Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!kmc4 From: kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: <1990Nov5.215814.3435@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 5 Nov 90 21:58:14 GMT References: <500@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1990Nov5.191518.1095@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Nov5.200703.5387@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 81 I didn't want to do this again, but ...... In article <1990Nov5.200703.5387@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >The NeXT is NOT a low or mid-range PC. It is a workstation that competes >against machines like the Mac SE/30, Mac II, Sun, Apollo, et al. At the >rate of 15,000 sales every two months, the NeXT is head-to-head with Sun, >which is a huge success by all accounts. Geez, by your argument, the Mac >IIfx is a complete failure because it doesn't sell in the same numbers as >a Mac Plus or a PC AT! "Geez" I know this. My point is that it's not a general business machine. That's what I said in both my posts. I made no comments as to its viability as a workstation. The IIfx is a business machine with near workstation performance. Don't tell me the NeXT is gaining momentum in the business sector without giving me some facts about how many machines are on desktops in offices (as opposed to on University desks). > >>>I write: >>>Programmers who've used both NeXT and Mac development tools (MacApps, >>>Prototyper, Think C) are almost unanimous in their strong preference >>>for the NeXT. >>>I write: >>>And they end up with nicer user interfaces to boot (because of NeXT's >>>Interface Builder). > >>sadowski responds: >>Opinion. This point could be debated in this forum for hours. > >No need for debate. The distinction between NeXT interfaces and Mac >interfaces is as clear to me as the difference between Mac interfaces and >Windows interfaces. I own a Mac and use a NeXT. OK. I bow to you, interface king. >Gosh, you'd also take IBM's word that the Mac is an inferior machine. Nope. >You know why Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WordPerfect all produced dogs on the >Mac? They tried to pack too much into their software produts for the Mac. >The Mac did not have the hardware to run their feature-laden products >at acceptable speeds, and the Mac did not have the programming environment >to allow them to get their products in under deadline. Have you ever used any of these products ? WP is not feature-laden. Full-Impact doesn't have as many features as XL. Don't take my word for it. Read a review of these products. Feature laden ? I'll quote Eubanks again. "The average head of lettuce would make a better decision than to bring out a Mac product that's not compatible with its PC version." Seems they missed a pretty important feature. >Your original point was that Steve Jobs was not an innovator. Thanks for filling me in on what I was thinking. My original point was Jobs was a brilliant innovator who could not succesfully bring his product to market. The veredict is still out on whether this will happen with NeXT. By the way, I'm not saying that Sculley has done a better job. >The business world is dominated by men in blue suits. However, if there is >any justice, these men will hire computer people to make their computer- >purchase decisions for them. My experience with MIS people tells me otherwise. I refuse to be responsible for continuing this thread, especially since there has already been some outcry against it. So if you feel compelled to reply, do it to e-mail, and save the others the boredom. 8^) --rs I posted from a friends account, so please do not hold him responsible for anything contained above. -- Keith Cardoza E-mail : kmc4@midway.uchicago.edu =============================================================================== The University Of Chicago : "We're smart, you're dumb." 8^) Macintosh (tm) - Once you go Mac, you never go back.