Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cfa!ward
From: ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The NeXT Problem
Summary: NeXT comments
Message-ID: <1249@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>
Date: 16 Oct 88 17:19:44 GMT
References: <26435@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Lines: 65

In article <26435@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, pchris@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Chris Perleberg) writes:
> 
> It seems that the NeXT machine may have a few problems:
> 
> 1) Outdated Processor Technology: NeXT just missed the wave of fast RISC 
>    processors.  The 5 MIPS 68030 is completely out performed by the currently
>    available RISC chips (Motorola, MIPS, Sparc) that run at approximately
>    20 VAX (they claim) MIPS.  In a year or two, ECL versions of some of these
>    RISC chips will be running at 40 to 50 MIPS.
> 
  Well, the processor technology is hardly outdated.  Being either CISC
or RISC is hardly enough, in and of itself, to obsolete an MPU.  Cost,
performance, availability, and software product base are a few major
considerations, for example.  I suspect these latter points heavily
influenced the MPU choice.  5 MIPS isn't the fastest, but who says it
has to be the fastest to be excellent?  There are a lot of pieces to
a system beyond the MPU itself.

> 2) Non-Standard NuBus Implementation: A small company like NeXT can't hope to
>    create a competitive 3rd party board market for a non-standard bus.
> 
  I am unsure of the situation here, but I have heard that the "MAC"
NuBus is nonstandard and the NeXT implementation conforms fully to the
NuBus standard.  This is an area that needs some clarification.  Any
NuBus experts care to clarify this topic?
 

> 3) Non-Standard Software: What software company would develop software for
>    the special features of just one computer (NeXT Step)?  How many copies of 
>    this software can they possibly sell?
> 
  I suspect that Mach is no more or no less a portable Unix environment
than BSD Unix flavors and ATT&T Unix flavors (or Sun or DEC, etc).
I suppose the big issue here is yet-another-windows/graphics/user
interface.  I guess things like Phigs and GKS will help here, as
would X.  If NeXT doesn't bring these items out, then third parties
probably will.  On balance, NeXT does not look any less "standard"
or portable than other workstation -- NeXT does incorporate Display
Postscript, a published specification, I believe.


> 4) Slow Optical Drive: In the past, optical drives have been significantly
>    slower (seek times) than magnetic drives.  What is the advantage of the
>    optical drive?  Cost must be less than that of the larger 330Mbyte $2K
>    magnetic drive.  But NeXT will be hurt once benchmarks come out for its
>    i/o performance (using the optical drive).

  For diskless nodes using only tthe optical drive will probably be
okay.  This drive is much faster write-wise (according to propaganda - I
personally do not yet know) than WORM drives.  Standalone systems will
(my guess) require a winchester disk drive for performance requirements
of most users.

[comments on what NeXT should do to fix its problems deleted]

I agree that standardization of hardware and software is an important
issue.  I hope that their NuBus implementation is a standard-conforming
one.  Also, a high performance RISC machine would be good, but I am
sure this will follow if NeXT does well.  Frankly, right now, I think
product quality, reliability, deliverability, price, and product
support will the major factors affecting NeXT success, as their machine
seems to functionally and technically good enough to penetrate their
target market.  We'll know soon enough.

Steven M. Ward  ward@cfa.harvard.edu