Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!khcg0492 From: khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Holden Chang) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: <1990Nov11.210537.1563@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 11 Nov 90 21:05:37 GMT References: <1990Nov9.195958.15383@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 45 Okay, sticking my head in the middle of a flame war again: In article ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. >user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >>I mean, how much memory does Mach and Postscript take up? I'll wager rather >>more than the 1.? MB System 7.0 will take (yes, you need a 2 MB Mac to run it, >>but that doesn't mean it takes the full 2MB). It's a small point, >true, but at >>least try to stick to the facts. > >This is like saying DOS is better that System 6.0.7 because DOS needs >less RAM. If you want to use less RAM, then why don't you run Mac OS >4.0? Get a clue! You probably missed the previous posts in which gft_robert was trying to make a relatively minor point that if a Mac and a Next both have 8 meg, then the Mac will have more real memory to run applications because the Next OS is larger. Of course, the Next has virtual memory, so this is really really a small point. Anyway, he's only saying the MacOS is smaller not better, which sometimes is useful (saying being able to boot up on a floppy when the hard disk crashes). Hardly something deserving of being flamed for. > >Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged >project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years >ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money >in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at >least try to stick to reality. Oh please, let's do stick to reality. Apple originally said that it was aiming for a summer 1990 release. It wasn't a firm date, more to inform developers what features were being planned so that they could make the appropriate modifications to their software. So if the current goal of summer 1991 is realistic, then the project will be one year "late", not 2 1/2 as you imply. Next does not have a sparkling reputation of delivering on time, either. For example, the original cube was about a year late (perhaps you remember the jokes that NeXT should really have been named NeVR?) and shipped with beta system software for some time. -- ***************************************************************************** Kenneth Chang * khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research * or University of Illinois * kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu *****************************************************************************