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