Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!yale!wald-david From: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXT not revolutionary enough? Message-ID: <41969@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Date: 2 Nov 88 05:22:09 GMT References: <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> <13148@oberon.USC.EDU> <484@wucs1.wustl.edu> Sender: root@yale.UUCP Reply-To: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald) Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Lines: 33 In article <484@wucs1.wustl.edu> conrad@wucs1.UUCP (H. Conrad Cunningham) writes: >In article <13148@oberon.USC.EDU> tli@sargas.usc.edu (Tony Li) writes: >>In article <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> conrad@wucs1.wustl.edu (C.Cunningham) writes: >>> He maintained that the NeXT computer will be a failure because >>> it not revolutionary enough. Its only advantage is a short-term >>> hardware capability/pricing advantage over the other available >>> UNIX-based workstations. >> >>I recall that Sun Microsystems failed for exactly these same reasons. > >There are perhaps two different dimensions of success that I was >talking about: (1) commercial success and (2) having a revolutionary >impact on computing... ... >But Sun's revolution began several years ago. Another company >taking the same approach today probably wouldn't be revolutionary even >if they have some measure of commercial success. > >Is NeXT revolutionary? Will NeXT change the computing in some >significant way? But the original statement was that the NeXT machine "will be a failure because it is not revolutionary enough." What does it mean for the computer to fail? Does it mean that the computer will not be a commercial success (which was my original interpretation), or that it will not "change computing in some significant way?" Revolutionary enough for what? ============================================================================ David Wald wald-david@yale.UUCP waldave@yalevm.bitnet ============================================================================