Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!portia!Belarius From: alderson@Belarius (Rich Alderson) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Next computer Message-ID: <8938@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 7 Feb 90 21:52:59 GMT References: <8914@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: alderson@jessica.stanford.edu (Rich Alderson) Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources Lines: 25 In-reply-to: underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) In article <8914@portia.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@portia (Dwight Joe) writes: >In article <8913@portia.Stanford.EDU> alderson@jessica.stanford.edu > (Rich Alderson) writes: >|In article <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@portia (Dwight Joe) writes: >||The one thing that Jobs didn't count on back in mid 1980 was the rise of the >||RISC machines. >|Can you support the claim that Jobs was thinking about the NeXT box in 1980? >You might be right on the time period. I thought that he had left in the mid >80s. Misunderstanding: "Mid 1980" is not equivalent to "the mid 80s." The falling out between Jobs and Sculley came about 1985 or so. The NeXT box was finally announced late in 1987, more than a year later than Jobs' (typically) overly optimistic expectations. I read your original article as claiming that Jobs was involved with the NeXT a year before the IBM PC was announced. Anyway, I like the idea of the NeXT box: All that great software bundled in with great hardware. My problems with it are due to the lossy nature of the optical disk and the hard disk problems that have cropped up. Rich Alderson alderson@jessica.stanford.edu