Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!rk39+ From: rk39+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Joseph Kuszewski) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Mac LC or NEXT Message-ID: Date: 1 Feb 91 20:23:35 GMT References: <137661.27A25062@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> <1991Jan31.132606.9845@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu> , <85859@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 81 In-Reply-To: <85859@unix.cis.pitt.edu> macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) writes >It's been stated before that the NeXT is not >truly a home computer. Where is the term "home computer" defined and how does NeXT not fit that definition? It seems to me that a "home computer" is one that can be used effectively in a home. That is: (1) it is not reliant on a network (as many UNIX mahcines are) and (2) It does not require an unusual environment (that is: it does not draw as much current as a VAX9000 or need a large, constant air motion, et cetera). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the NeXT (as well as the Mac and PC) fits these criterion and, therefore, should be called a home computer. >I have no *valid reason* to own anything more than my >Classic, with the possible exception of a few serious number-crunching programs. A few things on this one... whether or not *you* have valid reason to have anything more powerful or faster than a Mac Classic has nothing to do with the comparison of the machines. In fact, I really don't think that too many people care if you need more power than a Mac Classic unless they are taking a survey of people's needs (which might be a good idea). The question is: for what applications do you need more power or less power than a given standard (like a classic) and how much patience do you have to wait for the computer to finish that task? For example, I need much more power than a classic, because I'm a programmer and need a reasonable compile-test-edit loop speed. Therefore, even a CX or CI is slow for me. In this case (and for other programming reasons) I would suggest a NeXT. On the other hand, if you are just using the machine for word processing and the editing speed of a low-end mac is good for you, I would suggest a Mac. >If I want number crunching... I'll use a mainframe at my school/employment. Didn't just just say that a mac is a home computer? I don't know about you, but I (like most people) don't have a mainframe in my basement. So the question is, what does the fact that *you* have access to a mainframe have to do with which machine is a better home computer? >my computer is my hobby... it sort of defeats the purpose of a hobby to do >things as quickly as possible. Most of us do not feel that way. A computer is a tool to help complete a given task in the minimum about of time and effort. If everyone felt the way you do, then we would all still be using PDP/11's. >And I'd get lost on a 17" screen. Maybe for this reason, you >could call me an "average Mac User who wouldn't need a NeXT". Because you would get lost on a 17" screen? Most of us would love to have a 17" grayscale on our desks, especially with a window-dependant multitasking environment. This way we can see the whole picture at once. >Maybe so, but >a whole lot more people use SEs than use IIfx's. For the same reason, more >people will use Macs (cheap ones) than NeXTs. There are more Commodore 64's than SE's out there. Does that mean that anyone interested in a reasonably-priced computer should get an C-64? Where does the question of computer reliability and power come into question? Only at a certain leved does it become important? If so, when and by who's definition? >Now, let's get back to Mac discussions, will we? How about a new newsgroup: > Comp.sys.mine-is-better-than-yours, >possibly with Mac-PC, Amiga-Mac, Mac-NeXT subgroups. This is coming from the same person who, in the same message, wrote: >For a week or so now, this current Mac/NeXT war has been going on, and your >name has become increasingly familiar. It seems as though you are the *entire* >NeXT side of this conversation. Later, Bob Executive Member Team Clueless