't have this sort of flexibility and won't
>even if NS486 turns out to be more than the usual exaggerated NeXT claim.
The above statement is very revealing. You didn't give the NeXT a
chance. You were already convinced. I'm wasting my keystrokes.
>-M.Firoze Lafeer
>mfla...@athena.mit.edu
Terje Rydland
Try to get hold of the following report:
A report from the Gartner Group states:
In a networked, enterprise environment, PCs have costs of support,
administration, and end-user operations that can add up to 82% of the total
five-year, life-cycle cost of the machine. In effect, the initial cost of
the
machine can be as little as 18% of that life-cycle cost. But the Macintosh
has
the lowest, estimated life-cycle costs of all popular operating systems.
Five-year, life-cycle cost per system, in thousands of dollars:
MS-DOS $37.0
OS/2 $33.2
Windows$29.5
Macintosh $23.3
Source: The Gartner Group
Terje Rydland
Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
Internet : ter...@ifi.unit.no
AppleLink: NOR0103
Tlf : +47-7-591845
Fax : +47-7-591733
Terje Rydland
(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>
> As a whole 040 NeXT computers are definitely faster than a Quadra.
> How much RAM did you say was in that NeXT? I would bet money is was
> not enough. NeXTSTEP is a real operating system - a "There is not
> enough memory to open "xxxxx" (xxxxK needed, xxxK available). To
> make more memory available, try quitting "xxxxx"." does not exist in
> NeXTSTEP (I have one of those dialogs up on my IIci right now...).
> When you run out of memory, you page. You were paging and it seemed
> slow. Get enough memory to do the things you want to do and it will
> be very fast.
This is silly. The same is true for the Mac. Get enough memory and
you don't get those dialogboxes. Turn on VM and it pages when it runs
out of physical memory.
Try some real arguments!
> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>
> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
> complain about the stability of the OS.
Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
> >No one has a solution.
>
> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
> >-M.Firoze Lafeer
> >mfla...@athena.mit.edu
>
>
> andrew
> --
> and...@cubetech.com | "We cannot dwell in the time that is to come,
> Andrew Loewenstern | lest we lose our now for a phantom of our
> Cube Technologies, Inc. | own design." - Erendis FYEO Public Key:
> 0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Terje Rydland
Robert Wong
>
>Just a couple of points on what I've read so far:
>
>The NeXT is not as fast as you guys say it is. We bought 3 machines for
>evaluation purposes: A NeXTstation, a Quadra, and a Mac IIci. Our impression
>is that in general use the NeXT is no faster than the IIci. It does *certain*
>things faster. It can probably calculate a satellite trajectory faster. It
>can move windows faster. But when it comes to general business use: opening
>files, starting applications, saving files, etc, the Quadra seems faster.
Interesting comment/results. I wonder why the results are what they are.
What config was the machine. When you run a colour machine, you need lots of
RAM. I think 20Mb was a good amount for a colour machine. Apparently, when
you increase the RAM, there is less swapping and performance increases
dramatically.
>
>NS486:
>Early in the project we were told that NS486 would be perfect for us. But
>it is an unproven technology. It may be based on version 3.1 for the 68040,
>but as far as I am concerned it is version 1.0 for the 486. It also is very
>expensive. It will cost $1000 for users, $2500 for developers, plus the
>extra cost of at least 16megs of RAM (I saw one faq which said more), a large
>hard drive, and a fast drive controller. And we still haven't seen it.
I would regard it as version (1.0+3.1)/2 technology. You point about it being
unproven technology is somwwhat valid. It has never run on Intel hardware
(hence 1.0), but it does work (hence 3.1). Recall that stuff like Adobe
Illustrator only required a recompile to run under NeXTSTEP 486.
>
>I am extremely skeptical of the claims I here from NeXT advocates.
>
>They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>changing the log in screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
That seems kinda weird. Admittedly, you have to be really careful about
changing the login screen. It is a system software component. Just like on a
Mac, you could really screw things up. Just play with ResEdit on a Mac on
things your mother warned you not to play with. As to reinstalling the software
, it seems kinda drastic.
>
>Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>No one has a solution.
There is no such thing as a controller card on a NeXT. One thing you might
want to try is goto the monitor screen and try resetting the boot-up
parameters. It is in the same place as setting up the hardware password.
When you are prompted for the boot command, try "bsd" or "sd". (To get the
boot up param, type "p" at the NeXT> prompt in the monitor screen.)
>
>They told me Executor was really awesome. Runs twice as fast as a IIci.
>Wrong. It does certain tasks twice as fast as a IIci. It does most things
>much slower than a IIci. It implements a limited subset of the MacOS. It does
>not run a majority of the Mac software we have. It does not support *any*
>of the additions Apple made with system 7. Not a single one.
Can't comment about the speed. I don't run it. It is a system 6 emulator,
correct. Yes, it does run a subset of the MacOS (can't recall what, right now).
>
>They talked about the wonders of Objects and how NeXT can add any feature to
>their OS and every application will merrily take advantage of it. But we
>found out that NS3.0 broke a lot of software. One implementation of X we saw
>won't run on a color station, but will run on a color turbo.
Gee, didn't MacOS system 7.0 also break a lot of hardware? Yeah, I know, when
you don't have anything better to say, go on offence.
>
>They said software wouldn't be a problem. We have all kinds of problems running
>WordPerfect. And WordPerfect doesn't seem too excited about developing a new
>version. Improv is awful (buggy), and no fixes in site there.
WordPerfect is committed to bringing out WP6.0 for NeXT. Lotus will not
release Improv 2.0 for NeXT. They will release Improv NeXT v1.01 in March.
>
>They said IB and Objective C and the NeXT app framework would all but write
>our applications for us. But then we saw Serius Developer, Component Workshop,
>AppMaker, Prograph, etc. NeXT *used to* have a big lead in software
>development tools.
Can't really comment on programming. The NeXT lead is slowly diminishing.
>
>We bought a fax modem. After two hours of trying to get it to work on the NeXT
>we gave up. We hooked it up to a Mac, ran an installer, and it works
>beautifully. Is spending two hours hooking up a peripheral your definition
>of high productivity?
This is really a concern on the NeXT. The answer is to buy a ZyXEL modem, buy
the driver from Black&White Software, plop in the floppy and run the
installer program. It works, the driver autoswitches from fax to data. This
seems to be the best solution on the NeXT.
>
>Windows and Mac may not be the state of the art in computer technology. But
>both are widely used, accepted, and supported. There are hundreds of
>wonderful business applications available. We can buy cheap LC's for people
>who don't really need a lot of power. Other users can choose VX's or the
>upcoming Centris. I personally use a Quadra 950. All of these machines mix
>and match beautifully. NeXT doesn't have this sort of flexibility and won't
>even if NS486 turns out to be more than the usual exaggerated NeXT claim.
Flexibility??? Right now, NeXT runs X Windows (get the new NS 3.0 fixes), NFS,
AppleShare (Ethernet) client,Novell NetWare client, and AFS. This isn't
flexible???
As you can see, I am a NeXT advocate. I'm also a NeXT owner. Your post had
a lot of valid points and reasonable perspectives. The mac emulator adverts
were kinda overhyped.
The incident with the login panel and the bsd boot string was regrettable. The
machines are really faster w/more RAM. I wish more people would use the
ZyXEL faxmodem.
One last point. I really didn't want to post such a long message. Most
people, me included, ignore long posts.
RWW.
--
Robert W. "What!?! I've-been-tying-my-shoelaces-backwards-all-my-life?" Wong Jr.
wr...@unixg.ubc.ca (ASCII only)
Kaya Bekiroglu
>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>
>> As a whole 040 NeXT computers are definitely faster than a Quadra.
>> How much RAM did you say was in that NeXT? I would bet money is was
>> not enough. NeXTSTEP is a real operating system - a "There is not
>> enough memory to open "xxxxx" (xxxxK needed, xxxK available). To
>> make more memory available, try quitting "xxxxx"." does not exist in
>> NeXTSTEP (I have one of those dialogs up on my IIci right now...).
>> When you run out of memory, you page. You were paging and it seemed
>> slow. Get enough memory to do the things you want to do and it will
>> be very fast.
>
>This is silly. The same is true for the Mac. Get enough memory and
>you don't get those dialogboxes. Turn on VM and it pages when it runs
>out of physical memory.
>
>Try some real arguments!
That is a very real argument. The NeXT needs far more memory than a Mac
to reach the level where it doesn't page. If you run a Mac with 8 MB
and expect a NeXT to run quicky with the same 8 MB you're bound to be
dissappointed. 6 MB of that 8 is taken up by the (and may I say,
extremely advanced) operating system, leaving 2 megs left for real work.
The OS takes up hundreds of megabytes on the drive. This is UNIX, not
BitMap Land.
>
>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>
>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>
>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
UNIX is very nice. You can do zillions of things with it. Changing
the login screen is one. *I*, at least, have seen to NeXT documentation
on it. Manually dickering with the operating system can have very nice
results, but only if you have a remote idea about what you are doing.
>
>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>> >No one has a solution.
>>
>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>
>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
They can't screw up a machine royally by keeping it turned off. It
the boot-up doesn't come broken in the factory installation. No app
I've tried could do that. The fact that this group REINSTALED the
whole OS because of a login tiff screw up is revealing. What else did they
do to it? :)
>
>> >-M.Firoze Lafeer
>> >mfla...@athena.mit.edu
>>
>>
>> andrew
>> --
>> and...@cubetech.com | "We cannot dwell in the time that is to come,
>> Andrew Loewenstern | lest we lose our now for a phantom of our
>> Cube Technologies, Inc. | own design." - Erendis FYEO Public Key:
>> 0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
>
>Terje Rydland
>Dept. of Informatics, UNIT, Trondheim, Norway
>Internet : ter...@ifi.unit.no
>AppleLink: NOR0103
>Tlf : +47-7-591845
>Fax : +47-7-591733
GRUBB
>My recommendation to people who *only* need to run DOS programs is to
>buy OS/2, open a full-screen DOS window, and pretend you have DOS. You
>get almost perfect compatibility, better performance, and if you decide
>you want to multitask all you have to do us ask for another window.
sumex-aim.stanford.edu (36.44.0.6) in /info-mac/report as mac-ibm-compare.txt}
"Side note: The FTC has brought charges against MicroSoft for forming a OS
trust by not providing all feature documentation for its OSes to developers
outside MS and designing its Windows and DOS apps to fail under OS/2
("Undocumented Windows") and "There is deliberate code in [Windows] NT Beta
which causes the install to abort if OS/2 Boot Manager is present" (Gregory
Hicks, Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201)"
It's only a small step from preventing apps to run under OS/2 to preventing
ANY DOS program from working under OS/2. I would tread VERY carefully
on this path.
Also I pointed out
"OS/2: Unix like features and unix like requirements; 8 MB of RAM,
a 60MB hard drive {uses 17-33MB on HD}, and 386 CPU. Has to use a virtual
swap file to use more than 16 MB RAM on ISA systems. IBM plans to use
Taligent's OOPS in future versions of this. (InfoWorld Oct 26/92) 32-bit
multithreaded, multitasking os. "
OS/2 is clearly a trade off between memory {RAM and hard disk} and speed
compaired to DOS. On a important point, since Taligent's OOPS, is optimized
for the PowerPC OS/2 will be made to run of RISC chips soon.
Until then? well...
"Mac 7.0: {Maybe} Apple has System 7.0 running off Intel Chips and is looking
at making this version available for IBM. {Another wait & see. Maybe a
testing of Apple OS code on a Intel chip for PowerOpen} (ComputerWorld Nov
2/92) DOS programs will probably require an emulator/interpreter to run, al
la SoftPC.
PowerOpen(AU/X 4.0): Rumor is that this could be the OS for IBM's PowerPC 601
due out in early 1993 [Apple's PowerPC 601 is not due out until Jan 1994.]
{Supports the theory of Apple planning to be both a hardware and software
company.}"
By the way OOPS stands for Object Oriented Programing System {I think.}
Dinda Peter
>trust by not providing all feature documentation for its OSes to developers
>outside MS and designing its Windows and DOS apps to fail under OS/2
>("Undocumented Windows") and "There is deliberate code in [Windows] NT Beta
>which causes the install to abort if OS/2 Boot Manager is present" (Gregory
>Hicks, Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201)"
>It's only a small step from preventing apps to run under OS/2 to preventing
>ANY DOS program from working under OS/2. I would tread VERY carefully
>on this path.
I have had no problems running Microsoft's DOS and Windows apps under
OS/2. Further, since the original poster was talking about DOS apps, I
might point out that MS does not have anywhere near the market share of
DOS apps as it has of Windows apps. Finally, it is very easy to start up
a *real* copy of DOS or any other 8086 OS in an OS/2 VDM for maximized
compatibility.
Andrew Loewenstern
>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>
>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>
>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
Yes, but it is simply a TIFF image. It's hard to believe that he was
able to damage the OS by changing it. He must have deleted a bunch of
files.
>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>> >No one has a solution.
>>
>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>
>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
:-) Yes, but the boot command doesn't get screwed up unless you
change it without knowing what you are doing.
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <terjer-18...@majestix.ifi.unit.no> ter...@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>>
>>> As a whole 040 NeXT computers are definitely faster than a Quadra.
>>> How much RAM did you say was in that NeXT? I would bet money is was
>>> not enough. NeXTSTEP is a real operating system - a "There is not
>>> enough memory to open "xxxxx" (xxxxK needed, xxxK available). To
>>> make more memory available, try quitting "xxxxx"." does not exist in
>>> NeXTSTEP (I have one of those dialogs up on my IIci right now...).
>>> When you run out of memory, you page. You were paging and it seemed
>>> slow. Get enough memory to do the things you want to do and it will
>>> be very fast.
>>
>>This is silly. The same is true for the Mac. Get enough memory and
>>you don't get those dialogboxes. Turn on VM and it pages when it runs
>>out of physical memory.
>>
>>Try some real arguments!
>
>That is a very real argument. The NeXT needs far more memory than a Mac
>to reach the level where it doesn't page. If you run a Mac with 8 MB
>and expect a NeXT to run quicky with the same 8 MB you're bound to be
>dissappointed. 6 MB of that 8 is taken up by the (and may I say,
>extremely advanced) operating system, leaving 2 megs left for real work.
>The OS takes up hundreds of megabytes on the drive. This is UNIX, not
>BitMap Land.
And, because it is Unix it requires large chunks of memory. That's a
shame.
What does it do that justifies its high usage? I mean, something that
would be usefull to the guy who started this thread; I already know about
Interface Builder. What else?
Perhaps he simply doesn't want what the NeXT has?
>>
>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>>
>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>>
>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>
>UNIX is very nice. You can do zillions of things with it. Changing
>the login screen is one. *I*, at least, have seen to NeXT documentation
>on it. Manually dickering with the operating system can have very nice
>results, but only if you have a remote idea about what you are doing.
And if not, it self destructs. It's a shame NeXT has inherited one of
Unixes flaws.
I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
and very Unix like. :)
Sounds like NeXT needs to work on the resilience of the OS a bit.
>>
>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>>> >No one has a solution.
>>>
>>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>>
>>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
>
>They can't screw up a machine royally by keeping it turned off. It
>the boot-up doesn't come broken in the factory installation. No app
>I've tried could do that. The fact that this group REINSTALED the
>whole OS because of a login tiff screw up is revealing. What else did they
>do to it? :)
Dunno, but whatever it is they can't seem to get it fixed. That's not such
a good thing. It does not matter one bit whose fault the problem is.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai
I fail to see why the 486 hardware should become obsolete if NeXT
buys the farm? BTW, you can expect the announcement of the NeXT
RISC workstation in mid-93, delivery in fall/end year. PA-RISC
based, multiple CPU slots. Very hot (but admittedly yet unconfirmed).
--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (v...@qb.rhein-main.de)
Looks good on the outside, but -
intel inside
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <terjer-18...@majestix.ifi.unit.no> ter...@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>>
>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>>
>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>
>Yes, but it is simply a TIFF image. It's hard to believe that he was
>able to damage the OS by changing it. He must have deleted a bunch of
>files.
That seems a bit uncharitable. Is it easy to accidentally delete files
on the NeXT? (I would not have thot so)
>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>>> >No one has a solution.
