Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!cns!dltaylor
From: dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: An interesting idea...
Message-ID: <939@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 8 May 91 01:29:04 GMT
References: <7r8G&?-&1@cs.psu.edu> <11881@uwm.edu>
Organization: NCR Corp. SE-San Diego
Lines: 48

In <11881@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:

>Yes, they have.  Workstations run Unix.  PC's don't.  That's the most
>general comparison I can make.  I'd rather not get into specifics.
>It's pointless.  We all know that the NeXT is being spoofed as a
>Workstation, not a PC.  So the point is moot.

Since the Intel-based PC family of computers has the LARGEST, by far,
installed base of UNIX, and variants, WHERE do you draw the line?

A "PC" is a computer on which a PERSON works, or plays.  A "workstation"
is a computer on which a person WORKs, or plays.  See the difference?
The "plays", by the way, is not a joke.  How many hours of "nethack",
"empire", or whatever, have been played on workstations (or mainframes).
Sure, there is a dollar, and performance, spread, but the line is GONE.
The Amiga on my table-top at home is much more powerful than a three-year-
old Sun 3, which was a top-of-the-line workstation.  Some have UNIX on
286s, others have "Domain", the Apollo WORKSTATION operating system, without
UNIX.  Why is an AmigaDOS A3000, being used in a business, to do publishing,
not a workstation, while a UNIX A3000, writing a few term papers, and
playing "nethack", is?

By some peoples' measure, a NeXT is a nice, entry-level workstation, like
the lower-end SUNs.  By others', it is a high-end PC.  Depends on who's
using it, for what, and who's measuring, and how.  The Amiga family of
computers is used by more people, to get more work, and more play, done
than NeXTs, by sheer numbers, if nothing else.  So, it is both a PC and
a workstation, as is a NeXT, and a Mac, and a PS/2 (probably a few "real"
workstations, too).

There must be a few niceties to using a NeXT, since not ALL 30,000 (or
whatever) owners are likely to be fools.  It doesn't do anything for me,
but so what?  There are also niceties using an Amiga.  Neither is better,
except when it comes to satisfying each owner/user.  If a person doesn't
have a choice, for some reason, then "better" is NEVER a question, and,
if a buyer doesn't take the time to do a bit of research to identify the
"best" choice, FOR THEMSELF, then they deserve any and all ensuing
aggravation.

I could nit-pick ANY computer, and, from some point of view, "prove" it
to be "inferior".  For that matter, all of them were compromised at some
point in the design process, by cost, time-to-market, etc.  Easy to
pick on the compromises.   A quiet discussion of the compromises, how
they affect performance within the selected model and market segment,
and how the chosen features help, and hinder, the user will be useful
to all of us, next time we buy.  Stupid ranting is for children.

Dan Taylor