Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Notebook computers Message-ID: <1991Feb18.165020.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> Date: 18 Feb 91 21:50:20 GMT References: <1089@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1991Feb18.103052.7433@ims.alaska.edu> Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU Distribution: na Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL Lines: 24 In article , mdixon@parc.xerox.com (Mike Dixon) writes: > i don't get it. why do so many people in this group seem to think that > NeXT would be uniquely qualified to build a new machine that would have > 0% of its hardware or software in common with NeXT's existing product line? Because only NeXT can be trusted to make sure it's BLACK. Actually, I've seen at least one reference to someone suggesting that the handwriting computer could be used as a peripheral to the NeXT with the ability to input handwriting or handdrawing directly. I thought that was a good idea. Personally, I was interested in seeing the two systems use common objects (handwriting objects; handdrawn objects; etc) that could be passed back and forth. Of course, if such things get to be standardized, it won't make much difference who developes the handwriting computer. But the "handwriting computer as a NeXT peripheral device" still stands as something that I think NeXT may be well- (though not uniquely-) qualified to do. c.f.waltrip Internet: Opinions expressed are my own.