Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:4340 comp.sys.mac:44221 comp.lang.smalltalk:1557
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!ames!ll-xn!rkc
From: rkc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (rkc)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: A philosophic question
Message-ID: <1634@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Date: 14 Dec 89 15:58:27 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Lines: 28


I was reading ab book on Smalltalk today (Smalltalk-80, Bits of History, Words
of Advice by Glenn Krasner) and I was struck by the similarity of what I read
about the NeXT system's interface.  I've read elsewhere (Sorry, no reference)
that the major innovation in the Mac system was the ability to easily generate
and distribute new applications as separate entities from the system, and
having a relatively cheap laser printer didn't hurt either.  The cost was the
loss of the object oriented system that allowed the user to modify nearly all
aspects of his system.  (Side Note: it seems to me Apple has been trying to
regain this loss ever since--thus the proliferation of things like init's and
cdev's.)
  In many ways the NeXT was a return to several of the things that Apple's Mac
gave up--the object oriented system, etc., with a few updates to support
things that the original Mac had but lost (ie., the ability to carry your
system around on a single disk).  Thus it seems to me that the major
advances for the NeXT are in the MACH operating system with it's potential for
parallel computing.  
  I'm continuously amazed by what the folks at Xerox did, but I can't
understand why they didn't build amazing computers and make a bundle while
everyone else was floundering with DOS.
  Any comments on 
	1: Why Xerox didn't make a killing.
	2: What the Major improvements added by the NeXT folks are.
	3: Other Major improvements added by Apple in developing the Mac (or LISA).
  would be appreciated.

  That'll teach you to read phillosophy questions.
	-Rob