Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:44371 comp.sys.next:4375 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!sdcsvax!celece!fellman From: fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.next Subject: Re: What do I want to see in the Apple of the 90's? Message-ID: <7619@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> Date: 16 Dec 89 00:59:22 GMT References: <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> <192@atncpc.UUCP> <1630@intercon.com> <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <1636@intercon.com> Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu Reply-To: rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) Organization: UCSD Dept. of ECE Lines: 105 In article <1636@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >Well, I don't know about you, but the population of the planet I live on is >not completely made up of English speakers. Would like to have to learn >Japanese in order to use your computer? Can I (or anyone) buy a NeXT with >all of its system software in French? German? Chinese? > As was already pointed out, it is a simple matter to replace the .nib files for any particular language or environment you choose. Why should anyones' own machine have to carry around extra baggage that they won't use, whatever their origin. They will want to have a manual in their own language also I presume, thus it is desirable to have seperate versions of a program. >"By the end of the summer." "should." Macs have no problem with 32bit + >alpha color now, as we speak, and pre-existing software is already compatible >with it, to boot. > >"all other workstations." Have you ever used a Silicon Graphics? A Sun >with a Transcept board in it? This is an awfully bold claim to make for >vaporware. > I have found that very few applications can really make good enough use of color to justify its high cost. Aside from the monitor, one needs a color hardcopy capability for color to be substantially more useful than greyscale. IC layout, and certain graphics applications are about the only applications that I would be able to justify for myself. Are you saying that you really NEED color now or simply that it is a 'cute' addition that you are willing to PAY for. >> Right now (or VERY soon where indicated) I can get the following >> high quality programs that satisfy all of my current computer >> applications needs: > >And the NeXT may suit your needs pretty well; it was designed as an academic >workstation, after all. However, it doesn't even come close to what's >available for the Mac. This may change, but if so it'll take a long time. > How many different types of drawing programs or word precessors do you need? What are some applications areas that you use the Mac for that you can't do with the programs that I listed? BTY. When I said VERY soon, I meant 2 weeks in most cases to 1 month for X-Windows (Jan 15.). I'll bet that it would take about that long for the ordering process anyway. >> > - A superior and more consistent user interface (IMHO :-)) >> You've got to be kidding. The NeXT's interface makes the Macs look >> primitive. > >No, actually, I'm not kidding. The NeXT's gray scale buttons and so on are >very cute, but they've made a lot of the operations abstract to the point >of obscurity. Besides, an application bar and a directory browser are no >match for the Finder. This is not to say that the NeXT doesn't have some >nifty innovations, but as a whole it's a less cohesive interface. Also, >I get the feeling that a lot of people who are claiming that the NeXT, or >MOTIF, or whatever are more "advanced" than the Mac actually mean that they >look newer. Just because something is familar, though, doesn't mean it's >obsolete. > What does 'less cohesive' mean? I can do everything that finder can do (and much more) except park things that aren't running at an arbitrary place on the desktop. Where is a 'hide' button for the finder? Where is the multitasking or the interprocess communication. With NextStep, every program can integrate the abilities of any of the other programs via Mach IPC. Thus, I don't need an editor built into each application. The 'Editor' can be automatically integrated into any application. That is both consistant AND cohesive! Also, Interface Builder makes consistancy built-in with predefined print menus, edit menus, etc. that already are wired up and work. >> Last time I looked, my university price for a NeXT was much cheaper than >> a comparable MacIIci. And that wasn't counting all of the free software, >> DSP chip, or R/W/optical disk. > >Well, last time I tried a NeXT, its performance was closer to a II or IIx >than to a IIci. Also, are you counting university prices on both sides? > Have you tried version 1.0? Granted that the feel is a bit slower than a IIci, but then it is doing a lot of stuff in the background. I generally have five or more applications always running (a clock, a performance monitor, mail, nfs, and a calendar program). The user feel is still more than acceptable for me. Benchmarks of Spice have shown it to be within 1% of a MacIIci. >Hardware is only as useful as the software that is running on it. > True. It very much depends upon what applications you need and the environment. For a networked system in a UNIX environment, the Mac doesn't even come close. (That is what we have here.) At home I still have my MacII. They both have excellent software for what I do. (Writing articles, proposals, course administration.) Neither is very good for CAD work or simulation speed (I'm getting a DECStation3100 for that) but the NeXT, unlike the Mac, can live very comfortably with the DECstation. The only software I NOW miss on my NeXT is a good outliner program. >The NeXT has some marvelous innovations, and I hope it succeeds. It's just >not there yet, as some people have been claiming. > I obviously hope so too. Although I feel that it is here now, it will certainly take time for more general acceptance. With a little knowledge of NeXTs finances, I'm not worried about them going away for at least a few more years. I think that they therefore have enough time to become a serious contender. -ron