Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!lange From: lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac Message-ID: <33411@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 23 Mar 90 11:41:36 GMT References: <404@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <9942@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <6329@blake.acs.washington.edu> <9958@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <419@toaster.SFSU.EDU> Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: lange@lanai.UUCP (Trent Lange) Organization: UCLA Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Lines: 61 In article <419@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > >> I'm sure NeXT will be ahead of >>the II F_ingXpensive withtheir NeXT machine... > >They already are. The *only* thing Apple has to crow about is >the 40 MHz clock speed. Other than that it's basically half of >what the NeXT is now. Compare retail prices for realistic >configurations, and NeXT wins. Is this necessarily true? Retail prices don't matter. For people in academia, the University prices do, and even for people outside, the street price of Macs are usually close to the academic prices. And, looking at UCLA's prices, a basic IIfx with 4 megs goes for $5949. Sure, add in a full-page monitor, video card, and keyboard, and you're up to $7100 - exactly what UCLA's price for a NeXT is. Yes, that NeXT will have the OD, but frankly, I'd rather have the Mac's floppy. Third-party hard disks are going to run about the same for either. The DSP? Nice, but what is anybody doing with it? NeXTStep? I don't want to develop applications, so how does it help me? Sure, the NeXT comes bundled with applications, but so what? If you want to do any serious WYSIWYG word processing or graphics you're going to have to buy applications. And the Mac's are far cheaper, and so far, better - if you can even find an equivalent application for the NeXT (e.g. spreadsheets). All in all, a fully-configured NeXT will be somewhat cheaper than a Mac IIfx (especially including A/UX), but not by a whole lot. >All NeXT needs to do now is release a low-cost upgrade to a faster >68030 (or 68040) and that's pretty much going to be the end of this >discussion. The IIfx is just not a workstation-class machine. > > -=EPS=- What makes you say this? It seems that the IIfx has solved the biggest problem with previous Macs: the lack of a DMA controller. Add in its other new dedicated I/O processors, the 40 MHz '030, and A/UX 2.0, and what does it lack to be considered a "workstation-class machine"? Now, I'm not a hardware engineer, and I don't know everything about the throughput of the NeXT's total useable hardware vs the IIfx's. But, if A/UX 2.0 turns out to be everything it's cracked up to be, in just exactly what ways (besides bells and whistles) is the NeXT a better workstation? I'd really like to know, because I'm currently trying to decide between the two, and the hardware and A/UX of the IIfx has (currently) removed all of my performance qualms about going with the Mac. - Trent Lange ********************************************************************** * College Basketball Fever: Catch it! * * Yeah, I mixed my slogans. So what are you going to do about it? * **********************************************************************