Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!husc6!purdue!krk From: krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: System 7.0 vs. NeXT Step Message-ID: <13357@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 8 Feb 91 04:55:49 GMT References: <1991Feb5.013654.4045@NCoast.ORG> <1991Feb8.003934.5763@csn.org> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Reply-To: krk@democretos.cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Kuehl) Distribution: comp Organization: Purdue Univserity Computer Science Department Lines: 26 In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >It's unfortunate that the optical drives didn't take off. Hopefully, >they will within two years(on all machines). It's a great technology, >but it needs to be refined. Yeah, I thought so too. That was the one thing (besides the cost) that I really liked about the machines. An enormous amout of space on something you could slap in your briefcase, backpack or even coat pocket and take with you. Kind of makes a CD-ROM look like junk. >Why does NeXT need a low-end machine? Is NeXT even allowed to compete I don't see why they need to either. If someone wants an SE or an LC type machine, then Apple makes one. If someone wants an inexpensive, fast development computer then NeXT makes one. I don't see why NeXT would even want to make one, unless their higher-end machine sales can't keep the company afloat and I don't see that happening. >So what. How much of the market does NeXT have to get to be a >success? Just the readers of this newsgroup. :-) -- Kevin Kuehl krk@cs.purdue.edu kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu