Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!remus.rutgers.edu!declan From: declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? Message-ID: Date: 8 Dec 90 08:23:38 GMT References: <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> <109822@convex.convex.com> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 71 In article <109822@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > Funny, I have a brochure for the original NeXT cube -- still being sold > at discount prices -- right in front of me and the only removeable media > it mentions is the optical disk. So you enjoy collecting outdated brochures? What does that prove? Since September, every NeXT system (except a server) comes with a floppy drive. > So NeXT eliminates those nasty choices by making them so expensive no > one can afford them, huh? Well, at $20 million a pop, the average user > doesn't have to worry about buying a Cray, either. I'm sorry you feel > Apple is offering the users too many choices. Some people *like* having > this flexibility. Yesterday, I had to make the choice of whether to > continue using the 8-bit internal video on my Mac IIsi or buy a 24-bit > RasterOps graphics board for $399. Too many choices? That's one way of looking at it. Or perhaps Apple just has a lack of direction. Speaking of prices for color products, take a look at the list price of a 16 MB/105 MB NeXTstation and a 12 MB/105 MB NeXTstation Color. The NeXTstation Color is cheaper by $625... There are a number of reasons for that (and you still have to add a monitor), but it's still rather strange. Perhaps NeXT isn't charging enough? $-) >There is nothing stopping you from writing a program that will only >run on a Mac IIfx. But doing that will limit your market to the small >number of users who can afford a IIfx. Similiarly, writing for the >NeXT limits you to writing for users who can afford a NeXT. The NeXT >station defines the *highest* possible denominator in computing; there >is (unfortunately) no such thing as a low-end NeXT. The NeXTstation is a low-end NeXT. The nice thing about NeXT is that the company has shown a propensity to drop prices as soon as they are able; therefore, when NeXT announces its '91/92 products, I'd expect the price on the NeXTstation to drop accordingly. Besides, NeXT's avowed goal IS to raise the lowest common denominator of computing. Apple did it with the Macintosh by including a mouse, Quickdraw, serial ports, high-resolution screen, acceptable sound, a 3.5" floppy drive, and so on. It was successful, due in part to the fact that developers could assume that every Macintosh would follow certain conventions. Now, NeXT is doing the same thing... Unfortunately, Apple can't, without abandoning their existing customers. To put things into perspective, software developers can assume that each NeXT is the equivalent of a Macintosh IIfx with a 17" 4-bit greyscale monitor (1120 x 832) running A/UX 2.0 (virtual memory, protected address space, interprocess communication), with a DSP card, a SCSI-II card (since the IIfx doesn't have a SCSI-II port) $-), a 2.88 MB floppy drive, 10 Mb/sec Ethernet port, a microphone port, line out jacks, and with 8 MB of RAM. Oh yes, and running System 8.0. $-) Again, from the point of view of a software developer, wouldn't you rather write software for this than a Mac Classic? Not to mention the fact that you could probably do it in half the time. Naturally, there aren't as many NeXTs out there as there are Mac Classics, but neither is the software field as competitive - at least in the amount of companies working on similar software. Assuming a moderately good level of software development for each platform, which one would you rather have three years from now? We've already seen PowerStep, Improv, Interface Builder, NeXT's Workspace Manager -- these products are years ahead of their closest counterparts on other platforms. -Declan (declan@portia.stanford.edu)