>>>
>>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>>
>>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
>
>:-) Yes, but the boot command doesn't get screwed up unless you
>change it without knowing what you are doing.
He was able to accidentally muck up his machine to the point that
nobody- not even NeXT- could figure out how to unmuck it- just
by sheer ignorance?
That sounds like a real problem for NeXT.
Kaya Bekiroglu
The standard ones I know about: Display Postscript, video memory,
background unix daemons, the Mach kernel and Workspace Manager.
They take up memory. I have also heard bad reviews of NeXT's
swapping scheme, but I don't know much about that. Any leftover
memory is used as a disk cache.
Display Postscript - well, what more need be said?
Video memory - almost a million pixels @ 12 bits each, a meg or two
background unix - warms your coffee and does other (less useful :)
things while you don't wait
Mach - multithreading SuperKernel. More I know not.
Workspace Manager - keeps track of programs, mouse clicks, etc.
I know Windows NT will take up at least as much as the NeXT will,
(Microsoft lies like a dog) and I know it's not going to do what
the NeXT does now. I don't know all that much about NeXT memory,
though.
>
>Perhaps he simply doesn't want what the NeXT has?
Certianly there are cheaper alternatives. PDP's, for example.
Osbournes. Lisas. PCs. Macs. One of them must do what he
wants. ;)
>
>>>
>>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>>>
>>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>>>
>>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>>
>>UNIX is very nice. You can do zillions of things with it. Changing
>>the login screen is one. *I*, at least, have seen to NeXT documentation
>>on it. Manually dickering with the operating system can have very nice
>>results, but only if you have a remote idea about what you are doing.
>
>And if not, it self destructs. It's a shame NeXT has inherited one of
>Unixes flaws.
I hope some new apps come out that can do all this automagically,
but till then we have to use all of this power carefully. Still,
it's amazingly useful.
>
>I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
>trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
>and very Unix like. :)
Luckily, day to day work doesn't cause NeXTSTEP to crash, unlike some
other <cough> OS's. Unix is very nice in that regard. Changing the
login window is really very trivial. Really. :)
>
>Sounds like NeXT needs to work on the resilience of the OS a bit.
It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
>>>
>>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>>>> >No one has a solution.
>>>>
>>>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>>>
>>>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
>>
>>They can't screw up a machine royally by keeping it turned off. It
>>the boot-up doesn't come broken in the factory installation. No app
>>I've tried could do that. The fact that this group REINSTALED the
>>whole OS because of a login tiff screw up is revealing. What else did they
>>do to it? :)
>
>Dunno, but whatever it is they can't seem to get it fixed. That's not such
>a good thing. It does not matter one bit whose fault the problem is.
Seems like they've gone into a talespin.
>
>---
> - Dan Johnson
>And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
>
>These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
>You'll never know whose they are.
--
Kaya Bekiroglu - "Don't mind him, he's just crazy"
Tim Smith
>"Side note: The FTC has brought charges against MicroSoft for forming a OS
>trust by not providing all feature documentation for its OSes to developers
>outside MS and designing its Windows and DOS apps to fail under OS/2
>("Undocumented Windows") and "There is deliberate code in [Windows] NT Beta
>which causes the install to abort if OS/2 Boot Manager is present" (Gregory
>Hicks, Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201)"
>It's only a small step from preventing apps to run under OS/2 to preventing
>ANY DOS program from working under OS/2. I would tread VERY carefully
>on this path.
OS/2 deals with that. There are actually *two* ways to run DOS programs
under OS/2. The best way, which works for most programs, is to let OS/2
emulate DOS. The DOS program runs in V86 mode, and whenever it makes any
DOS or BIOS call, OS/2 handles it.
The other way, which you can use if your program needs a specific version
of DOS, is actually run that version of DOS. OS/2 creates a V86 task that
actually boots from an image of a DOS boot floppy. OS/2 traps the hardware
access made by that copy of DOS and emulates them. In short, that copy of
DOS *think* that it is running on an 8088.
(Of course, it doesn't have to be DOS. I've heard of people running Minix
under OS/2 this way, and I recall someone getting some stand-alone CPM
games to work this way!)
--Tim Smith
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <h7f3f!h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article H...@world.std.com, ka...@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>>>In article <terjer-18...@majestix.ifi.unit.no> ter...@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>>>>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>>>>
[deletia- memory and NeXT]
>>And, because it is Unix it requires large chunks of memory. That's a
>>shame.
>>
>>What does it do that justifies its high usage? I mean, something that
>>would be usefull to the guy who started this thread; I already know about
>>Interface Builder. What else?
>
>The standard ones I know about: Display Postscript, video memory,
>background unix daemons, the Mach kernel and Workspace Manager.
>They take up memory. I have also heard bad reviews of NeXT's
>swapping scheme, but I don't know much about that. Any leftover
>memory is used as a disk cache.
I dunno about the NeXT VM, but I have heard the Mac's isn't very fast.
The disk cache trick sounds neat.
>Display Postscript - well, what more need be said?
What he would want to do with it. It is supposed to be slow, and
he isn't doing any graphics work to speak of. So what's he want this
for?
>Video memory - almost a million pixels @ 12 bits each, a meg or two
Macs can ahve this, or more (32 bits per pixel- NeXTs can do that, right?),
or, more important here, LESS. He's spreadsheet using folxs can have
8, 4, 2 or 1 bit displays. (or 16, or 32, if you really want to waste
the money); Grayscale or color.
>background unix - warms your coffee and does other (less useful :)
>things while you don't wait
What do they do that background apps can't do?
>Mach - multithreading SuperKernel. More I know not.
I do know a bit- its nice but not important here. The apps he was
talking about do not require robust multitasking. (most don't actually,
or the Mac'd be up a creek)
>Workspace Manager - keeps track of programs, mouse clicks, etc.
Matter of taste. I much prefer the Finder.
>I know Windows NT will take up at least as much as the NeXT will,
>(Microsoft lies like a dog) and I know it's not going to do what
>the NeXT does now. I don't know all that much about NeXT memory,
>though.
That I completely agree with. But just because MS uses twice the
memory to do half the stuff doens't make NeXTstep small. It makes
MS, err, well, MS.
>>Perhaps he simply doesn't want what the NeXT has?
>
>Certianly there are cheaper alternatives. PDP's, for example.
>Osbournes. Lisas. PCs. Macs. One of them must do what he
>wants. ;)
Exactly. :)
>>>>
>>>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>>>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>>>>
>>>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>>>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>>>>
>>>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>>>
>>>UNIX is very nice. You can do zillions of things with it. Changing
>>>the login screen is one. *I*, at least, have seen to NeXT documentation
>>>on it. Manually dickering with the operating system can have very nice
>>>results, but only if you have a remote idea about what you are doing.
>>
>>And if not, it self destructs. It's a shame NeXT has inherited one of
>>Unixes flaws.
>
>I hope some new apps come out that can do all this automagically,
>but till then we have to use all of this power carefully. Still,
>it's amazingly useful.
Certainly it is. So are Macs, PCs, PDPs, Osbournes... :)
What is really needed tho is a login subsystem that can live with
not having a tiff file.
>>
>>I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
>>trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
>>and very Unix like. :)
>
>Luckily, day to day work doesn't cause NeXTSTEP to crash, unlike some
>other <cough> OS's. Unix is very nice in that regard. Changing the
>login window is really very trivial. Really. :)
:)
I have never heard of any OS partisan (myself included) which would
not say this about his particular relig... er computer.
>>
>>Sounds like NeXT needs to work on the resilience of the OS a bit.
>
>It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
>that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
>like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
to even warn you, never mind recover.
>>>>
>>>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>>>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>>>>> >No one has a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>>>>
>>>>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
>>>
>>>They can't screw up a machine royally by keeping it turned off. It
>>>the boot-up doesn't come broken in the factory installation. No app
>>>I've tried could do that. The fact that this group REINSTALED the
>>>whole OS because of a login tiff screw up is revealing. What else did they
>>>do to it? :)
>>
>>Dunno, but whatever it is they can't seem to get it fixed. That's not such
>>a good thing. It does not matter one bit whose fault the problem is.
>
>Seems like they've gone into a talespin.
Unfortunately yes. This is really bad for NeXT. It makes people not my
NeXTstations. :(
Robert Wong
>In article 1...@world.std.com, ka...@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>>In article <h7f3f!h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>In article H...@world.std.com, ka...@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>>>>In article <terjer-18...@majestix.ifi.unit.no> ter...@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>>>>>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>Sounds like NeXT needs to work on the resilience of the OS a bit.
>>
>>It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
>>that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
>>like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
>
>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>to even warn you, never mind recover.
Well, if you did a delete in the Worspace Manager(aka Finder), you would put
the file in the recycler(aka trash can). the file would not actually be
deleted until the recylcer is emptied (aka empty trash can).
If you did a delete in a terminal window, it acts just like unix. It does not
by default give you a verify y/n option. It assumes what you ask it to do is
really what you want it to do. As for lack of recovery, it is my understand-
ing that recovery is impossible as the disk space freed by the deleted file
is likely to be overwritten by the virtual memory swapping to disk. (Correct
me if I'm wrong, Please!)
Russ Taylor
If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
it got cancelled? BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
And saying 484 NeXTstep won't be buggy because NS3.0 wasn't buggy is like
saying MS Word 5.0 wasn't buggy because 4.0D wasn't (actually, it was),
or that Wordperfect for x will run well on y because it has been proven
on x. Really stupid assumption and/or logic.
Macinotosh forever, or at least until someone comes up with something better.
--
************************************************************************
* "Remember, you're not losing an empire game, you're gaining a life." *
* Russ Taylor/Brennan the Protector rtaylor@cie @honors .uoregon.edu *
************************************************************************
GRUBB
>OS/2 deals with that. There are actually *two* ways to run DOS programs
>under OS/2. The best way, which works for most programs, is to let OS/2
>emulate DOS. The DOS program runs in V86 mode, and whenever it makes any
>DOS or BIOS call, OS/2 handles it.
>The other way, which you can use if your program needs a specific version
>of DOS, is actually run that version of DOS. OS/2 creates a V86 task that
>actually boots from an image of a DOS boot floppy. OS/2 traps the hardware
>access made by that copy of DOS and emulates them. In short, that copy of
>DOS *think* that it is running on an 8088.
which causes the install to abort if OS/2 Boot Manager is present" (Gregory
Hicks, Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201)"
"It's only a small step from preventing [certain] apps to run under OS/2 to
preventing ANY DOS program from running [under OS/2]"
Here is the point:
Microsoft is as likely to put some obsure piece of code to check if ONLY
its OSes are running as it is to prevent the installer from doing its
thing. So the second option may not be viable in the FUTURE.
The first option sounds good but what art its limitations?
Given that MicroSoft continued its OS trust activity with the FTC
investigating them its very likely it will find a way to keep DOS programs
from running under ANYTHING but Windows and DOS. Like I said I would tread
VERY cafefully down this path.
Finally note: as EVERYBODY is getting on the GUI bandwagon I see DOS becoming
for MicroSoft and IBM like the Apple IIe is at Apple. A still supported but
decreacing software base boarding on abandament. DOS was good for its
day and age but as long as it retains limits in memory and more programs
get written for windows and OS/2 it faces the same fate as the Apple GS system
all dressed up and little support. And don't give the "But there is too
much software for that to happen" argument. If that was true people
would STILL be writing CP/M programs. Face reality, just as the 6.0.X crowd
gets left behind by the program developers for Apple so EVENTUALLY will
the DOS crowd get let behind by Windows, OS/2, and PowerOpen.
Don McGregor
Kendig) writes:
> the only software
> I know about from them withing the past year has been version 3 of the
> operating system. IBM, Microsoft, and Apple are all making big
> changes to keep up with the rapidly-advancing computer industry, and I
This is like a renaissance art critic saying the only thing Michelango has
done in the last year is some dabbling on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
NS 3.0 is very cool. Distributed objects and DB Kit are very, very cool.
Object linking is cool. Even at 2.0 NeXTSTEP was years ahead of anything
from anyone else.
If Taligent ships sometime soon I might be interested, but until then
NeXTSTEP is where it's at.
You can read brochures and look at overheads, or you can program it today.
--
Don McGregor | "Remember, pocket protectors leave unsightly tan
d...@esl.com | lines." --PV
Howard Berkey
>Question:
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>it got cancelled?
Are you stoned? To get a '030 mac to compare to a '030 NeXT you need
to at least have an accelerated ci, more likely a fx. Then you need
to get it a real OS, but unfortunately until recently the only one
available was AIX, which isn't that hot of a unix implementation.
BSD/Mach on the NeXT is far better. Then you need to invest in an
integrated development environment on the Mac. This would give you a
development system running somewhat slower than the NeXT, with not
nearly the functionality.
Note also that the '030 NeXT is older than the new, fast '030 macs.
Kinda like comparing Windoze to System 3.0.
And don't expect '030 macs to be around forever either.
> BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
>
I'll take that bet. The NeXT's graphics are faster on its 68040 than
the Quadra's are on its 68040.
>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
Your experience must be limited. Go to a NeXt and drag a window
containing a complex image around. Do the same on a IIci (The one
that's 1/4 the speed of a NeXT, as you said above.) Note also that
the ci has 8 bit color. The NeXT has 16. It's still much faster.
>And saying 484 NeXTstep won't be buggy because NS3.0 wasn't buggy is like
>saying MS Word 5.0 wasn't buggy because 4.0D wasn't (actually, it was),
Bad analogy, NS486 is a port of an existing (debugged) product, not an upgrade.
>or that Wordperfect for x will run well on y because it has been proven
>on x. Really stupid assumption and/or logic.
Another bad analogy, since here you are dealing with a change in OS.
NeXTStep IS the OS. You don't know very much about porting OS's, do
you? Look at unix as an example.
>
>Macinotosh forever, or at least until someone comes up with something better.
>
I can think of a shitload of computers I'd rather have than my mac.
If you can't then you are clueless.
The NeXT just happens to be the first one who beats apple in
price/performance.
-Howard
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey how...@netcom.com
You will not find excess in the jungle
... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ...
Kaya Bekiroglu
>>In article <h7f3f!h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>In article H...@world.std.com, ka...@world.std.com (Kaya Bekiroglu) writes:
>>>>In article <terjer-18...@majestix.ifi.unit.no> ter...@ifi.unit.no (Terje Rydland) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan18....@cubetech.com>, and...@cubetech.com
>>>>>(Andrew Loewenstern) wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>[deletia- memory and NeXT]
>
>>>And, because it is Unix it requires large chunks of memory. That's a
>>>shame.
>>>
>>>What does it do that justifies its high usage? I mean, something that
>>>would be usefull to the guy who started this thread; I already know about
>>>Interface Builder. What else?
>>
>>The standard ones I know about: Display Postscript, video memory,
>>background unix daemons, the Mach kernel and Workspace Manager.
>>They take up memory. I have also heard bad reviews of NeXT's
>>swapping scheme, but I don't know much about that. Any leftover
>>memory is used as a disk cache.
>
>I dunno about the NeXT VM, but I have heard the Mac's isn't very fast.
>The disk cache trick sounds neat.
>
>>Display Postscript - well, what more need be said?
>
>What he would want to do with it. It is supposed to be slow, and
>he isn't doing any graphics work to speak of. So what's he want this
>for?
Got me on that one - dammed if I read minds. But it is nice for
development, wordprocessing, and is better plumbing. I've heard that
there are correct ways to draw with it and slow ways to draw with it.
Chalk it up to overhead, I guess. But it is nice to have and better
than everything else.
>
>>Video memory - almost a million pixels @ 12 bits each, a meg or two
>
>Macs can ahve this, or more (32 bits per pixel- NeXTs can do that, right?),
Yes.
>or, more important here, LESS. He's spreadsheet using folxs can have
>8, 4, 2 or 1 bit displays. (or 16, or 32, if you really want to waste
>the money); Grayscale or color.
You can set the bit depth for applications by using a dwrite command.
You can set it from four bits to thirty two. Heard it really improves
performance.
>
>>background unix - warms your coffee and does other (less useful :)
>>things while you don't wait
>
>What do they do that background apps can't do?
You can make your own background apps. You can cron this can
redirect that, do *anything* in the background with no fuss.
It sounds weak but is dammed useful.
>>Mach - multithreading SuperKernel. More I know not.
