Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: NeXT | I love my SE (was:68040 for the Mac? Message-ID: Date: 17 Feb 91 01:35:22 GMT References: <1991Feb16.020056.11742@NCoast.ORG> <1e3G7w*o@cs.psu.edu> <3287@ux.acs.umn.edu> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 67 In-Reply-To: oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu's message of 16 Feb 91 23:33:03 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: client6.cs.psu.edu In article <3287@ux.acs.umn.edu> oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) writes: Now, I'm not saying that Window's isn't a good product. I'll agree that, yes, it *is* a huge step up from MS-DOS. However, this is not a Computer Science lab!! It is a Veterinary lab! The kind of software we run here (for classes) is PigChamp. For those who don't use it, PigChamp does not need Windows to run. Here, a 286 would have been fine. If the students wanted to use a GUI to write papers when we re-open, they could use a Mac's. I'm willing to bet that Hypercard, even on a Classic, is much faster than Toolbook on a 386SX. Probably right. Most DOS weenies are going with the assumption that Toolbook is going to get faster. It's only 1.0. They're just happy that they finally have Hypercard on the PC. Where am I going, you ask yourself. Well, imagine my surprise when I walk in and find a newly acquired 486 tower! It's a wonderful, beautiful machine. It's also complete overkill. This is a > $17,000 machine (BTW, all PC's are PS/2's from IBM). Sure, with the educational discount it probably only cost $15,000, but you don't need a Ferrari to go to the corner market and you don't need a 486 to run PigChamp! (To be fair, I found out that it would be used as a fileserver; what a wonderful waste of 33MHz) Penn State has the same nasty habit of wasting money on IBM PC's too. Just think, your school spent $17K on a machine that isn't as fast as a $3300 NeXT. Is the $17K an educational price? That is a bit steep! Some things are unjustified. A University computer lab needs better than Classics, but our does not need more than a IIsi. I would be equally surprised if I were to have walked in and found a IIfx staring me in the face. Or a NeXT. Some people need a 386, but if their only need for it is to run Windows, they should get a Mac (even a Classic). What do IIsi's cost? I would guess around $2000. My big complaint is that for $1300 more you can have the IIfx(and more). You could always run your DOS software in a window using SoftPC and still have a friendly GUI like the Macs. It's a machine that will meet the needs of both markets. The current NeXT machine will continue to meet your in the coming years too. The software you have now runs fine on a 286, but what about other software? I expect that most of the new PC software released over the next year will be Window's applications. Time to buy a new lab!?! Guess what, pigChamp II is now networkable. A lab full of students can now build the perfect pig, each working at his own computer. Educational software is about to move past the page flipping(and card flipping) stage. Yes, certain things are nice. A IIfx is nice. A 486 is nice. A NeXT is nice. It's hard for me to justify the purchase of a IIfx (just because I could afford it) when I know that some people can't even afford my SE, or a place to live, or clothes for their children. For some people, the above computers are necessary to do their jobs, but an SE is all I need right now. Don't tell me I need a NeXT or a 386/486 or even a IIfx, because I don't. Flame away. You will have to use a NeXT to understand why it's not overkill. It's not a 15mip machine running DOS. And even if the NeXT was more power than you needed, why pay the same amount of money for a computer that is less powerful? Computers cost too much to throw them away every two years. Think about this two years from now when Windows 4.0 and System 8.0 are released. -Mike