Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!cpsc!schock
From: schock@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig Schock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What NeXT *should* do next.
Summary: ....
Message-ID: <2644@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 90 22:06:13 GMT
References: <1385@shelby.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@calgary.UUCP
Lines: 31

In article <1385@shelby.Stanford.EDU>, lane@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Christopher Lane) writes:
> 
>	[stuff deleted]
> 
> which I think is only one of several issues.  The three things I see over and
> over (from current and potential NeXT owners) in this news group are:
> 
>   1) There are not enough third-party products for the NeXT.
> 
>   2) Is the company stable--will it be around after I buy the machine?
> 
>   3) The machine's too slow.
> 
> The use of the new IBM chip would solve all three problems, not just the
> third. 

	I don't see how using a specific RISC chip (in this case the 
new IBM RISC) will solve all of the above problems.  How will this ensure 
that the company (NeXT) will stay around after you buy the machine? 

	Although using an IBM chip could possibly increase the amount of 
third party software for the NeXT (although not too likely), it's more than
possible that this software, not being developed on a NeXT, may not exploit
the "extras" that the NeXT has.  

========================================================================
Craig Schock                               schock@cpsc.UCalgary.CA
University of Calgary  (More reliable ->)  schock@flip.cpsc.UCalgary.CA

DAMMIT, Jim, I'm a doctor not an OCEOTRIPTAPHANTIAENTOLOGIST!
========================================================================