>
>I do know a bit- its nice but not important here. The apps he was
>talking about do not require robust multitasking. (most don't actually,
>or the Mac'd be up a creek)
Unless you'd want to multitask several applications at once, with
windows in full view, with full cut and paste, drag and drop. (Yes,
I do know about the clipboard) you can channel data to other apps
using the (user definable) Services to extend applications and
usefulness. What else...
>
>>Workspace Manager - keeps track of programs, mouse clicks, etc.
>
>Matter of taste. I much prefer the Finder.
>
>>I know Windows NT will take up at least as much as the NeXT will,
>>(Microsoft lies like a dog) and I know it's not going to do what
>>the NeXT does now. I don't know all that much about NeXT memory,
>>though.
>
>That I completely agree with. But just because MS uses twice the
>memory to do half the stuff doens't make NeXTstep small. It makes
>MS, err, well, MS.
MS is a special case, I admit. NeXT is extremely small, and I suspect
that bloated performance is due to the lack of programmers working on
the project. NeXT has about 600 employees worldwide, with (I suspect)
only %10 working on the OS, which is a shame. They're really strapped
in terms of manpower.
>
>>>Perhaps he simply doesn't want what the NeXT has?
>>
>>Certianly there are cheaper alternatives. PDP's, for example.
>>Osbournes. Lisas. PCs. Macs. One of them must do what he
>>wants. ;)
>
>Exactly. :)
But you really wouldn't get an edge doing it. If the debate is
what you can do now vs. what the platform has the potential to do,
Macs and IBM's will rule. Down the road, though, if more people
come to the platform... well, that's wishful thinking.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just by
>>>>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the software)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
>>>>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>>>>
>>>>UNIX is very nice. You can do zillions of things with it. Changing
>>>>the login screen is one. *I*, at least, have seen to NeXT documentation
>>>>on it. Manually dickering with the operating system can have very nice
>>>>results, but only if you have a remote idea about what you are doing.
>>>
>>>And if not, it self destructs. It's a shame NeXT has inherited one of
>>>Unixes flaws.
>>
>>I hope some new apps come out that can do all this automagically,
>>but till then we have to use all of this power carefully. Still,
>>it's amazingly useful.
>
>Certainly it is. So are Macs, PCs, PDPs, Osbournes... :)
For what *he* wants to do. Other people require something a bit
more advanced. ;)
>
>What is really needed tho is a login subsystem that can live with
>not having a tiff file.
Loginapp is very small - less that 75k, I think. I could use
more fuctionality, that's for sure. Maybe someone will write
a PD app that I can plug in instead? (Man, keep coming into that
software thing)
>
>>>
>>>I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
>>>trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
>>>and very Unix like. :)
>>
>>Luckily, day to day work doesn't cause NeXTSTEP to crash, unlike some
>>other <cough> OS's. Unix is very nice in that regard. Changing the
>>login window is really very trivial. Really. :)
>
>:)
>
>I have never heard of any OS partisan (myself included) which would
>not say this about his particular relig... er computer.
Yes, but I'm better than all of them. Surely you can see that? :) :)
>
>>>
>>>Sounds like NeXT needs to work on the resilience of the OS a bit.
>>
>>It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
>>that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
>>like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
>
>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>to even warn you, never mind recover.
NeXT's can be customized to hide unix directories from the average user
(I think it's the default) for a good reason. Here comes another
analogy - NeXT is like a chrome wristwatch, but on the inside there
are so many intricate gears... nah, that's probably get shot down.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT answerline said
>>>>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such thing.
>>>>>> >No one has a solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you didn't fuck with the boot command, it wouldn't be broken.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you didn't turn the machine on it wouldn't be broken! :-)
>>>>
>>>>They can't screw up a machine royally by keeping it turned off. It
>>>>the boot-up doesn't come broken in the factory installation. No app
>>>>I've tried could do that. The fact that this group REINSTALED the
>>>>whole OS because of a login tiff screw up is revealing. What else did they
>>>>do to it? :)
>>>
>>>Dunno, but whatever it is they can't seem to get it fixed. That's not such
>>>a good thing. It does not matter one bit whose fault the problem is.
>>
>>Seems like they've gone into a talespin.
>
>Unfortunately yes. This is really bad for NeXT. It makes people not my
>NeXTstations. :(
Are they comparing them to the Mac or to UNIX boxes in general?
>
>---
> - Dan Johnson
>And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
>
>These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
>You'll never know whose they are.
Eric M Hermanson
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>it got cancelled? BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
If a 68030 Mac is suitable for almost anything, then why do they make 68040
Macs? Your line of reasoning is illogical. I have a valid question, however.
WHY do the new Mac server machines run AU/X INSTEAD of MacOS???? Because
MacOS is not even powerful enough to handle simple tasks such as file serving
and network support.
>
>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
If you had to configure a Quadra to make it even BEGIN to compete with a NeXT
system, you would be running in to the tens of thousands of dollars.
>
>And saying 484 NeXTstep won't be buggy because NS3.0 wasn't buggy is like
>saying MS Word 5.0 wasn't buggy because 4.0D wasn't (actually, it was),
>or that Wordperfect for x will run well on y because it has been proven
>on x. Really stupid assumption and/or logic.
NeXTSTEP 486 uses the SAME code for its OS that NeXTSTEP running on Motorola
uses. It is just compiled differently. The ONLY problems NeXT may encounter
is writing drivers for the zillions of third party peripherals available for
the IBM. This is one reason why NS486 wont ship until June. I have seen
it running, and it is real live NeXTSTEP, AND if it is running on a 50 Mhz
486DX/2, it is even faster than a NeXTSTATION computer.
Eric
Christopher Davis
HB> Are you stoned? To get a '030 mac to compare to a '030 NeXT you need
HB> to at least have an accelerated ci, more likely a fx. Then you need
HB> to get it a real OS, but unfortunately until recently the only one
HB> available was AIX, which isn't that hot of a unix implementation.
HB> BSD/Mach on the NeXT is far better. Then you need to invest in an
HB> integrated development environment on the Mac. This would give you a
HB> development system running somewhat slower than the NeXT, with not
HB> nearly the functionality.
"development environment"? "BSD/Mach"? All the world's not programming...
--
* Christopher Davis * <c...@eff.org> * <c...@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
Andrew Loewenstern
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>it got cancelled?
This logic is totally flawed! It's like saying "Well, my Dodge
Stealth is so much faster than your Mitsubishi 3000 GT (essentially
the same car) when yours is towing a Greyhound Bus."
You know, my True Blue IBM PC (8088) boots DOS 3.3 faster than my Mac
IIci w/cache boots Macintosh System 7. Why is that?
>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
NeXTstation Turbo Color.
>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
functionality. DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
>And saying 484 NeXTstep won't be buggy because NS3.0 wasn't buggy is like
>saying MS Word 5.0 wasn't buggy because 4.0D wasn't (actually, it was),
>or that Wordperfect for x will run well on y because it has been proven
>on x. Really stupid assumption and/or logic.
NS486 and NeXTSTEP for NeXT computers share the same code-trees on the
machines at NeXT. The only differences are low-level device drivers,
and certain portions of the WindowServer that are written in
assembler. Byte-Order dependant code is still the same, there are
just lots of bit-flip operators added. They are the same, though. I
cannot tell the difference even though I sit in front of a NeXTstation
color for most of my concious hours.
>************************************************************************
>* "Remember, you're not losing an empire game, you're gaining a life." *
>* Russ Taylor/Brennan the Protector rtaylor@cie @honors .uoregon.edu *
>************************************************************************
Andrew Loewenstern
>not having a tiff file.
>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>to even warn you, never mind recover.
Listen, if you delete nextlogin.tiff, you do not kill the computer.
You do not have to reinstall the OS. It is a simple matter make tell
loginwindow to use a different tiff (there are zillions of them in the
OS release). This means two things:
either:
This person deleted a *lot* of other files
or This person reinstalled the OS when he didn't have to
If I delete a bunch of resources from the Macintosh System file, I
will have to replace it. Is that a weakness in Macintosh? no.
In fact, as installed, nextlogin.tiff has no write permissions on it.
The only way to change it is as root. Normal users cannot modify it
or delete it. Normal users cannot delete or modify _any_ of the
system files. This is called security - something Macintosh for the
most part lacks without third party products.
Root is the superuser. You can do *anything* as root. The operating
system assumes that if you are root then you know what your are doing,
and it asks very few questions. It is a simple matter to screw up the
computer as root. This is why everyone does just about everything as
a non-priveledged user and only performs certain tasks as root when
absolutely necessary. Therefore it is entirely this person's fault
that he screwed up his machine, because he was mucking around as root
without knowing what he was doing.
This is true of any multiuser operating system. Unix, VMS, VM-CMS,
NetWare, NT, etc...
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <1jhck1...@pith.uoregon.edu> rta...@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>Question:
>>
>>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>>it got cancelled?
>
>This logic is totally flawed! It's like saying "Well, my Dodge
>Stealth is so much faster than your Mitsubishi 3000 GT (essentially
>the same car) when yours is towing a Greyhound Bus."
>
>You know, my True Blue IBM PC (8088) boots DOS 3.3 faster than my Mac
>IIci w/cache boots Macintosh System 7. Why is that?
This guy does not have to haul arround 40 passagers, so perhaps
there is no need for him to pull this bus?
>>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
>
>A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
>NeXTstation Turbo Color.
Not terribly surprising that. I suspect, given large enough quantities
of RAM, it will do fine. However, that's a lot of power you seem
to be recommending throwing at stuff like word processing.
>>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
>
>Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
>an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
>functionality. DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
>Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
>10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
:)
Well, at least I have 1 NeXThead who is willing to say that Display
Postscript is slow compared to QuickDraw.
Of course, QuickDraw does much less (I think you exagerrate a little..
QuickDraw can draw noncontinuous lines :) ).. but does this guy need or
want the abilities Display Postscript would net him? (which seem
to be mostly a better programming environment, and better wysiwyg
for postscript printers)
>>And saying 484 NeXTstep won't be buggy because NS3.0 wasn't buggy is like
>>saying MS Word 5.0 wasn't buggy because 4.0D wasn't (actually, it was),
>>or that Wordperfect for x will run well on y because it has been proven
>>on x. Really stupid assumption and/or logic.
>
>NS486 and NeXTSTEP for NeXT computers share the same code-trees on the
>machines at NeXT. The only differences are low-level device drivers,
>and certain portions of the WindowServer that are written in
>assembler. Byte-Order dependant code is still the same, there are
>just lots of bit-flip operators added. They are the same, though. I
>cannot tell the difference even though I sit in front of a NeXTstation
>color for most of my concious hours.
:)
Hope they didn't miss any bitflips! :)
Anyway, considering the mess PC hardware is in, there seems to be plenty
of room for bugs in the drivers. :)
This is not NeXTs fault tho, and not unique to NeXTstep by any means.
Jim Smyton
> This is like a renaissance art critic saying the only thing Michelango
has
> done in the last year is some dabbling on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
>
> NS 3.0 is very cool. Distributed objects and DB Kit are very, very
cool.
> Object linking is cool. Even at 2.0 NeXTSTEP was years ahead of
anything
> from anyone else.
>
> If Taligent ships sometime soon I might be interested, but until then
> NeXTSTEP is where it's at.
>
> You can read brochures and look at overheads, or you can program it
today.
Great. Now I know NextSTEP 3.0 is cool. I used it today, and aside from a
new folder look and a funky preference file that screwed up my docks, I
did not see any big advantage over 2.x. For the an office worker, which
is what this thread was originally about, these changes will probably not
mean squat. Tell me when an 040 NeXT running Mach and NextSTEP will run
at the same speed as an 030 Mac running 7.1 and I will be slightly
interested in getting off the cases of the people who keep saying NeXT is
better than Mac.
Tell me when NeXT will put out hardware that is compatible with anything
else. The monitors use different scan rates, the printers use the
computer's PostScript, and this whole hooking up to a Mac network thing is
bupkis. Sure the Mac sees the NeXT as another Mac, but wouldn't it be
nice if through all this, there was some kind of compatibility between the
machines?
One thing the NeXT does do better than the Mac...The little spinning disk,
that I see so much of, looks much better than the watch, on the Mac, which
I see so little of!
--
Jim Smyton (smy...@alleg.edu)
------------------------
Sometimes ya just gotta grab ** We're not hitchhiking
life by the teeth and yank ** anymore, we're riding!
as hard as you can. ** -Ren
-Weird Al ** (Insert Standard Disclaimer Here)
Daniel Norman Johnson
>>What is really needed tho is a login subsystem that can live with
>>not having a tiff file.
>
>>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>>file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>>to even warn you, never mind recover.
>
>Listen, if you delete nextlogin.tiff, you do not kill the computer.
>You do not have to reinstall the OS. It is a simple matter make tell
>loginwindow to use a different tiff (there are zillions of them in the
>OS release). This means two things:
It requires the user to do repair work (perhaps there's
an easier way to do it than reinstallation, but that's not
the point)
Why on earth should the NeXT need to have a tiff at all? Shouldn't
it be able to get by without them? C'mon, there are lots of
ways to do this. Use that display postscript. Keep a tiff
(b&w?) in ROM. Search for and use one of those other tiffs in the
installation, if the one the user wants is no good.
>either:
> This person deleted a *lot* of other files
> or This person reinstalled the OS when he didn't have to
I suspect the second; if the first he's being deliberate dishonest,
but if the second he just didn't get it. However, users quite
frequently do not get it. So it seems likely that he simply
did not have a clue how to fix the problem short of reinstalling.
>If I delete a bunch of resources from the Macintosh System file, I
>will have to replace it. Is that a weakness in Macintosh? no.
Nope. Because it is not possible for a casual use to do this;
it requires extra software. Software Joe Novice User will not
have; software that screams "You are about to die!" whenever
you try to touch the System file anyway, just in case some
poor fool novice DID get his hands on it.
Yer casual user can remove fonts, sounds, keyboard layouts,
and script systems from the system file. The OS can live without
any of these things.
(you might have everything in a bitmapped chicago font, a
"synthetic" beep, a standard keyboard layout and no secondary
script systems, but it will still work.)
>In fact, as installed, nextlogin.tiff has no write permissions on it.
>The only way to change it is as root. Normal users cannot modify it
>or delete it. Normal users cannot delete or modify _any_ of the
>system files. This is called security - something Macintosh for the
>most part lacks without third party products.
Normal users apparantly sometimes try to muck about with their
machine. If this requires root access, then they will do it
with root- and if that blows away all of the NeXTs user protection,
then they will do thing dangerously. And get burned.
>Root is the superuser. You can do *anything* as root. The operating
>system assumes that if you are root then you know what your are doing,
>and it asks very few questions.
I know. This does not appear to be a safe assumption in this particular
case.
> It is a simple matter to screw up the
>computer as root.
Well, *it should not be*.
C'mon this is an easy concept.
Im not even talking about having the computer
say "c'mon you dont REALLY want to do that now do you";
I mean having the computer recover from this simple sort of thing.
> This is why everyone does just about everything as
>a non-priveledged user and only performs certain tasks as root when
>absolutely necessary.
Very wise.
> Therefore it is entirely this person's fault
>that he screwed up his machine, because he was mucking around as root
>without knowing what he was doing.
Whose "fault" it is is ->totally irrelevant<-. The user got screwed;
the system didn't help. It should. Computers should not say
"you made your bed, now lie in it"; they should say "you screwed
up, so here I'll fix it for you.". (they should also make
it hard to screw up, but in this case I dont quite see how that
can be done. The best I can see is a warning saying "If that
file is gone, the system can't start!")
>This is true of any multiuser operating system. Unix, VMS, VM-CMS,
>NetWare, NT, etc...
That doesn't make it a good way to do things. It makes it popular.
Sean Luke
>Question:
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so slow
>it got cancelled? BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
Well, probably because NeXT users have higher standards. :)
Seriously, though, it's the NeXT's operating system. The '030 NeXT cube
beats any Mac '030 (including the FX, IMHO) flat in raw speed, but is slowed
down by the huge operating system to the point that it's not considered
feasable.
Likewise, the Mac is considered "slow" by DOS users, because its OS is much
more complex and sophisticated, hence slower. Increased power must be
traded for speed and memory. You get what you pay for.
