Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!polya!shap From: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXt Performance/Price Message-ID: <8396@polya.Stanford.EDU> Date: 12 Apr 89 20:04:05 GMT References: <2648@tank.uchicago.edu> <56267@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <16912@cup.portal.com> <16964@cup.portal.com> <3081@haven.umd.edu> <17032@cup.portal.com> Sender: Jonathan S. Shapiro Reply-To: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) Distribution: usa Organization: Stanford University Lines: 30 In article <17032@cup.portal.com> BruceH@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Henderson) writes: > >Let's get one thing straight. The concept behind a macintosh and >your common workstation are completely diffrent. The bottom line is >ease of use. Hee is the heart of the disagreement. Ease of use has nothing whatsoever to do with what constitutes a workstation. If you insist on redefiing terms, you can support any argument you wish. The NeXT machine is a workstation. The Mac is a PC in its most common usage, the difference being the absence of protected multitasking. Under A/UX one might argue that it is a workstation too. Now, it is true that most workstations are currently hard to use, and it is likely true that this is because workstations have to date been designed by programmers for programmers. This doesn't imply that workstation by definition implies difficulty of use. >It was made so that ordinary people would have access to the >tremendous power of unix in a way that wouldn't require 4 years and >an MS in CS to master. I think I will grant that the MacOS interface is easier to learn thatn the UNIX interface, or the DOS interface, or the VMS interface. I have never seen any *data* indicating that there is a difference in learning complexity between UNIX/DOS/VMS. Indeed, the few studies I have seen indicate that the learning complexity is about the same, religious arguments notwithstanding. Jon