Xref: utzoo comp.object:652 comp.sys.misc:2601 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.sys.misc Subject: Re: WOULD *YOU* BUY A NeXT COMPUTER? (Read even if you wouldn't) Message-ID: Date: 1 Jan 90 03:32:26 GMT References: <317@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1TqpCt#6PkSJw=eric@snark.uu.net> <11199@muvms3.bitnet> <3262@cpoint.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Followup-To: comp.sys.misc Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 20 In article <3262@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > The biggest thing that Apple did to make the Mac marketable was to get rid of > the multi-tasking operating system. That had nothing to do with it, dude. It was cramming it into such a cheap box. Now that involved subsuming *everything* to the window system, but there's nothing inherent in multitasking operating systems that would have cost more than a couple of K to keep such a thing in. Penny wise and pound foolish... And a little less than two years later a machine not a hell of a lot more powerful than the Mac Plus came out with one built in. And back to someone else's comment, this has nothing to do with comp.object. Let me redirect it to, oh, comp.sys.misc? > If only IBM had come out with the new RT sooner ... perhaps they would have > had a chance ... Or if they'd used C++ and NeWS instead of O-C and Display Postscript. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com