--
Sean Luke
Brigham Young University MILK: It Comes From Cows
se...@digaudio.byu.edu
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Jeremy Kalanuk
zmon...@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes :
In article <1jhck1...@pith.uoregon.edu> rta...@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ
Taylor)
writes:
>Question:
>
>If NeXT is so much more godawful fast than a Mac (which it isn't) then
why
>is a 68030 Mac suitable for almost anything, while an 030 NeXT is so
slow
>it got cancelled? BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to
run
>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
If a 68030 Mac is suitable for almost anything, then why do they make
68040
Macs? Your line of reasoning is illogical. I have a valid question,
however.
WHY do the new Mac server machines run AU/X INSTEAD of MacOS???? Because
MacOS is not even powerful enough to handle simple tasks such as file
serving
and network support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning. Let's face
it, have you ever worked on a NeXT? I'm beginnin to think not by your
stupid comments. The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in
most cases. It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves
like an 030 IIci. The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better
than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer! The
MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better
than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
---
jkal...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
The Draco Unix System [BBS]
Eric M Hermanson
>mean squat. Tell me when an 040 NeXT running Mach and NextSTEP will run
>at the same speed as an 030 Mac running 7.1 and I will be slightly
>interested in getting off the cases of the people who keep saying NeXT is
>better than Mac.
Just dragging a 32 bit image around on the screen will clue you in as to
how much more efficient NeXTSTEP is. I can take a full color image, drag
it around on a NeXTStation Color Turbo screen in real time, and have an
unlimited number of programs and disk operations multitasking in the
background. Lets consider the processing power here. A 32 bit full color
image measuring lets say 800*600 will need to perform over 15 million
calculations for every pixel you move the image. On the NeXT, it moves
in real time, AND the image is left on the screen as you move the window, there
is no "bounding box" like on the Mac when graphics are moved around. On the
NeXT the image stays in the window when you move the window. There really
is no logical way to compare a NeXT to an 030 Mac speedwise. The NeXT wins
hands down in every category as far as speed goes.
>
>Tell me when NeXT will put out hardware that is compatible with anything
>else. The monitors use different scan rates, the printers use the
>computer's PostScript, and this whole hooking up to a Mac network thing is
>bupkis. Sure the Mac sees the NeXT as another Mac, but wouldn't it be
>nice if through all this, there was some kind of compatibility between the
>machines?
>
It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because Mac
uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can spool
its output to a NeXT laser printer.
>Jim Smyton (smy...@alleg.edu)
>------------------------
Eric
Don McGregor
>
>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
> file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
> to even warn you, never mind recover.
The correct way to do this on the NeXT does not involve deleting any
files. You log in as root and type, in a terminal window,
dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <path>
Where <path> is the absolute pathname to the new tiff. This just resets a
default, and leaves all existing files alone.
You can't reset the login tiff unless you're root. It's assumed that if
you're root you know what you're doing; you can just as easily nuke sdmach
(system equivalent on the mac.)
The existence of file permissions makes catastrophic file deletion errors
LESS likely, since most of the critical system files cannot be mucked with
by someone without root. So it is somewhat more difficult for a naive or
even malicious user to hose a system. Not to mention making life more
difficult for viri.
Eric M Hermanson
>In article 21...@cubetech.com, and...@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>
>>In fact, as installed, nextlogin.tiff has no write permissions on it.
>>The only way to change it is as root. Normal users cannot modify it
>>or delete it. Normal users cannot delete or modify _any_ of the
>>system files. This is called security - something Macintosh for the
>>most part lacks without third party products.
>
>Normal users apparantly sometimes try to muck about with their
>machine. If this requires root access, then they will do it
>with root- and if that blows away all of the NeXTs user protection,
>then they will do thing dangerously. And get burned.
You need to have the root password to log in as root. It is just not something
you can just do "if you want to". NeXT has made it so that average everyday
people who buy NeXT's will never need to log in as root. All configuration
is done safely with preferences panels and the like.
>
>>Root is the superuser. You can do *anything* as root. The operating
>>system assumes that if you are root then you know what your are doing,
>>and it asks very few questions.
>> It is a simple matter to screw up the
>>computer as root.
>
>Well, *it should not be*.
No, it *should be*. The whole idea of having root access is so that you
can modify the operating system to suit your needs. The idea of needing
a root password to perform root tasks is what is call *security*. On a Mac,
all you need is the proper piece of software, and BOOM, you can screw up the
entire operating system, no matter if your name is Root or if it is Joe Blow.
>> Therefore it is entirely this person's fault
>>that he screwed up his machine, because he was mucking around as root
>>without knowing what he was doing.
>
>Whose "fault" it is is ->totally irrelevant<-. The user got screwed;
>the system didn't help. It should. Computers should not say
>"you made your bed, now lie in it"; they should say "you screwed
>up, so here I'll fix it for you.". (they should also make
>it hard to screw up, but in this case I dont quite see how that
>can be done. The best I can see is a warning saying "If that
>file is gone, the system can't start!")
NeXT has certain protective measures inplemented. But I disagree with what
you said - "The user got screwed; the system didn't help. It should." UNIX
gives you the freedom to tap into it's power by allowing modifications to
happen. It would be very inefficient for the computer to ask "ARE YOU
SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS??" every single time you want to change something
while logged in as root. As a regular user of NeXT, you will NEVER need to
log in as root. The NeXT grapical user interface lets you do everything
a "normal" person needs to do. If you *do* know what you are doing, you
*may* log in as root if you know the root password. There are certain
low level commands you can do to improve some things if you like. BUT, if
you do screw up, you could damage a lot of stuff. I am glad, at least, that
there IS a root login ID on UNIX (NeXT) systems, because like I said earlier,
it is a way to make the system secure. On a Mac, any Joe Blow could muck
up the system if he wanted to. On a UNIX box, you have to have the proper
"clearance" to do such stuff. I doubt the Department of Defense uses
anything BUT Unix in their secured areas.
>---
> - Dan Johnson
Eric
GRUBB
>I'll take that bet. The NeXT's graphics are faster on its 68040 than
>the Quadra's are on its 68040.
>Note also that the ci has 8 bit color.
of it at a time. ALL Present Macs have 32-bit color even though most monitors
display either in 2-bit{black and white} or 8-bit mode.
>The NeXT has 16. It's still much faster.
16777216 colors AND a 8-bit Alpha chanel that is partly accessable in
8-bit mode {SuperPaint 3.0 uses it.} regardless of what the monitor shows.
This is 3 month old news from Mac & IBM info{Now on suxex as
mac-ibm-compare.txt.}
Howard Berkey
I was going to follow up on your first post, but then I read this one.
You are very inexperienced.
Try developing software in a |good| UNIX environment. Use other GUI's
not just Sys7. (Which is an adequate GUI.) Try to escape Mac-centric
thinking. Since Jobs left, it's becoming "The computer for the rest
of THEM". Look at the computing world as a whole, not just the tiny
niche apple has.
Doing the above will secure the future of Apple... you can bet they
are doing it. Either do it yourself, or get swept away like the
Amigoids.
(whose OS at least provides some rudimentary functions an OS should,
apart from a UI)
BTW, I am a Mac developer. I love the Macintosh. I just know
something better when I see it.
Russ Taylor
: In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
: >
: >This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
: > file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
: > to even warn you, never mind recover.
:
: The correct way to do this on the NeXT does not involve deleting any
: files. You log in as root and type, in a terminal window,
:
: dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <path>
I'll take dropping a file named StartupScreen into the system folder any day.
Or a quicktime movie named Startup movie....
Or any of the 20-odd inits I have running on my computer...
Or freedom from Unix, the demon of all OSes (nonstandard standard...blech!)
Or fast 32-bit graphics.....
Or software....
Or, yes, a good if not terrific development environment coupled with a
USABLE OS.
: Where <path> is the absolute pathname to the new tiff. This just resets a
: default, and leaves all existing files alone.
:
: You can't reset the login tiff unless you're root. It's assumed that if
: you're root you know what you're doing; you can just as easily nuke sdmach
: (system equivalent on the mac.)
:
: The existence of file permissions makes catastrophic file deletion errors
: LESS likely, since most of the critical system files cannot be mucked with
: by someone without root. So it is somewhat more difficult for a naive or
: even malicious user to hose a system. Not to mention making life more
: difficult for viri.
:
: --
: Don McGregor | "Remember, pocket protectors leave unsightly tan
: d...@esl.com | lines." --PV
--
Jim Smyton
> It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because
Mac
> uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can
spool
> its output to a NeXT laser printer.
I should have known you would respond Eric.
Right...It's nice knowing that QuickDroop is out dated. Tell me the news.
QuickDraw GX should be interesting tho...
The longevity of NeXT monitors disturbs me. They have a sad tendancy to
get muddy and fade. I would rather have "QuickDroop" 1.x than a half-rate
monitor!
Kaya Bekiroglu
>Don McGregor (d...@esl.com) wrote:
>: In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
>: Norman Johnson) writes:
>: >
>: >This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>: > file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>: > to even warn you, never mind recover.
>:
>: The correct way to do this on the NeXT does not involve deleting any
>: files. You log in as root and type, in a terminal window,
>:
>: dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <path>
>:
>I'll take dropping a file named StartupScreen into the system folder any day.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you can drag and drop the TIFF icon
into Terminal and it will automatically imput the path to that file.
Which is pretty neat, if not the exact equivalent to the mac.
How many StartupScreens can you have in the system folder at one
time? What if you wanted to randomly select a login screen from
a directory of nice ones you've collected? What if you wanted to
insert something into the logoff hook that would change the path
to a different login image every time you logged in? I wonder why
Apple doesn't do this. Probably because they would be flamed.
>
>Or a quicktime movie named Startup movie....
>Or any of the 20-odd inits I have running on my computer...
You can launch apps automatically at startup by dragging the icon
into one of several "dock extenders" such as Engage from, I believe,
Millenium Software Labs. I have never used it so I can't comment.
It is supposed to be quite the awsome app.
>Or freedom from Unix, the demon of all OSes (nonstandard standard...blech!)
I would much rather have freedom from the MacOS, a monopolized effimate
OS with a vice grip on the Mac world. Trading neat soundbites is fun
but unproductive.
>
>Or fast 32-bit graphics.....
32-bit being defined as - standard hardware, supported by the OS, or
availible mother-of-all-add-ons?
>Or software....
I just know I'm going to get an ulcer. :)
>Or, yes, a good if not terrific development environment coupled with a
>USABLE OS.
Define it, please. What makes the NeXT unusable? Please don't insult
yourself by pointing to that login thing. :)
>: Where <path> is the absolute pathname to the new tiff. This just resets a
>: default, and leaves all existing files alone.
>:
>: You can't reset the login tiff unless you're root. It's assumed that if
>: you're root you know what you're doing; you can just as easily nuke sdmach
>: (system equivalent on the mac.)
>:
>: The existence of file permissions makes catastrophic file deletion errors
>: LESS likely, since most of the critical system files cannot be mucked with
>: by someone without root. So it is somewhat more difficult for a naive or
>: even malicious user to hose a system. Not to mention making life more
>: difficult for viri.
>:
>: --
>: Don McGregor | "Remember, pocket protectors leave unsightly tan
>: d...@esl.com | lines." --PV
>
>--
>************************************************************************
>* "Remember, you're not losing an empire game, you're gaining a life." *
>* Russ Taylor/Brennan the Protector rtaylor@cie @honors .uoregon.edu *
>************************************************************************
Don McGregor
> DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
>
memory. That includes display postscript. 50 MHz and 66 MHz 486s with
local bus video run NeXTSTEP a bit faster than 33 MHZ '040 turbos,
according to people who have seen the beta run. Those 486 configurations
are dropping in price rather quickly.
Things are pretty snappy on the screen with display PS. People routinely
drag around entire windows, not outlines of windows. I don't get the
feeling that the machine is falling behind me when I work on it, and I've
got a 25 MHz '040.
Of course, there's never enough processor speed. For example, NS includes
interactive renderman. If you want to do photorealistic rendering, it's
just going to take a while to do, no matter what platform you run on.
Kaya Bekiroglu
>In article <1993Jan20....@athena.mit.edu> zmon...@athena.mit.edu
>(Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>> It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because
>Mac
>> uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can
>spool
>> its output to a NeXT laser printer.
>> Eric
>
>I should have known you would respond Eric.
If we can keep the debate civil... :)
>
>Right...It's nice knowing that QuickDroop is out dated. Tell me the news.
>QuickDraw GX should be interesting tho...
Quite possibly - I'd have to see it.
>
>The longevity of NeXT monitors disturbs me. They have a sad tendancy to
>get muddy and fade. I would rather have "QuickDroop" 1.x than a half-rate
>monitor!
The sad state of NeXT monitors is well known, which is bad, but corrected,
which is good. The 21" Hitachi has been reported to be an excellent
monitor. The 17" (especially the color) monitors fared less well.
NeXT doesn't make these monitors themselves, (and you can, BTW, choose
any monitor you want, NeXT or no) and it turns out that when NeXT
released the stations and turned to Sony for the monitors, it seems
as if two very prominent computer manufacturers (read - Sun and Apple)
cornered the market on them, and Sony was at capacity. They then
were forced to turn to Phillips, which nobody was happy about,
until such time as they could get Trinitrons (which everybody loves).
Happily, the new 17" monitor is killer, and it's a Sony. The scan
rate has been upped to a resonable seventy. So far as I know the
price is still the same.
>--
>Jim Smyton (smy...@alleg.edu)
>------------------------
>Sometimes ya just gotta grab ** We're not hitchhiking
>life by the teeth and yank ** anymore, we're riding!
>as hard as you can. ** -Ren
> -Weird Al **
"Twineball or Bust!"
Jason Smith
ridiculous. :)
If we were looking at a programming environment, then the NeXTStep 486
would definitely be an optoin in my book. Of course, we're not, so it isn't.
Basically, what we're looking at here is three possibilties: Mac OS, Windows
For Workgroups, or OS/2.
Of the people working there, 3 have some technical background, one has
*none*, and 2 have fairly extensive computer experience. I'm one of them.
I'm thinking of the needs of fairly non-knowledgable people doing very general
work.
If it's a Mac OS, I can be in-house support. OS/2, I could most
likely pick up easily, but I've heard too many nightmares from netop friends
about Windows and WFW to be excited about it.
In order, we're looking for : Ease of use (Mac)
Networking (Mac)
Flexibility/upgradability
(Mac or NeXTStep)
Compatability (OS/2)
Programming (NeXTStep 486)
The boss also is a speed freak... he wants the fastest, best system
even if he doesn't need the power, so it'd be most likely either Quadras
(which I think is overkill), or 486's (which I also think is overkill, but may
make Windows tolerable speedwise.)
My proposal? One Quadra 950 server, and clustered 700's or IIvx's.
BTW, thanks for all the responses. It has most definitely helped me
define what the needs of the group are.
Jason M Smith
University of Washington
Physics/Math
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai
> >Display Postscript - well, what more need be said?
>
> What he would want to do with it. It is supposed to be slow, and
> he isn't doing any graphics work to speak of. So what's he want this
> for?
DPS is the opposite of slow. PS has acquired a reputation of slowness
because it was used on very high resolution devices when CPUs were slow
and memory was expensive. I have yet to see a more responsive window
system than the NeXT's. (You seem to know the NeXT just from the rags)
[stuff deleted]
> >Workspace Manager - keeps track of programs, mouse clicks, etc.
>
> Matter of taste. I much prefer the Finder.
Ever tried doing something else while you format a floppy, have an alert
popped up or something? There are *no* alert panels from any application
that block other applications on the NeXT. There used to be on Macs pre-7,
don't know about now. Also you have shelves to temporarily store files
on, and interprocess services (one application's facilities can be used
by any other application transparently. Sort of an automatic publish-
and-subscribe of facilities. Not available anywhere else, and probably
one of the most useful features in Workspace.
[more stuff deleted]
> >>>>> >They told me the NeXT was extremely stable, but we crashed ours just
by
> >>>>> >changing the login screen (we had to completely reinstall all the
software)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Improperly performing an unsupported operation gives you no right to
> >>>>> complain about the stability of the OS.
> >>>>
> >>>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
It's not unsupported, but it's limited to the super-user. It is generally
assumed that if you are self-confident enough to log in as a super-user,
you know what you're doing. It is not possible to delete any system files
if you are logged in as the default user, which you should.
