Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!ub.d.umn.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!alandail.larc.nasa.gov!alandail
From: alandail@applelink.apple.com (Alan Dail)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: NeXT for Mac users (was Mac Emulator)
Message-ID: <1990Oct16.125905.18833@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 16 Oct 90 12:59:05 GMT
Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner)
Reply-To: alandail@applelink.apple.com (Alan Dail)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 26

People keep suggesting that instead of getting a Mac emulator for the NeXT,
to simply get a NeXT and a Macintosh Classic.  This does not help, as MPW
takes too long to compile MacApp apps on a Mac IIfx.  Currently, there are 
many people, such as myself, that make their living programming the 
Macintosh and cannot simply sell their Macintosh to buy a NeXT.  I would love 
to have a NeXT, but it is simply not feasible to own two loaded systems (2
big monitors, 2 big hard disks, 2 CD-ROM drives, 2 laser printers, etc).  
If Macintosh could run as a task on the NeXT, supporting MPW and compiled 
MacApp code, then I could justify selling my entire Mac system and purchashing
a NeXT, saving money and drastically lowering my compile time at the same 
time.  I would even be willing to buy a MacPlus or MacClassic to get ROMs 
from for an emulator.  I am sure that their are many others who would do the 
same.  One thing that troubles me though, is software for the NeXT seems
to cost 2-3 times more that comperable Mac software.

Also, I would like to ask people who have used both systems extensively,
how does the NeXT compare to the Macintosh as an end user machine? i.e.,
which is better at being "the computer for the rest of us"?


thanks,

Alan Dail--
Alan Dail
NASA/Langley Research Center
ALANDAIL@applelink.apple.com