Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!VAX3.ITI.ORG!sjc
From: sjc@VAX3.ITI.ORG ("Steven J. Clark")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.xerox
Subject: Re:  The demise of Envos
Message-ID: <8904271451.AA04682@vax3.iti.org>
Date: 27 Apr 89 14:51:30 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 53

> 
> Why isn't this newsgroup just bursting with gossip about the 
> demise of Envos, and the future of us poor folks in the user 
> community?

In my case it's because I've heard just a few clues, enough that
I realize I ought to keep my mouth shut.  I can just imagine that
nearly everyone has heard the same thing, so we're all being careful
not to tell each other what we all know.
> 
> The latest dirt I heard is that Xerox is committed to seeing
> the Medley product line continue, but not as committed to being

That is clear because they didn't simply let Envos go down the drain.
I had thought they established Envos to let it "sink or swim", but
they aren't letting it sink.  (They are continuing SW support, e.g.)

> starting customer base. With Loops a dead-end and Rooms a 

Loops is the only environment for lisp-based object oriented programming;
the rest are all just languages.  Loops is the Interlisp of object-
oriented programming languages.  It is not a dead end; in another 5
years or so maybe someone will put together an environment for OOP in
Common Lisp or Flavors that approaches Loops, but I doubt it.  In the
meantime, I'll stick with Loops.

> product which will be slow to catch on (why do I need it?),

I find Rooms to be pretty handy, but not worth a lot of money.  On
the other hand, it is very easy to use it to jazz up a demo -- for
small effort on my part, it greatly increases the snazziness of my
demo.  I can do development all the time, and when someone walks in
for a demo, just go to the "demo room"  --  or rather, to one of the
"demo rooms".

> were the expectations about other revenue sources: Medley-S taking
> off (when it sinks a 3-260?)?  Ironically, now that it could

Sure it sinks a 3, any 3.  But it does great on even a 4/110.  I run
it on a Sun 4/110 with 8 Mb, diskless, and it runs about twice the
speed of an 1186.  My fileserver is a dog, and yet I'm still very
comfortable - very little swapping.

> run comfortably on a $10K SparcStation1 that seems like a more
> plausible assumption. (By the way, did they ever finish the port
> to OS4.x?)

Yes, I'm using it right now (running Chat to a shell to read/write
mail).
> 
>     James Buchanan				james@sparrms.UUCP

-Steve Clark      sjc@iti.org