[more stuff deleted]
> >>I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
> >>trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
> >>and very Unix like. :)
Simply put, you cannot (or almost not) kill or crash a UNIX machine
unless you have higher privileges than the normal user if the UNIX
machine is properly set up. NeXTs come properly set up out of the box.
You switch them on, and after booting you are automatically logged in
as user "me", with no possibility to destroy the system. If you are
daring enough to switch to "system maintenance mode" (i.e. log in as
superuser, it's definitely your own fault. After all, somebody *must*
be able to change the system configuration if this becomes necessary,
so one can't get rid of allowing higher privileges to some logins.
> >Luckily, day to day work doesn't cause NeXTSTEP to crash, unlike some
> >other <cough> OS's. Unix is very nice in that regard. Changing the
> >login window is really very trivial. Really. :)
Right. As superuser, say
dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <YourImagePathName>
[...]
> >It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
> >that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
> >like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
>
> This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
> file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
> to even warn you, never mind recover.
"You" can't delete the file. The superuser can't. You shouldn't be
super-user if you don't know what you're doing.
> >>>>
> >>>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT
answerline said
> >>>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such
thing.
> >>>>> >No one has a solution.
OK, to the guy who posted the above paragraph:
From the ROM monitor, type 'p'<CR> to get into the EEPROM setup. When
prompted for the "boot comand", enter 'bsd'<CR>.
This should do the trick. Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll assist
you in getting it up again.
[...]
--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (v...@qb.rhein-main.de), NeXTmail welcome
Looks good on the outside, but -
intel inside
Andrew Loewenstern
>In article 21...@cubetech.com, and...@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>In article <1jhck1...@pith.uoregon.edu> rta...@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>>>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
>>
>>A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
>>NeXTstation Turbo Color.
>
>Not terribly surprising that. I suspect, given large enough quantities
>of RAM, it will do fine. However, that's a lot of power you seem
>to be recommending throwing at stuff like word processing.
It takes a lot more to go fast than RAM. You need system bandwidth.
>>>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>>>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>>>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
>>
>>Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
>>an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
>>functionality. DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
>>Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
>>10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
>
>:)
>
>Well, at least I have 1 NeXThead who is willing to say that Display
>Postscript is slow compared to QuickDraw.
>
>Of course, QuickDraw does much less (I think you exagerrate a little..
>QuickDraw can draw noncontinuous lines :) ).. but does this guy need or
>want the abilities Display Postscript would net him? (which seem
>to be mostly a better programming environment, and better wysiwyg
>for postscript printers)
I don't think anyone is advocating the use of NeXTSTEP for simple
wordprocessing. A Mac Classic does that pretty darn well (I did it on
a Mac SE for 3 years). We were advocating it for developing custom
software at the same time as doing group business applications.
Maynard J. Handley
>>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning. Let's face
>>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT? I'm beginnin to think not by your
>>stupid comments. The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in
>>most cases. It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves
>>like an 030 IIci. The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better
>>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer! The
>>>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
>>>up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still
>better
>>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>>
>
>I was going to follow up on your first post, but then I read this one.
>
>You are very inexperienced.
>
>Try developing software in a |good| UNIX environment. Use other GUI's
>not just Sys7. (Which is an adequate GUI.) Try to escape Mac-centric
>thinking. Since Jobs left, it's becoming "The computer for the rest
>of THEM". Look at the computing world as a whole, not just the tiny
>niche apple has.
I've tried them. So what?
X windows resources suck. Limited power, horrible to edit (ResEdit is much
nicer), clustered all over the place in special files when they should be
part of a resource fork.
Widgets and gadgets suck. Use up way too much memory. SLOW!!!! Stupid
programming model that tries to emulate C++ in C.
How about getting sound out of X-Windows?
Ever tried writing X code that handles 24bit images? On my mac I can code
in one color model that works on all displays. On X I get a choice of 5
color models.
And what about this fun system of pallette lack of management.
OS/2 Windows fares no better in most respects.
Maybe you mean NeXT is better than Mac in these regards---can't say. But
your implied claim that most UNIX environments are better for programmin
than Mac is ludicrous. Maybe they're better for character based apps, but
not for graphical/sound apps.
Maynard Handley
Eric M Hermanson
>zmon...@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes :
>
>MacOS is not even powerful enough to handle simple tasks such as file
>serving and network support.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning. Let's face
>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT? I'm beginnin to think not by your
>stupid comments. The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in
>most cases. It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves
>like an 030 IIci. The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better
>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer! The
Cheap welfare interface? Very intelligent statement.
>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
>up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better
If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software would
have to be rewritten to accomodate it. You will never ever ever see
pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.
>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>
It is not next, it is NeXT.
>
>---
>jkal...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
>The Draco Unix System [BBS]
Eric
Robert Wong
>new folder look and a funky preference file that screwed up my docks, I
>did not see any big advantage over 2.x. For the an office worker, which
>is what this thread was originally about, these changes will probably not
>mean squat. Tell me when an 040 NeXT running Mach and NextSTEP will run
>at the same speed as an 030 Mac running 7.1 and I will be slightly
>interested in getting off the cases of the people who keep saying NeXT is
>better than Mac.
I won't touch the my computer is better than yours issue.
So, what is so hot about NS 3.0?
How about Display Postscript level 2 (PS level 2) to make your NeXT laser
printer automatically PS 2? (I don't think upgrading system software on a Mac
will up the PS level on a Laserwriter NT/NTX)
How about built-in Pantone-colour for the publishing people out there?
How about Appletalk client and Novell client support?
How about the ability to read Mac floppies? (I know the Mac already has this
feature. :-))
How about printer drivers for Epson & Proprinters?
How about better network management tools?
How about localization support for Eng/French/German/Span./Italian/Swedish?
(I think you guys got that in System 7.0 or 7.1)
All this and more comes when you buy a new system or updgrade ($) your existing
system. Not bad eh?
>
>Tell me when NeXT will put out hardware that is compatible with anything
>else. The monitors use different scan rates, the printers use the
>computer's PostScript, and this whole hooking up to a Mac network thing is
>bupkis. Sure the Mac sees the NeXT as another Mac, but wouldn't it be
>nice if through all this, there was some kind of compatibility between the
>machines?
NeXT colour monitors don't use funny scan rates. I have heard people use
NEC monitors off the shelf. If you don't like using the NeXT laser, you
could buy a LaserWriter and hook it up via the serial port. (Of course the
laser would be difficult to upgrade to a new level of PS.)
Uh, what is bupkis? Compatibility between Mac & NeXT. Good idea. I wonder
how long it will take Mac to be NeXT-compatible? :-) (tongue-in-cheek)
>
>One thing the NeXT does do better than the Mac...The little spinning disk,
>that I see so much of, looks much better than the watch, on the Mac, which
>I see so little of!
On the bright side for NeXT, at least you said one thing that NeXT does better!
:-)
RWW.
--
Robert W. "What!?! I've-been-tying-my-shoelaces-backwards-all-my-life?" Wong Jr.
wr...@unixg.ubc.ca (ASCII only)
Brian Magee
Huh? Should there be a smiley or two along with this statement?
There is no way that the MacOS interface even comes close to being
as nice as the one for NeXTSTEP!
>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
>up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better
>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>
>
>---
>jkal...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
>The Draco Unix System [BBS]
Rob
--
---
"We are sorry, the .sig you have reached is no longer in service"
Thomas Aaron Insel
> If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software would
> have to be rewritten to accomodate it. You will never ever ever see
> pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.
No, it wouldn't. Most mac software works just fine under A/UX, which does
offer premptive multitasking. While it doesn't currently offer preemptive
multitasking between multiple Mac applications, I see no reason why it
couldn't be written to do so.
--
Thomas Insel (tin...@uiuc.edu)
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
Peter Kocks
|> Well, I expected a can of worms to be opened, but *this* was almost
|> ridiculous. :)
|>
I agree and I'm a NeXT fan. Let's get back to the subject.
|>
|> In order, we're looking for : Ease of use (Mac)
|> Networking (Mac)
|> Flexibility/upgradability
|> (Mac or NeXTStep)
|> Compatability (OS/2)
|> Programming (NeXTStep 486)
|>
|> The boss also is a speed freak... he wants the fastest, best system
|> even if he doesn't need the power, so it'd be most likely either Quadras
|> (which I think is overkill), or 486's (which I also think is overkill, but may
|> make Windows tolerable speedwise.)
|>
I have managed a couple of different kinds of networks -- a cluster of unix machines -- a cluster
of macs --- a cluster of PCs.
I have a suggestion, but first some observations.
The first observation is that you and your boss disagree
about the appropriate platform to get. Chances are that many people in your
group disagree about which platform to get. They will probably disagree for
a long time. So, I would try to satisfy as many people as possible.
The first thing to knock off the list is Windows for Workgroups. Windows is fine
for some people, but by getting the Workgroups stuff you will lock yourself into
the MS world. MS has no interest in helping you interact with other platforms
if there becomes a need to do so. The same is true for the Mac, but less so.
Apple has made consistent efforts to make networking in a mixed environment
possible and hopefully easy. OS/2 tries but is a total pain to install and
maintain. If you had a 1000 PCs and a networking staff OS/2 would be o.k.,
but for 20-30 people forget it.
My solution...(and I cannot believe I am actually saying this)... is Novell.
Novell allows you to mix Macs, Windows, OS/2, NeXT, and Unix. Moreover,
the system deals well with each of the different environments. It is used
by 80% of the business world, which may help you convince your boss. You can
also buy a 486 server with Novell installed for probably less than the Quadra
server. Novell is not married to any platform, which I consider a big plus.
General comments:
Your network of computers will become mixed (PCs and Macs) in the future.
This is just inevitable, unless your boss forces everyone to work in
a particular way. If he/she does that, you're screwed. Some system
administrators insist on making you work in one way only. This is
unproductive.
Ask your boss, if he is willing to consider other platforms. If he is, then
write down why you want Macs. Writing things down is always better.
Offer to install the Mac network. You could do this in a weekend, no problem.
If your boss is hiring an outside consultant, ask your boss to make sure
that the consultant has experience in both the Mac and PC world and is
not a true advocate of either. Consultants who serve only one world
will give you biased answers and will encourage you to spend more
money than you need to.
The Mac II vx is not a good choice becuase the mother board runs at
16 MHz, while the CPU and 33. For the type of work you do, a Mac IIci
is cheaper and about the same speed. It also can be upgraded to
an 040 in the future.
In my experience, secretaries prefer Macs to PCs. If they have PCs,
they tend to prefer WordPerfect for DOS, no Windows please.
Good luck.
Peter Kocks
ko...@chemistry.stanford.edu
Andrew Loewenstern
>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT? I'm beginnin to think not by your
>stupid comments. The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in
>most cases. It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves
>like an 030 IIci. The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better
>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer! The
>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
>up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better
>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
I think it's you who has not used a NeXT. Right now I am typing this
into one of my NeXTstation colors (I have two). Sitting directly next
to my slab is an Apple 13" color monitor that is attached to the Mac
IIci (25mhz 030 w/cache) that is underneath my desk. I sit in front
of a NeXT for most of my waking hours. I know what I'm talking about
here.
My NeXT is _significantly_ faster than my Mac IIci in _*all*_ cases.
I can't think of a single thing my IIci does faster than my NeXT.
Nothing. Not one single thing. You don't even have to run formal
tests. There's enough of a visual difference to tell. Perhaps you've
been using anemic NeXT computers, if you have ever used one at all.
"The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better than that cheap
welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer!" - Oh please.
I have heard people argue this one both ways, but I have never heard
anyone say that either was "a hell of a lot better than" the other.
"cheap welfare interface" right. I seriously doubt now that you have
ever used one, or been within 15 feet of one.
andrew
P.S. I love the way you bash the hell out of NeXTSTEP touting that
Macintosh is sooo much better and then justify it by saying that "it
was still better than PC's" and then proceed to bash PC's.
Andrew Loewenstern
>WRONG! The IIci has 32-bit color even though people normally only use 8-bit
>of it at a time. ALL Present Macs have 32-bit color even though most monitors
>display either in 2-bit{black and white} or 8-bit mode.
>>The NeXT has 16. It's still much faster.
>Of course the NeXT is managing 65536 color while the mac is handling
>16777216 colors AND a 8-bit Alpha chanel that is partly accessable in
>8-bit mode {SuperPaint 3.0 uses it.} regardless of what the monitor shows.
>This is 3 month old news from Mac & IBM info{Now on suxex as
>mac-ibm-compare.txt.}
nonono.... he was talking about frame-buffer depth. DPS is full
32-bit as well. But it goes much, much further than 32-bit QD. First
of all, NeXTSTEP has full alpha support (used for transparency) all
the time in all apps at the system level. This isn't true with
QuickDraw. SuperPaint has it's own way of using it, and I have never
seen any other app use it (and I've been doing pre-press on
Macintoshes for several years). When I, for instance, drag an image
around in PasteUp (a page-layout app), it becomes partially
transparent so I can see behind it which aids tremendously in
placement. When I drag icons around, I can see around the irregular
shapes, and through them in some cases where the artist has created
semi-opaque or transparent sections. I use alpha all the time in most
of my apps, not just one or two image editing or drawing apps. Plus,
when I create an image with alpha in it in one app, every other app
knows what to do with it.
Bit depths are "lazy" and set on a per-window basis. On my machine,
which is a NeXTstation color, I have a 16-bit frame-buffer. The DAC
can only display 65536 colors simultaneously. NeXT chops that up as 4
bits each for red, green, blue, and alpha. However, most windows
start out as 2-bit with a 2-bit backing store (you don't have buffered
windows with backing-stores in Macintosh either, BTW). When you add
color, only then does the window get promoted to 16 or 32 bits.
Thereby conserving memory until it is needed. So I can have 2-bit,
8-bit, 12-bit, and 32-bit windows all happily coexisting using only as
much memory as they need in my apps. On the Mac, it's all or nothing.
You are in one mode or the other (sure, there are some cheeze ball
apps that switch the mode around when different apps become active,
but it's not the same thing). Additionally, the system object that
most apps use for images (called NXImage), keeps multiple
representations of the data around and chooses the appropriate one for
whichever display it is going to. So lets say you have some PS code.
Before you can display it in a 2-bit window, you have to render it.
So NXImage RIP's the PS code into a 2-bit buffer and flushes it to the
window. When you drag the window across your screen onto a display
with a 32-bit frame-buffer (like a NeXTDimension), it will RIP the
code to a 32-bit buffer and display that. So now you have 3
representations of the same image - PS code, 2-bits, and 32-bits. Now
when you print, NXImage will pick the PS code to print with, as it's
more appropriate than a bitmap for that display.
Do you see what I'm getting at? DPS and NeXTSTEP are much, much more
advanced than QuickDraw and Macintosh. Indeed, NeXTSTEP is much more
advanced than Macintosh in just about every single aspect. That's why
Apple is trying to copy NeXT with their Pink/Taligent stuff.
andrew
Howard Berkey
>>I'll take that bet. The NeXT's graphics are faster on its 68040 than
>>the Quadra's are on its 68040.
>WHICH Quadra?
Any quadra, incl. the 950
>>Note also that the ci has 8 bit color.
>WRONG! The IIci has 32-bit color even though people normally only use 8-bit
>of it at a time. ALL Present Macs have 32-bit color even though most monitors
>display either in 2-bit{black and white} or 8-bit mode.
Negative. All macs have 32-bit QUICKDRAW but the ci hardware only
supports 8-bit video.
>>The NeXT has 16. It's still much faster.
>Of course the NeXT is managing 65536 color while the mac is handling
>16777216 colors AND a 8-bit Alpha chanel that is partly accessable in
>8-bit mode {SuperPaint 3.0 uses it.} regardless of what the monitor shows.
>This is 3 month old news from Mac & IBM info{Now on suxex as
>mac-ibm-compare.txt.}
Not a ci. It only has a pixel depth of 8 bits using it's onboard
video (which is slow even for 8-bit).
What you just said is wrong. It's like saying that since an SE/30 has
32 bit quickdraw, all of it's mono pixels are 32 bits deep. Guess
again.
Or better yet, try and learn something about what you are talking
about.
Tim Smith
>My solution...(and I cannot believe I am actually saying this)... is Novell.
