Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!scooter!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXt Performance/Price
Summary: Intuitive, really?
Message-ID: <1577@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: 13 Apr 89 16:01:03 GMT
References: <2648@tank.uchicago.edu> <56267@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <17032@cup.portal.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 30


> Macintosh is intuitive.

Whether or not the Macintosh or the Next can be categorized as
workstations is an moot point to argue, as the terminology is
indistinctly defined.  Both can be configured as [single user]
stations where work is done.

Arguing the availability of software of various machines versus the
Next is not relevent.  What is relevent is that much more sofware
than common is included in the base price package for the Next.  If
everything that is there now remains in the 1.0 O/S release and is
appropriately debugged, the machine will be a very good value for
the price, regardless of CPU MIPS ratings.

That the Macintosh computer is particularly intuitive is also an
arguable point.  I don't find it particularly intuitive that one
can not simply type out files to the screen, but must have the
application that created the file available for launching.  This is
particularly annoying on a floppy based Macintosh.  Formatting a
disk is also not particularly intuitive either.  What *is*
intuitive is learning new software applications once one has
mastered the first, since similar user interfaces are applied to
all applications.  The latter, of course, is what makes computers
similar to the Macintosh nice for neophytes.  There is still an
intial inconvenience, but skills learned are additive unlike the
MSDOS environment, for example, where sofware mastery of various
packages is largely disjoint.

Bill