Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!aero!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!steve From: steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Not MY NeXT Computer Message-ID: <5036@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Date: 27 Oct 88 00:33:30 GMT References: <5@sierra.stanford.edu> Reply-To: steve@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) Distribution: comp.sys.next Organization: Lab Rat Rumpus Room -- Cal Poly SLO Lines: 134 In article <5@sierra.stanford.edu> siegman@sierra.UUCP (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >This group might be interested in some contrarian views on the NeXT >computer, from someone who turned down an invitation to the Davies >Hall extravaganza -- I had a class to teach. (Much the same message was posted earlier on info-mac.) Yes. I'd like to hear why people think NeXT won't be such a hit (I'm still waiting to use one before I pass judgement). [ Stuff about how much he has spent on computers for his office and what kind are available for his students deleted. ] >I like the capabilities we now have, very much. We're supposed to start >all over? Not just invest a lot of additional dollars we don't have, but >learn a whole new bunch of stuff? Recable modems and printers, >rewrite logon scripts, reformat databases, learn new programs? >Sorry, we've got too much work to do, using what we already have. >(And, I've wasted too much time in past years playing with building up >what I have.) I don't think that anyone (at least not anyone outside of NeXT who has a rational mind) is suggesting that you throw everything you have out and jump completely onto the NeXT boat. >2) More important: I've seen the MIT Project Athena style of using of >computers for education: centrally developed and controlled >educational softwave, runnable only on high-performance >workstations, which are available only in clusters that students have to >go to; and I've seen the more open Stanford approach: near-universal >availability of PCs at low cost through the Bookstore's Microdisc >program, multiple ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' program >development efforts at many places on campus, upward evolution of a >Macintosh standard through consumer choice, low-cost software >distribution through Kinko's and and bboards and user >groups, networked Macs in every other dorm room on campus, floppies >handed out in class. I like the Stanford approach a LOT better. > >I'm not interested in workstation clusters that students have to trudge >off to. I want soon ( in fact, we almost have it now) EVERY engineering >student -- in fact, every student --to have an entry-level machine of >the same brand as the faculty use, on their own desk, or at least on their >roommate's desk. Dartmouth admitted 1100 freshman this fall. During >orientation week these students took delivery of over 960 personal >Macintoshes (divided 50/50 between Plusses and SEs) which they had >preordered (at their own expense) through the university before >coming to campus. (And as someone said, the other 140 probably >already owned their own Macs.) That's the way to go! I agree that everyone having their own computer is a good idea, but you have to face the reality that not everyone in the world who graduates high school has $1500 to spend on a computer that they don't know how to use yet. At places like Stanford and Dartmouth, if a student can afford to attend the school they can PROBABLY (no sweeping generalizations here, but probably more than 90% can) afford their own computer (or their parents will buy it for them, or whatever). At public schools, there are people who work 40 hours a week (or more) just to be able to stay in school and have a place to live. These people probably don't have enough money to buy any computer (NeXT, Mac, Apple ][, Commodore VIC-20, or anything). Therefore, I don't see people being REQUIRED to own a computer happening anytime in the near future. However, I do believe a University should pick one system and go with it as a standard for their classes. This should be reevaluated as time goes by, however, and as new technology comes along, consideration should be given to changing from one technology to another. >An entry-level price of around $1000, today's dollars, is about the >break point for making it possible to have a personal computer on >every student's desk. What does a $6500 NeXT machine (AT the >educational discount) have to do with that? (Don't tell me about what >something with capabilities of the current NeXT machine will cost 10 >years from now; I'm interested in the next decade, not the next >century.) As long as Apple has the brains to keep an affordable >student-grade Mac in their product line -- and I do worry a little about >that -- we should focus our efforts on learning how to do the best >educational things we can do with the excellent capabilities and machines >we have now (and there's a lot to be done). I forsee NeXT machines being used in CS departments (and in almost any Engineering department) when they first come out. Some Computer Centers may devote enough resources to set up a NeXT lab, but I suspect that initially most of the systems bought will go into research labs and faculty offices, where (theoretically) more software will be developed and more devotees will appear. Once people have an idea of HOW to make use of them, more people will start buying them. That will (again, theoretically) lead to higher sales volume (and hopefully lower prices). However, what would have happened if we had all stuck with IBM 360's or PC's (or whatever), where would we be now???? Someone has to start using new technology for it to catch on (and become profitable for the makers). Someone has to take the first step. And Universities will be the ones to do that (we'll have to be since we're the ones that Jobs is targeting the systems at). I don't think everyone will have a NeXT at home, one in their office, etc. How many people who have Sun workstations have them at work and home??? They are still very popular. >But given the real limits on university resources -- and I'm absolutely >amazed at the casual views expressed on this net as to how much money >we big university types supposedly have to spend on the latest >computers; sure doesn't look that way from inside -- I very much hope >that when it comes to academic funds for EDUCATIONAL uses of >computers, Stanford will put most of its currently available funds into >doing bigger and better and especially much more widespread things >with the good Macintosh environment we already have (such as more >widespread support for program development, and getting Macintosh >display units into many more of our classrooms), and not into >acquiring a bunch of new, and different, supertoys just because >they're the latest headline. I agree that you can't be buying everything that is new and fun, just because it's the latest toy. But (as I said before), someone has to take the first step (a leap of faith, if you will) and commit to using a machine for something if they are to ever to become wide-spread. I think Universities should commit some portion of their funds to "New Technology". Not necessarily something that everyone is going to use for labs, but on machines that, while they may not be the most widely used machines in the world currently, have the potential to be big players in the future. This will allow development and experimentation. >What we've done educationally with the Mac so far doesn't nearly match >what we could and should do with the superb environment that we've >already invested so much in. Perhaps Steve or some other tooth fairy >is going to offer me 65 K$ to buy 10 NeXT machines for my teaching >needs. I think my response would be, "Thanks very much. I'll take the >cash, spend part of it on upgrading our Mac environment, and the rest >on meeting a lot of other unmet needs around here." Since I think this >is what other schools should do also, and since I don't see where any big >new funding sources are going to come from anyway, I don't see how >Jobs/Perot are going to increase their wealth very much on this NeXT venture. And people said that Apple would never make it either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | Computer Systems Lab | Dumb Mailers -> ..!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!steve | | Cal Poly State Univ. |------------------------------------------------| | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | This space intentionally left almost-blank. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------