>Novell allows you to mix Macs, Windows, OS/2, NeXT, and Unix. Moreover,
>the system deals well with each of the different environments. It is used
>by 80% of the business world, which may help you convince your boss. You can
>also buy a 486 server with Novell installed for probably less than the Quadra
>server. Novell is not married to any platform, which I consider a big plus.
Why can't you believe that you are saying this? First of all, networking is
basically all Novell does (OK, they've been buying non-network companies, so
this is not quite true anymore), whereas the other companies under
consideration only do networking as a secondary thing.
Second, a lot of people buy Netware, even though the server software costs
just a little bit less than than the national debt, and people continue to
do so despite Microsoft's attempts to get get into that market. Say what
you will about Microsoft, but you have to admit they know how to sell stuff.
If they can't make headway against Novell, it indicates that maybe Novell
should be looked at.
Third, the architecture of Netware 3.xx is very good. It's basically a kernel
(I'm not sure if it's a microkernel or not) that doesn't know anything about
networks or filesystems. The network code and filesystem code runs as
separate kernel tasks, and the system is designed to allow for multiple
network and filesystem modules to be used at once. Furthermore, the driver
architecture is very clean and straightforward -- it's easy for a developer
of new controller cards or peripherals to write Netware drivers.
If you network is going to be big enough to make the per user cost of Netware
reasonable, I think it's not surprising that you would consider them. It's
obvious that you would consider them!
--Tim Smith
ps: this assumes Netware 3.xx. Many of the above points do not apply to 2.xx.
2.xx was where they made all the mistakes that they through out in 3.xx!
Howard Berkey
>
>I've tried them. So what?
>X windows resources suck. Limited power, horrible to edit (ResEdit is much
>nicer), clustered all over the place in special files when they should be
>part of a resource fork.
>Widgets and gadgets suck. Use up way too much memory. SLOW!!!! Stupid
>programming model that tries to emulate C++ in C.
X is a big processor hog, I agree. I wasn't trying to defend X. I
was making the point that Sys7 isn't the end-all of GUI's and not the
best. I also said it's adequate. For the mac, it's good. And it
blows WinDoze away.
>How about getting sound out of X-Windows?
>Ever tried writing X code that handles 24bit images? On my mac I can code
>in one color model that works on all displays. On X I get a choice of 5
>color models.
>And what about this fun system of pallette lack of management.
>OS/2 Windows fares no better in most respects.
Different vendors have different tools for X. Some are better than others.
OS/2 sucks.
>Maybe you mean NeXT is better than Mac in these regards---can't say. But
>your implied claim that most UNIX environments are better for programmin
>than Mac is ludicrous. Maybe they're better for character based apps, but
>not for graphical/sound apps.
>
Check out the SGI GUI, Sun's Solaris, and NeXTStep. They all provide
development packages that are the equivalent of the best stuff for the
mac or better, as far as GUI stuff goes. And they blow the mac away
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai
Johnson) writes:
[a lot of NeXT bashing deleted]
Interesting to note what your organisation line shows:
>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
I knew Sun was afraid of NeXT but I didn't know they would bash
NeXT on usenet (especially without a disclaimer).
Oh, incidentally, you can make a Sun unusable as well by logging in
as root an deleting a bunch of system files (whether their names are
/usr/lib/NeXTSTEP/loginwindow.tiff or /vmunix or /bin/*sh doesn't
matter).
Eric M Hermanson
>(Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>> It is true Mac's cannot directly print off the NeXT printers (because
>Mac
>> uses QuickDroop), but a Mac hooked into a mixed NeXT-Mac network can
>spool
>> its output to a NeXT laser printer.
>> Eric
>
>I should have known you would respond Eric.
>
>Right...It's nice knowing that QuickDroop is out dated. Tell me the news.
>QuickDraw GX should be interesting tho...
>
>The longevity of NeXT monitors disturbs me. They have a sad tendancy to
>get muddy and fade. I would rather have "QuickDroop" 1.x than a half-rate
>monitor!
>--
>Jim Smyton (smy...@alleg.edu)
Ever since 4th quarter 1992, NeXT has been shipping Sony Trinitron monitors
(same brand as Mac, I believe).
Eric
Eric M Hermanson
> Well, I expected a can of worms to be opened, but *this* was almost
>ridiculous. :)
>
>general work.
>
> If it's a Mac OS, I can be in-house support. OS/2, I could most
>likely pick up easily, but I've heard too many nightmares from netop friends
>about Windows and WFW to be excited about it.
>
> In order, we're looking for : Ease of use (Mac)
> Networking (Mac)
> Flexibility/upgradability
> (Mac or NeXTStep)
> Compatability (OS/2)
> Programming (NeXTStep 486)
>
Ease of Use:
It is a matter of opinion which is easier to use, Mac or NeXT. I still say
NeXT has a much more structured, consistent and powerful user interface.
Networking:
To say that Mac has the best networking is to say that a Yugo could out
Ferrari. Appletalk is SLOW and error prone. Even MacWeek magazine agrees
with that one. The NeXT networking environment is configured using a bundled
program with an easy to use graphical interface. A network of systems
running NeXTSTEP can be set up just as easily as Mac, or even easier. Once
the server system is turned on and established as being the server, networking
other NeXT systems is done by simply plugging them into the network and
turning them on - VOILA - the NeXTSTEP network is set up automatically by
the server machine. To add more machines, simply plug them in and turn them
on. Also, NeXT understands Novell and Appletalk in case you want to network
PC's or Mac's to the NeXT server.
Compatability:
OS/2?? Wrong. NeXTSTEP is fully compliant with many standards: Postscript,
TCP/IP, POSIX, unix sendmail, Appletalk, Novell, UNIX, built in FAX, Ethernet,
FTP, DOS and Mac filesystem support, TIFF, EPS, RTF, 3270 emulation, JPEG,
SybaseOracle databases, High sierra CD-ROM. All of these things come bundled
with NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP 486 will also support Windows and DOS programs to
run side by side with NeXTSTEP windows.
Programming:
NeXTSTEP. That's all you need to know.
Price/Performance:
With over 250 Megs of bundled software (excluding developing tools its about
100 megs), UNIX filesystem and networking, powerful 33Mhz 68040 with a
Motorola 56001 Digital Signal Processor for CD quality sound, NeXT definately
leads in price/performance.
> The boss also is a speed freak... he wants the fastest, best system
>even if he doesn't need the power, so it'd be most likely either Quadras
>(which I think is overkill), or 486's (which I also think is overkill, but may
>make Windows tolerable speedwise.)
>
> My proposal? One Quadra 950 server, and clustered 700's or IIvx's.
>
Argh! A Quadra server system configured properly will cost near $10,000.
You can get a NeXT, with all bundled software necessary for networking,
file serving, and the like for under $6000 (list). NeXTSTEP 486 will also
run on the new Pentium chips (586), so if you really really need speed,
buy a Pentium chip and get NeXTSTEP to run on it. If you need things now,
Settle for a 66Mhz 486/DX2 running NeXTSTEP 486. This configuration is
even faster than the current NeXT systems (unless of course you take advantage
of NeXT's multi-processing capabilities and add on extra CPU's).
>
>
>Jason M Smith
>University of Washington
>Physics/Math
>
Eric
Edward Crawford
>In article <z1h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
>Johnson) writes:
>
>[a lot of NeXT bashing deleted]
>
>Interesting to note what your organisation line shows:
>
>>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>I knew Sun was afraid of NeXT but I didn't know they would bash
>NeXT on usenet (especially without a disclaimer).
Oh please. Just because there is no disclaimer doesnt mean he is
that company. Disclaimers are a blight on this world. Its a
shame people cant use their head and realize just because someone
posts from someplace they are that place.
Thomas Richard Dibble
G> how...@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>I'll take that bet. The NeXT's graphics are faster on its 68040 than
>the Quadra's are on its 68040.
G> WHICH Quadra?
>Note also that the ci has 8 bit color.
G> WRONG! The IIci has 32-bit color even though people normally only
G> use 8-bit of it at a time. ALL Present Macs have 32-bit color
G> even though most monitors
G> display either in 2-bit{black and white} or 8-bit mode.
Sorry. This is just bugging the hell out of me. Black&White is one
bit, not two (on or off, get it?) Two bits would be four colors like
CGA on the PC (or three colors for you purists who regard black as a
non-color). Okay, I've said all I have to say on the subject ... feel
free to press 'n' now ...
---- tom...@wpi.wpi.edu
--
/****************************************************************************\
| "I sometimes used to try to catch her, : FROM: tom...@wpi.wpi.edu |
| but never even caught her name." : TO: who(m)ever reads it |
| ---- the cure : CC: programming language |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
>Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>> file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>> to even warn you, never mind recover.
>
>files. You log in as root and type, in a terminal window,
Ok. Im not sure why I said that actuall :/; I had been talking on email
about that sort of thing and it just slipped in.. Hmm..
>dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <path>
>
>Where <path> is the absolute pathname to the new tiff. This just resets a
>default, and leaves all existing files alone.
Absolute pathnames? Yech! :(
What happens if you give it a pathname that is wrong, to a non-tiff
file, to a corrupt tiff file, or to nothing?
>You can't reset the login tiff unless you're root. It's assumed that if
>you're root you know what you're doing; you can just as easily nuke sdmach
>(system equivalent on the mac.)
Gotch. This be good.
>The existence of file permissions makes catastrophic file deletion errors
>LESS likely, since most of the critical system files cannot be mucked with
>by someone without root. So it is somewhat more difficult for a naive or
>even malicious user to hose a system. Not to mention making life more
>difficult for viri.
All very good.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Kaya Bekiroglu
What are we to assume, then? By default if nothing else, a person
is from the place where his posts come from until found otherwise.
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <z1h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
>Johnson) writes:
>
>[a lot of NeXT bashing deleted]
I don't recall doing any next bashing. :/
Perhaps you refer to the fact that I do not drool over
every aspect of it, and do not consider it ideal for
all tasks?
Consider this: Could it be that the NeXT has a (*gasp*)
->flaw<-?
>Interesting to note what your organisation line shows:
>
>>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ya know, this is the second time someone has tried to read something
into that. I always thought they'd look at my address and realize
I just had a funky newsreader. But no. I better see if I cant find a way
to convince it I am not from Sun. So far, I haven't bothered.
Figured it didn't matter.
>I knew Sun was afraid of NeXT but I didn't know they would bash
>NeXT on usenet (especially without a disclaimer).
Read my address.
Read my address.
Hint: The Address is joh...@rpi.edu <-- notice, not .com; not sun either.
Then apologize for accusing me of being a Sun plant, and for
accusing me of promoting Suns interest in a dishonest fashion. Even if
I ->DID<- work for Sun, you have no basis for this accusation. I have
not been promoting Sun in any way. I never have done so on the net.
>Oh, incidentally, you can make a Sun unusable as well by logging in
>as root an deleting a bunch of system files (whether their names are
>/usr/lib/NeXTSTEP/loginwindow.tiff or /vmunix or /bin/*sh doesn't
>matter).
Yes. Suns are even worse this way. But that doesn't excuse the NeXT.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Besides, I do have a disclaimer, see?
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <z1h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article 21...@cubetech.com, and...@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>>In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>
>>>In fact, as installed, nextlogin.tiff has no write permissions on it.
>>>The only way to change it is as root. Normal users cannot modify it
>>>or delete it. Normal users cannot delete or modify _any_ of the
>>>system files. This is called security - something Macintosh for the
>>>most part lacks without third party products.
>>
>>Normal users apparantly sometimes try to muck about with their
>>machine. If this requires root access, then they will do it
>>with root- and if that blows away all of the NeXTs user protection,
>>then they will do thing dangerously. And get burned.
>
>You need to have the root password to log in as root. It is just not something
>you can just do "if you want to". NeXT has made it so that average everyday
>people who buy NeXT's will never need to log in as root. All configuration
>is done safely with preferences panels and the like.
They do if they want to change the login tiff. If the preferences
panels can do this, then I will withdraw my objection.
>>
>>>Root is the superuser. You can do *anything* as root. The operating
>>>system assumes that if you are root then you know what your are doing,
>>>and it asks very few questions.
>>> It is a simple matter to screw up the
>>>computer as root.
>>
>>Well, *it should not be*.
>
>No, it *should be*. The whole idea of having root access is so that you
>can modify the operating system to suit your needs. The idea of needing
>a root password to perform root tasks is what is call *security*. On a Mac,
>all you need is the proper piece of software, and BOOM, you can screw up the
>entire operating system, no matter if your name is Root or if it is Joe Blow.
That's very nice, but IRRELEVANT.
You should be able to modify the OS that way WITHOUT danger. One of those
preferences panels say.
>>> Therefore it is entirely this person's fault
>>>that he screwed up his machine, because he was mucking around as root
>>>without knowing what he was doing.
>>
>>Whose "fault" it is is ->totally irrelevant<-. The user got screwed;
>>the system didn't help. It should. Computers should not say
>>"you made your bed, now lie in it"; they should say "you screwed
>>up, so here I'll fix it for you.". (they should also make
>>it hard to screw up, but in this case I dont quite see how that
>>can be done. The best I can see is a warning saying "If that
>>file is gone, the system can't start!")
>
>NeXT has certain protective measures inplemented. But I disagree with what
>you said - "The user got screwed; the system didn't help. It should."
Then we are in for quite an argument. :)
> UNIX
>gives you the freedom to tap into it's power by allowing modifications to
>happen.
So does MacOS- but extensions isn't quite what you meant, I think. :)
The MacOS doesn't STOP them, it just doesn't provide a mechanism to
do them to users. (you can get one separately of course)
But I don't consider this a disadvantage. It is one if you wish to fiddle
with your system, of course, but most users do not. They want a system that
will work without fiddling. Putting power-user stuff in is fine, as long
as you dont put it where nonpowerusertypes will trip on it. That's one
sin Apple avoids in spades. :/
> It would be very inefficient for the computer to ask "ARE YOU
>SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS??" every single time you want to change something
>while logged in as root.
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Incessant "Do you REALLY
want to press 'q'? REALLY?" messages are just annoying, and users
habitually dismiss them anyway so they do little good. But there
are LOTS of ways to make systems tougher. Minimize the amount of stuff
the system is dependant on that the user can destroy accidentally, and
provide auto-regeneration features as often as you can.
This is a perfect example. The NeXT should be able to life wo/ a login
tiff. If the user screws that up somehow, FINE. It should just do without
until the user fixes it. Or generate a new one on its own. Or use annother
one, since NeXTstep comes with more than one. (I hear)
> As a regular user of NeXT, you will NEVER need to
>log in as root.
Unless you want to change your login tiff. :)
But what about the poor fool system administrators? Why should
they want a delicate system?
> The NeXT grapical user interface lets you do everything
>a "normal" person needs to do. If you *do* know what you are doing, you
>*may* log in as root if you know the root password.
I get it. Really. Got it a long time ago. It just doesn't excuse dismissing
resilliance!
> There are certain
>low level commands you can do to improve some things if you like. BUT, if
>you do screw up, you could damage a lot of stuff.
* precisely *
> I am glad, at least, that
>there IS a root login ID on UNIX (NeXT) systems, because like I said earlier,
>it is a way to make the system secure. On a Mac, any Joe Blow could muck
>up the system if he wanted to.
This is true. This is a real, live, NeXT advantage. In some places this
is critical. The NeXT can win on this alone.
> On a UNIX box, you have to have the proper
>"clearance" to do such stuff. I doubt the Department of Defense uses
>anything BUT Unix in their secured areas.
Here's one such place. (bet they also allow some other things too..
with identical security features... :) )
Howard Berkey
>ko...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Peter Kocks) writes:
>>My solution...(and I cannot believe I am actually saying this)... is Novell.
>>Novell allows you to mix Macs, Windows, OS/2, NeXT, and Unix. Moreover,
>>the system deals well with each of the different environments. It is used
>>by 80% of the business world, which may help you convince your boss. You can
>>also buy a 486 server with Novell installed for probably less than the Quadra
>>server. Novell is not married to any platform, which I consider a big plus.
>
>Why can't you believe that you are saying this? First of all, networking is
>basically all Novell does (OK, they've been buying non-network companies, so
>this is not quite true anymore), whereas the other companies under
>consideration only do networking as a secondary thing.
