Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:44392 comp.sys.next:4385 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!giza.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely From: jgreely@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.next Subject: Re: What do I want to see in the Apple of the 90's? Message-ID: Date: 16 Dec 89 03:32:36 GMT References: <9986@zodiac.ADS.COM> <192@atncpc.UUCP> <1630@intercon.com> <7614@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <1636@intercon.com> <7619@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: J Greely Followup-To: comp.sys.next Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 110 In-reply-to: fellman@celece.ucsd.edu's message of 16 Dec 89 00:59:22 GMT In article <7619@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman) writes: >As was already pointed out, it is a simple matter to replace the .nib >files for any particular language or environment you choose. I thought that was "only so long as you don't increase its size" (for the common case of compiled-in nibs). Haven't checked recently, so I'll have to browse around and see what turns up. >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. I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone seriously suggested that one copy of anything would contain the "extra baggage" of multi-lingual dialog boxes. The point is that the internationali- zation support on the Mac makes it easier for vendors to produce those separate versions of programs faster, more easily, and more reliably. >I have found that very few applications can really make good enough use >of color to justify its high cost. In general, I agree. For *my* purposes, 8-bit grayscale is preferable to color. I don't treat it as an important issue because it's not, to *me*. I won't presume to tell someone else that it's not important at all. >How many different types of drawing programs or word precessors do you >need? One of each, that *works*. :-) Having half-a-dozen makes it possible for competition to produce better ones, as well as letting me pick the one that most fits my style (currently, my document-production style is Emacs+LaTeX, and my drawing program is Yap; go figure). While we're discussing "practical" applications, how many vertical-market accounting systems are there for the NeXT (and, to be nasty, I'll specify that it must be able to handle 30-character account numbers, and break on no less than 9 subsets of that number)? I don't need it now, but I know quite a few people who do, and they won't be buying NeXTs. >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. It's vaporware until I *see* it. And where do I go to see it? Why, Businessland, of course, which is about a hundred miles from here. Assuming they carry it. Assuming they understand it. Assuming they don't drive me out of the store by knowing substantially less than I do about the machines they sell. Assuming they sell machines (I haven't seen any sales figures, but my impression is that there's not a lot going out the door). >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. Quick! How do I make "any application" call Emacs instead of Edit? If you can't answer, your point is null. If I can't figure it out by poking through Librarian, it's useless to me, and there are a *lot* of things which can't currently be found that way. Full-text indexing is interesting, but there's a lot to be said for a decent "normal" index. >Also, Interface Builder makes consistancy built-in with predefined >print menus, edit menus, etc. that already are wired up and work. (excuse me while I chuckle heartily. Nothing against IB, but it ain't the last word in user interface toolkits. I had a grad student sum it up nicely: "it's an evolutionary step up from X or Prototyper, but not revolutionary") >>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. And the NeXT does? Despite a great deal of improvement since 0.8, the NeXT is still not quite at home in a Unix network. Proprietary system administration, subtle (and blatant) differences from "standard" Unix (arbitrarily defined as SunOS 3.5, just because that's what I compare it with most), and, neither last nor least, Yet Another Windowing Paradigm. Mac, X10, X11, SunView, MGR, NeWS, Motif, Open Look, weenie-widgets (ok, HPWM for X11), and ... NextStep. *Just* what we need. Yet Another Way to handle scrollbars, Yet Another Way to implement click-to-type, Yet Another Way to handle a mouse. Yet Another Way to Confuse Users (not that this is NeXT's fault, necessarily; the legal silliness currently stifling the industry is mostly to blame). >With a little knowledge of NeXT's 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. My usual response is, "the only thing that could put NeXT out of business right now is the fall of Western Civilization (such as it is)". "Can I open my eyes yet?" "That depends. Are you waiting for us to be anywhere near ground?" "Right." "Keep your eyes shut." "Right." -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)