Well, the 'non-network' company they bought was USL. That's right,
Novell now owns UNIX. Methinks they have a new OS in the brewing...
Maybe some sort of single user unix to battle with NT.
>Second, a lot of people buy Netware, even though the server software costs
>just a little bit less than than the national debt, and people continue to
>do so despite Microsoft's attempts to get get into that market. Say what
>you will about Microsoft, but you have to admit they know how to sell stuff.
>If they can't make headway against Novell, it indicates that maybe Novell
>should be looked at.
>
I expect to see UNIX heavily marketed by Novell. They have a very
effective and skilled advertising staff. And as far as computers go,
AT&T would have a hard time selling free computers. Their ad $$$ go
elsewhere.
-Howard
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <1jktgj...@pith.uoregon.edu> rta...@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>Don McGregor (d...@esl.com) wrote:
>>: In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel
>>: >
>>: >This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>>: > file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>>: > to even warn you, never mind recover.
>>:
>>: The correct way to do this on the NeXT does not involve deleting any
>>: files. You log in as root and type, in a terminal window,
>>: dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <path>
>>:
>>I'll take dropping a file named StartupScreen into the system folder any day.
>
>Sorry to rain on your parade, but you can drag and drop the TIFF icon
>into Terminal and it will automatically imput the path to that file.
>Which is pretty neat, if not the exact equivalent to the mac.
It isn't even vaguely equivalent. What's this have to do with it?
>How many StartupScreens can you have in the system folder at one
>time?
As many as you like. But wo/ additional software, only one gets used.
> What if you wanted to randomly select a login screen from
>a directory of nice ones you've collected?
I think there's an init to do it.
> What if you wanted to
>insert something into the logoff hook that would change the path
>to a different login image every time you logged in? I wonder why
>Apple doesn't do this. Probably because they would be flamed.
No, because its not very usefull. (neither are startupscreens, so
don't ask me why they did them.)
>>
>>Or a quicktime movie named Startup movie....
>>Or any of the 20-odd inits I have running on my computer...
>
>You can launch apps automatically at startup by dragging the icon
>into one of several "dock extenders" such as Engage from, I believe,
>Millenium Software Labs. I have never used it so I can't comment.
>It is supposed to be quite the awsome app.
We, of course, just use the finder. All this and much much more, its
the amazing Ginsu Finder! :)
>>Or freedom from Unix, the demon of all OSes (nonstandard standard...blech!)
>
>I would much rather have freedom from the MacOS, a monopolized effimate
>OS with a vice grip on the Mac world. Trading neat soundbites is fun
>but unproductive.
You want to be Free from the MacOS, so you go to... NeXT?
Huh?
If you don't like proprietary OSes, shouldn't you be on a PC?
(ps.. effimate? Sorta like coffeemate?)
>>
>>Or fast 32-bit graphics.....
>
>32-bit being defined as - standard hardware, supported by the OS, or
>availible mother-of-all-add-ons?
Supported by the OS. (used to be the mother of all add ons, but
got rolled in)
Also supported by standard hardware on some macs, not others. (Personally,
I think the 8 bit support is more usefull, but that's just me)
>>Or software....
>
>I just know I'm going to get an ulcer. :)
So hang out on alt.non.sequitur. And the plaid sofas bite my
rhubarb!
>>Or, yes, a good if not terrific development environment coupled with a
>>USABLE OS.
>
>Define it, please. What makes the NeXT unusable? Please don't insult
>yourself by pointing to that login thing. :)
Perhaps he means that the MacOS actaully does work, despite what some
NeXTheads have said? :)
[deletia- what nobody is talking about, including me]
Jess M Holle
would SEEM TO ME that the wise move would be to use a small Appletalk
LAN for the time being. If you are really big into speed, add ethernet
and use ethertalk. When the network grows beyound this or you want to
add PC's, etc, then Novell becomes more advantageous.
Just my silly opinion,
Jess Holle
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <3gg...@rpi.edu> joh...@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
>Johnson) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>> >Display Postscript - well, what more need be said?
>>
>> What he would want to do with it. It is supposed to be slow, and
>> he isn't doing any graphics work to speak of. So what's he want this
>> for?
>
>DPS is the opposite of slow. PS has acquired a reputation of slowness
>because it was used on very high resolution devices when CPUs were slow
>and memory was expensive. I have yet to see a more responsive window
>system than the NeXT's. (You seem to know the NeXT just from the rags)
I have use them, but never for long. They seem slow, but this
could be any number of things (say, not having enough RAM.)
>[stuff deleted]
>> >Workspace Manager - keeps track of programs, mouse clicks, etc.
>>
>> Matter of taste. I much prefer the Finder.
>
>Ever tried doing something else while you format a floppy, have an alert
>popped up or something?
Which has nothiing to do with the Finder, but with pre-emptive multitasking
(or the lack thereof) and the abundency of apps that overuse (or just
plain use at all) modal dialog boxes.
> There are *no* alert panels from any application
>that block other applications on the NeXT.
None?
Sounds limiting, but its better than too many.
> There used to be on Macs pre-7,
>don't know about now.
They still are there.
> Also you have shelves to temporarily store files
>on,
And we have folders. Wheeeeeeee.
> and interprocess services (one application's facilities can be used
>by any other application transparently. Sort of an automatic publish-
>and-subscribe of facilities. Not available anywhere else, and probably
>one of the most useful features in Workspace.
It certainly is. Apple events can do something liek that, but very
few applications use the ability, and its not anywhere near as
standard as on the NeXT. I think Window's OLE can do much the same thign
tho.
[deletia- that silly login screen thing]
>> >>>>Changing the login screen is an unsupported operation?
>
>It's not unsupported, but it's limited to the super-user. It is generally
>assumed that if you are self-confident enough to log in as a super-user,
>you know what you're doing. It is not possible to delete any system files
>if you are logged in as the default user, which you should.
There is no reason for it to be so touchy. It should be able to login
without the login tiff.
>[more stuff deleted]
>> >>I mean, sure the MacOS has its own flaws.. but this is a really really
>> >>trivial thing to have kill the machine. It seems excessive, unreasonable,
>> >>and very Unix like. :)
>
>Simply put, you cannot (or almost not) kill or crash a UNIX machine
>unless you have higher privileges than the normal user if the UNIX
>machine is properly set up.
I know.
> NeXTs come properly set up out of the box.
>You switch them on, and after booting you are automatically logged in
>as user "me", with no possibility to destroy the system.
Good.
> If you are
>daring enough to switch to "system maintenance mode" (i.e. log in as
>superuser, it's definitely your own fault.
Whose fault it is hardly matters.
> After all, somebody *must*
>be able to change the system configuration if this becomes necessary,
>so one can't get rid of allowing higher privileges to some logins.
That is no excuse for this sort of thing.
>> >Luckily, day to day work doesn't cause NeXTSTEP to crash, unlike some
>> >other <cough> OS's. Unix is very nice in that regard. Changing the
>> >login window is really very trivial. Really. :)
>
>Right. As superuser, say
> dwrite loginwindow ImageFile <YourImagePathName>
Right.
So why is it possible to prevent the machine for login in
by doing it wrong?
>[...]
>> >It's very stable. NeXT has done some custom chrome under the hood
>> >that's not quite standard, but crashing the machine like that is
>> >like pressing all the buttons in an airplaine cockpit.
>>
>> This is a little inaccurate- this sort of stuff happens if you delete one
>> file on the NeXT, from what I am hearing. And the NeXT does nothing
>> to even warn you, never mind recover.
>
>"You" can't delete the file. The superuser can't. You shouldn't be
>super-user if you don't know what you're doing.
The superuer can't? Im confused.
But in any case claiming that the user "shouldn't have been doing that"
is no excuse at all. He- one of them anyway- DID that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> > Our machine still doesn't boot without typing bsd. The NeXT
>answerline said
>> >>>>> >it was a bad controller card. Our NeXT dealer says there is no such
>thing.
>> >>>>> >No one has a solution.
>
>OK, to the guy who posted the above paragraph:
>From the ROM monitor, type 'p'<CR> to get into the EEPROM setup. When
>prompted for the "boot comand", enter 'bsd'<CR>.
>This should do the trick. Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll assist
>you in getting it up again.
What a mess! Oh well, better'n most unixes anyway.
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <=yh3...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article 21...@cubetech.com, and...@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>>In article <1jhck1...@pith.uoregon.edu> rta...@cie.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) writes:
>>>>BTW, how fast are those 486s with NeXTstep going to run
>>>>DisplayPostcript? Not very, I'd wager.
>>>
>>>A Dell 486 50 DX2 running a beta of NS486 3.0 is faster than a
>>>NeXTstation Turbo Color.
>>
>>Not terribly surprising that. I suspect, given large enough quantities
>>of RAM, it will do fine. However, that's a lot of power you seem
>>to be recommending throwing at stuff like word processing.
>
>It takes a lot more to go fast than RAM. You need system bandwidth.
I know. But from what I've heard the main speed problem for NeXTs now
is their RAM requirements.
But now that you mention it, the ISA bus will probably be bad for it.
(its bad for everything else on those systems also, tho, so it is not
that critical that this is so)
>>>>From my experience, A NeXT running on a chip that should be a least 4 times
>>>>as fast as a Mac runs about the same speed in graphics, which is more than
>>>>enough to push me towards a quadra, if I could afford it.
>>>
>>>Your Quadra is doing QuickDraw, which is almost (but not quite) like
>>>an Etch-a-Sketch(*tm) compared to Display PostScript in terms of
>>>functionality. DPS does so much more, and eats more clock cycles.
>>>Macintoshes do so much more than DOS, that's why text easily scrolls
>>>10 times faster in DOS character mode than on a Quadra.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Well, at least I have 1 NeXThead who is willing to say that Display
>>Postscript is slow compared to QuickDraw.
>>
>>Of course, QuickDraw does much less (I think you exagerrate a little..
>>QuickDraw can draw noncontinuous lines :) ).. but does this guy need or
>>want the abilities Display Postscript would net him? (which seem
>>to be mostly a better programming environment, and better wysiwyg
>>for postscript printers)
>
>I don't think anyone is advocating the use of NeXTSTEP for simple
>wordprocessing. A Mac Classic does that pretty darn well (I did it on
>a Mac SE for 3 years). We were advocating it for developing custom
>software at the same time as doing group business applications.
How bout spreadsheets? Databases? This is the sort of thing the origional
poster wanted to convince his boss to use Macs for.
Jess M Holle
dangerous, risky, and downright off-the-wall proposition to many
businesses, which it is, the NeXT is several orders of magnitude
worse off in most companies eyes. Yes, there are exceptions, but
to most companies it seems that the NeXT is about as worthy of
consideration as an Amiga (ooh, that'll get the Commodore fans after
me :-) ). Not that the next is not much more worthy of consideration,
but its marketshare is probably even less than that of the Amiga. Also,
the QUANTITY of business apps on the NeXT is probably not much better.
NeXT is a wicked unknown to many. Just as no one ever go fired for buying
an MS-DOS PC (as the saying goes), there is no assurance that someone won't
get fired for buying a NeXT, especially if there marketshare doesn't
expand exponentially.
Jess Holle
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <FXaoXB...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca> jkal...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>>In a message written on Wed, 20 Jan 1993 00:26:50 GMT,
>>zmon...@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes :
>>
>>WHY do the new Mac server machines run AU/X INSTEAD of MacOS???? Because
>>MacOS is not even powerful enough to handle simple tasks such as file
>>serving and network support.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>I think it is you who needs to chekc your logic/reasoning. Let's face
>>it, have you ever worked on a NeXT? I'm beginnin to think not by your
>>stupid comments. The next machne is sluggish compared to a Quadra in
>>most cases. It is true that in alot of OS cases etc. the NeXT behaves
>>like an 030 IIci. The MacOS interface is also a hell of a lot better
>>than that cheap welfare interface Jobs ships with the NeXT computer! The
>
>Cheap welfare interface? Very intelligent statement.
>
I know you're defending your computer from an absurd attack, but...
>>MacOS isn't pre-emptive multitasking, I'll admit that, but it's comming
>>up! But with all of thsoe things you said about Mac, it was still better
>
>If they were to make the MacOS pre-emptive, all the current software would
>have to be rewritten to accomodate it. You will never ever ever see
>pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.
That's no reason to spew absurd stuff yourself. Apple is planning on
adding this stuff (they are working on it); their plan for compatibility
is simple: Apps not writen for it will not get the benefits. They will
not be blocked from any memory, will not be pre-empted, etc. So rewrites
WILL be necessary to get the benefits, BUT old apps will work too. Not too
bad.
>>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>>
>
>It is not next, it is NeXT.
The NeXT is not on the PC platform (he meant IBM PC Clone, I think).
Yet.
Daniel Norman Johnson
>>than PCs, becuase the only "OK" current multitasker now on the PC
>>platform is OS/2, forget about windows. I don't see next capturing a
>>large share of the marketplace anytime soon, and they don't deserve to.
>>
>
>It is not next, it is NeXT.
>
Oops.. my apoligies. In my last post I misread this to say
"It is not, it is the NeXT" (ie, that is the best PC multitasker);
and I critized this for obvious reason.
Sorry about that.
Daniel Norman Johnson
In article 1jlqtg...@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca, wr...@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Wong) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.1...@pellns.alleg.edu> smy...@murr11.alleg.edu (Jim Smyton) writes:
>>Great. Now I know NextSTEP 3.0 is cool. I used it today, and aside from a
>>new folder look and a funky preference file that screwed up my docks, I
>>did not see any big advantage over 2.x. For the an office worker, which
>>is what this thread was originally about, these changes will probably not
>>mean squat. Tell me when an 040 NeXT running Mach and NextSTEP will run
>>at the same speed as an 030 Mac running 7.1 and I will be slightly
>>interested in getting off the cases of the people who keep saying NeXT is
>>better than Mac.
>
>I won't touch the my computer is better than yours issue.
Of course not.
>So, what is so hot about NS 3.0?
You'll touch ->MY OS<- is better than yours.
>How about Display Postscript level 2 (PS level 2) to make your NeXT laser
>printer automatically PS 2? (I don't think upgrading system software on a Mac
>will up the PS level on a Laserwriter NT/NTX)
I don't think it will do this on the NeXT; it will make the computer
IMAGE with PS level 2. But what if you are using a "real" postscript
printer.. does it help then?
This is a lot like saying that the NeXT wont be able to automatically
upgrade to X11R6... True but...
>How about built-in Pantone-colour for the publishing people out there?
Apple is working on a good color matching system. I wasn't aware that
Pantone was such a thing tho.
>How about Appletalk client and Novell client support?
Appletalk client isn't so hard for a Mac. Novell can be got 3d party,
tho it is pricey.
>How about the ability to read Mac floppies? (I know the Mac already has this
>feature. :-))
:) Hey, we can even read 800k and 400k formats! So there!
>How about printer drivers for Epson & Proprinters?
Go get 'em off the net if you want to tolerate such a printer. Or use the
ImageWriter printer in draft mode.
>How about better network management tools?
System 7 provided this, of course, but probably not good enough for you.
Unix has good ones, and there's nothing I can do to deny that.
>How about localization support for Eng/French/German/Span./Italian/Swedish?
>(I think you guys got that in System 7.0 or 7.1)
We had that in system ->1.0<-;
No kidding.
System 5ish provided support for non-roman alphabets, and system 7
does things like context sensitive typefaces, reverse writing etc.
I believe 7.1 can do mixed script systems and several other neat tricks,
but I'm not very knowledgable about it.
>All this and more comes when you buy a new system or updgrade ($) your existing
>system. Not bad eh?
We get the same thing, but until recently it was free. (not any more,
tho. Dammit. :( )
[deletia- stuff I dont know about. NeXT monitors, etc. Bupkis.]
Daniel Norman Johnson
Could someone explain why this is supposed to be really great?
I really don't get it.
Sounds like it provides a way to transport transparent images.
(something the Mac hasn't got 'cuz apple didn'ts see fit to
make CopyDeepMask record into picture! Yeesh. Cmon apple...)
>Bit depths are "lazy" and set on a per-window basis. On my machine,
>which is a NeXTstation color, I have a 16-bit frame-buffer. The DAC
>can only display 65536 colors simultaneously. NeXT chops that up as 4
>bits each for red, green, blue, and alpha. However, most windows
>start out as 2-bit with a 2-bit backing store (you don't have buffered
>windows with backing-stores in Macintosh either, BTW)
Yeah. not sure why its considered so great. I mean, its rather
memory expensive and the speed increase isn't that greate most of the
time. (when it is, you can implement a backing store on the Mac, but
this is not done that much)
An 040 computer should be able to refresh its windows fast without
such a thing.
. When you add
>color, only then does the window get promoted to 16 or 32 bits.
>Thereby conserving memory until it is needed.
Only conserving memory you are wasting on a backing store. Youd use
less if you didn't have one at all.
> So I can have 2-bit,
>8-bit, 12-bit, and 32-bit windows all happily coexisting using only as
>much memory as they need in my apps.
Well, a little more. :)
Real question: 8 bit? This greyscale, direct or indexed?
> On the Mac, it's all or nothing.
>You are in one mode or the other (sure, there are some cheeze ball
>apps that switch the mode around when different apps become active,
>but it's not the same thing).
At least you CAN switch. As far as I can tell, there is NO way to make
a NeXT switch modes on the fly.
> Additionally, the system object that
>most apps use for images (called NXImage), keeps multiple
>representations of the data around and chooses the appropriate one for
>whichever display it is going to.
Holy cheese bagels, what a waste of memory! AND think of the time it
takes to generate the extra images.
Imho, if its a backing store you need, why not just have one and
change depths as appropriate. (ya know, what GWorlds do)
> So lets say you have some PS code.
>Before you can display it in a 2-bit window, you have to render it.
Why? Can't you just play it into the window, sorta like a DrawPicture()
call?
>So NXImage RIP's the PS code into a 2-bit buffer and flushes it to the
>window. When you drag the window across your screen onto a display
>with a 32-bit frame-buffer (like a NeXTDimension), it will RIP the
>code to a 32-bit buffer and display that.
Hmm? Does this work for windows that change on the fly- with
controls and such?
> So now you have 3
>representations of the same image - PS code, 2-bits, and 32-bits. Now
>when you print, NXImage will pick the PS code to print with, as it's
>more appropriate than a bitmap for that display.
You mean.. print the window?? Surely you would rather print the document?
>Do you see what I'm getting at? DPS and NeXTSTEP are much, much more
>advanced than QuickDraw and Macintosh.
They seem to me to be a bit more powerfull- paths and such, you know.
What you have cited doesn't sound like much.
> Indeed, NeXTSTEP is much more
>advanced than Macintosh in just about every single aspect.
Hardly. Its a little better in some areas, a little worse in others.
There are some significant improvements, mostly in esoteric areas,
and some problems (mainly from Unix, from what I've seen)
> That's why
>Apple is trying to copy NeXT with their Pink/Taligent stuff.
No, Apple is copying the same bunch you are more or less- Xerox.
NeXT still uses an application centered design, like the Mac. Taligent
will be document centered.
Now that is a big difference- for users.
Nathaniel Sammons
Well, there has been a lot of talk.... at least there has been no
real flames going back and forth (which surprises me)
Well, the comment was made about up grading the system software to 3.0
and automatically getting a PS level 2.0 printer thrown in.
the answer is that the NeXT laser printer has no "brain" i.e. it has
no CPU for rasterizing the image. This is why the NeXT has a dedicated
printer port, it has to transfer around a meg of info per page to the
printer, because it is already turned into a bitmap. The rasterizing is
done on the CPU, and it DOES slow down the machine when you print (although
not that much)... This is also why the printer is so cheap.
someone made the comment of the OS being great. it is. There is a
small issue of software though. Ask a NeXT user (yours truly
included untill about 3:45pm today) about Word Porcessing on a NeXT,
believe me, it sucks hard.
THe NeXT is a kind of "Glorified Mac" really, it looks alot like one, but
it has a more stable OS, which is rock solid.
I used to have a NeXT, but I recently sold it in favor of sitting for a
while, and either buying a PowerBook or a PowerPC machine. whichever is
cheaper and better, and out soon.
The thing that is annoying about the NeXT, though, is that if it had
200 or 300 MIPS hardware (hello, HP?) then it would absolutly scream.
A lot of CPU power is wasted on neeto looking windows that move when you
move them (you know what I mean) and lots of internals going on.
THe 3D facilities are great, RenderMan built into the system, and PostScript
level two (which would be great if it had an Adobe PixelBurst chip on the
motherboard).
Well, I'll get off my soapbox, but I think that Apple is doing the right thing
with PowerPC and PowerOpen 4.0
-nate sammons
ns11...@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Daniel Norman Johnson
>In article <1993Jan21....@unlv.edu> edcr...@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21....@qb.rhein-main.de> v...@rhein-main.de writes:
>>>In article <z1h...@rpi.edu> joh...@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
>>>Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>[a lot of NeXT bashing deleted]
>>>
>>>Interesting to note what your organisation line shows:
>>>
>>>>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>
>>>I knew Sun was afraid of NeXT but I didn't know they would bash
>>>NeXT on usenet (especially without a disclaimer).
>>
>>Oh please. Just because there is no disclaimer doesnt mean he is
>>that company. Disclaimers are a blight on this world. Its a
>>shame people cant use their head and realize just because someone
>>posts from someplace they are that place.
>
>
>What are we to assume, then? By default if nothing else, a person
>is from the place where his posts come from until found otherwise.
>
This is absurd. My posts come from joh...@rpi.edu (that's Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, but the important thing is that it isn't
Sun, as can easily be deduced from the .edu bit)
If you wish to attribute my posts to RPI, you are a silly person, but
you are free to do so. (hey, I'm all for making my school look good! :) );
I certainly don't claim that they are RPIs opinions. In fact, I have
never, EVER seen ANYONE on the net claim that the opinions he was posting
belonged to his Organization. I've seen facts posted that way once or
twice, but that's it.
I have explained in the past that the Organization line is a result
of using a slightly screwy newsreader. (its not supported by
RPI; I like it rather better then their newsreaders but I dont
know how to change the organization line, except on a post by post
(yech) basis)
Usually I ignore it. The only time it becomes a problem is when I argue
with NeXTheads, and usually not even then.
Anyway, I dont quite see how insults are justified- even if I were
from Sun, I have never ever defended Sun computers on the net. It just
isn't fair to call me a Sun flunky. :(
If you MUST call me a flunky, call me a Mac flunky. I do try to defend
the Mac at least.
This is kinda rediculous. I'm gonna have to change the silly thing.
(on the bright side, If I can change it, I can change it to anything I want.
:) )
Don McGregor
smy...@murr11.alleg.edu (Jim Smyton) writes:
>
>Great. Now I know NextSTEP 3.0 is cool. I used it today, and aside from a
> new folder look and a funky preference file that screwed up my docks, I
> did not see any big advantage over 2.x. For the an office worker, which
>is what this thread was originally about, these changes will probably not
> mean squat.
NeXT writes system software, not application software, just as Apple
writes system software (Claris aside).
The hot-links are a positive move; they're easier to implement than on the
Mac, and hence are more likely to show up in application software. (It's
still fairly rare to see hot-links in Mac software because they're a bit
baroque to implement.) Distributed objects make it easier to write
network-wide applications. Renderman as a system resource is likely to
lead to some interesting CAD programs. DBKit makes it extremely easy to
connect to industrial-strength databases and to write custom applications.
I'm not going to argue that NeXT is the be-all and end-all of computers;
other platforms are better in some situations. But the critisisms that
were leveled at the company and the machine were simply wrong, so I
corrected them. NeXT's system software technology was not standing still,
and is in fact still substantially ahead of many other companies. The
speed complaints are for the most part unfounded or the result of poor
configuration choices.
>
> Tell me when NeXT will put out hardware that is compatible with anything
> else.The monitors use different scan rates, the printers use the
>computer's PostScript,and this whole hooking up to a Mac network thing is
> bupkis. Sure the Mac sees the NeXT as another Mac, but wouldn't it be
>nice if through all this,there was some kind of compatibility between the
> machines?
>
This sounds sort of like one of those amusing PC Magazine articles in
which the authors "prove" PCs are better by measuring how well they act as
MS-DOS PCs. For example, using the computer's PS to rasterize hardcopy is
a big win. You can get later versions of PS without having to replace any
ROMs in your printer; I upgraded from PS level 1 to PS level 2 when I got
release 3.0. In this case, NeXT is MORE compatible than Mac hardware,
since, five years from now, they're still likely to conform to the latest
and greatest PS rev, while the Mac printer hardware is likely to be
barfing on new features. Rasterizing on the computer was a good design
choice that allows the NeXT to push things into software...always a better
choice from a flexibility standpoint.
--
Don McGregor | "Remember, pocket protectors leave unsightly tan
d...@esl.com | lines." --PV
GRUBB
>What you just said is wrong. It's like saying that since an SE/30 has
>32 bit quickdraw, all of it's mono pixels are 32 bits deep. Guess
>again.
>Or better yet, try and learn something about what you are talking
>about.
I got an even BETTER idea. How about READING Mac & IBM info?
Especially the Hardware
Color Support/Display section to whit:
" Mac: All present Macs except the Classic support the use of 32-bit color in
hardware. This is done in ROM by 32-bit color QuickDraw, which allows programs
to use 32-bit color even if the monitor does not display it; older machines
that supported color {SE/30, II, IIX, and IIcx} had only 8-bit color in ROM
and needed a software patch to use 32-bit color. (MacUser Special 1993: 28-29)
To keep costs down and speed up most Macs have only 8 or 16 bit display
capability built in, but most of those can be expanded to display 24 bit
color. 32-bit color QuickDraw allows an almost transparent capability to
display and edit X-bit images in Y-bit color [Where X and Y are 1, 2, 4, 8, or
32 in any combination] regardless of monitor resolution {63 dpi [12" color] to
94 dpi [PaletteBook]} though QuickDraw is optimized for 72 dpi display;
QuickDraw QX will, hopefully, change this.
This means that even though you can use only 256 or 32,768 of the colors at a
time, all 16,777,216 colors are still available and are simulated at lower
resolutions by dithering. {This is the reason for CLUTS, so the program knows
which set of colors to use with a picture and what 32-bit colors the dithers
really are.} It also allows, with a hardware video adaptor and no added
software, a Mac with monitor support to use an Autosynchronous Monitor {Range
must include 66.7 hz vertically and 35 hz horizontally and the monitor must be
VGA, MCGA and/or SVGA compatible} as if it was a Mac monitor (MacUser August
1992: 158-176) So present Macs can view and edit 32-bit color pictures on
some VGA, MCGA and SVGA monitors just as if they were equivalent Mac monitors
though the Macs runs with a Pixel Clock of 30.24.
In addition, QuickDraw allows, in Macs with a NuBus slot, more then one
monitor to be used in any combination, from a mirrored screen to a virtural
screen {Two or more monitors acting as one large monitor}."
So while a IIci DISPLAYS only 256 colors at a time {or a SE/30 just 2 colors}
32-bit images can be worked with {Though it would somewhat of a pain and
slower than heck on some machines ;-)} So on a SE/30 editing a 32-bit picture
the INFOMATION on each pixel IS 32-bit deep even though the screen can show
on 2-bit of the info through dithers.
On a side note the ranking of avalible software by OS and machine might be fun.
I suppect that the list would go something like this:
IBM-DOS
Mac
System 6.0.X
System 7.X
IBM-Windows
NeXT
DOS
Mac
Windows
NeXT OS
IBM-OS/2 2.0
Mac-A/UX 3.0
IBM-AIX
Taligent OS prototype (PowerOpen}
Note by avalable I am including going to a mall and finding software.
Mail order is a little more dicy anybody know what the Windows, A/UX, AIX,
NeXT ranking is?
GRUBB
[very good explination of the NeXT video deleted]
>Do you see what I'm getting at? DPS and NeXTSTEP are much, much more
>advanced than Macintosh in just about every single aspect. That's why
>Apple is trying to copy NeXT with their Pink/Taligent stuff.
Minor correction. While Pink is Apple's brainchild, Taligent is a mix of
Mac OS, OS/2, A/UX, and AIX and is as much due to IBM's efforts as Apple's.
In fact the co-op is going so well that the Taligent OS prototype
{PowerOpen} is a year ahead of secedule(sp).
"PowerOpen(AU/X 4.0): Rumor is that this could be the OS for IBM's PowerPC 601
due out in early 1993 [Apple's PowerPC 601 is not due out until Jan 1994.]
{Supports the theory of Apple planning to be both a hardware and software
company.}" From mac & ibm info {on sumex as mac-ibm-compare.txt}
Unless something goes very wrong the NeXT will go to a RISC processor within
a year to keep pace with the PowerPC chips. QuickDraw QX and Carasel(sp)
{Adobe's PS viewer} will close the gap between the NeXT and Mac.
The NeXT is in many ways like the Mac was pre 1987. Is still remains
to be seen if the NeXT go the way of the Mac or the way of the Amiga.
A major player or a nitch machine.
"Nothing can go wrong." Statement of Delos' Westworld
Maynard J. Handley
>would
>> have to be rewritten to accomodate it. You will never ever ever see
>> pre-emptive multitasking on a Macintosh.
>
>does
>offer premptive multitasking. While it doesn't currently offer
>preemptive
>multitasking between multiple Mac applications, I see no reason why it
>couldn't be written to do so.
>--
Huh????
Have you read what you said closely? You have just admitted that, indeed
native mac apps do not cope with pre-emptive multi-tasking, even under AUX.
the MacOS runs as one process under AUX and within that one process
cooperatively multitasks. Don't talk about thinks you don't understand. As
for why it's not trivial to fit in pre-emptive multi-tasking, one simple
reason is that the ROMs and the toolbox are not re-entrant.
Maynard Handley
Jeremy Kalanuk
(Howard Berkey) writes:
Try developing software in a |good| UNIX environment. Use other GUI's
not just Sys7. (Which is an adequate GUI.) Try to escape Mac-centric
thinking. Since Jobs left, it's becoming "The computer for the rest
of THEM". Look at the computing world as a whole, not just the tiny
niche apple has.
Doing the above will secure the future of Apple... you can bet they
are doing it. Either do it yourself, or get swept away like the
Amigoids.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I seen the perfect response to your message earlier, and it was "The
whole world aren't programmers." Very, Very true. I do program for the
mac however, not commercially but just small things for myself and
firends. I love the Macintosh, and it's versitility, and I will admit
that NeXT does have a nitch where UNIX is required, but besides that, I
believe the mac is the better computer. The world does not run UNIX
(although most of it does :) ), because the entire world does not
require UNIX. I have used the NeXT's GUI, and I like the Macs better. I
know numerous people who work with NeXT's, sell NeXT's etc, and they
prefer comming home to their mac at nihgt. As time goes on, personal
compuers are becomming more and more subjective to the person choosing
them, almost like art. In my opinion, with the whole home user/business
user (the majority of the market) not programming, or requiring UNIX, the
Mac is the way to go. ( In my humble opinion of course ). I am not
saying that Amigas have nothing to offer, as they do especially in the
way of NTSC video, but I still prefer my Mac. ON the other hand, some PC
users like their PC's more than my Mac, and some Amiga users like their
more than my Mac, so once again I say that in MY opinion, Macs are thw
way to go.
---
jkal...@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk)
The Draco Unix System [BBS]
Howard Berkey
>how...@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes
>>What you just said is wrong. It's like saying that since an SE/30 has
>>32 bit quickdraw, all of it's mono pixels are 32 bits deep. Guess
>>again.
>
>>Or better yet, try and learn something about what you are talking
>>about.
>I got an even BETTER idea. How about READING Mac & IBM info?
>Especially the Hardware
>Color Support/Display section to whit:
Look. Don't make yourself look like a fool anymore than you have.
The IIci only has hardware support for 8 bit video onboard. What the
article you wuoted was saying was that 32 bit QD is included on all
the new machines roms. That is irrelevant to what we were discussing.
The IIci video ONLY IS CAPABLE OF 8 BIT COLOR.
8 BITS IS ALL IT MOVES PER PIXEL.
THE NeXT COLOR STATION *ALWAYS* MOVES 16 BITS PER PIXEL IN IT'S COLOR
SETTING.
THE IICI NEVER MOVES MORE THAN 8 BITS USING IT'S ONBOARD VIDEO.
GET A CLUE.