Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!rtmvax!wbeebe
From: wbeebe@rtmvax.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Next computer
Message-ID: <3084@rtmvax.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 01:47:13 GMT
References: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: wbeebe@rtmvax.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Organization: RTmVax Public Unix System, Orlando FL
Lines: 52

In article <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU> underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>My suspicions are confirmed.  The NEXT computer is in trouble.

Yea, yea, sure, sure. I've read the same articles in the various trade rags
including, of all things, the Wall Street Journal. I don't care particularly
for Steve Jobs (who I consider to be a high-tech snake-oil salesman). But
the thing that bothers me is the very short-sighted attitude that we now
*all* seem to have; if it isn't an instant financial success, then there
must be something wrong with it. We've grown addicted to hyper growth and
excessive greed. NeXT's problems are a symptom of an even greater problem
with the great Shakers and Movers of American Technological Industry.

>NEXT can only be saved if Steve Jobs replaces the 680X0
>with RISC processor like the Sparc chip.  In all compute
>intensive applications, the Sparcstation I beats the NEXT
>timewise.  Worse, NEXT costs MORE than a Sparstation I.

Replacing the 68030 with a Sparc chipset is *your* personal view. Mine
tends towards the 88000 (because of the Moto roots), the i860 (I like a long
shot), and even the Transputer (an even longer shoot). Replacing the 68030
with the 68040 and making the necessary changes in the motherboard to
support its architecture makes a lot more sense anyway. Besides, haven't
you seen Moto's 40 ads? The 68040 runs 20 mips at 25 Mhz! The Sparc only
pulls a measly 18. Ain't science wunnerful? :-).

>Too, the extra gadetry (like the DSP chip) on the NEXT is
>unlikely to be used by engineers doing compute-intensive 
>applications.  The DSP might help out in making
>a realistic video game; otherwise, its deadweight.
>What difference does it make if you can play Beethoven's
>fifth on the NEXT?  

This engineer likes the classics, and being able to play them on a computer
is very appealing. What's even more appealing is doing sophisticated
composition, human voice tract modeling for speech synthesis, and who knows
what else? The DSP doesn't get in the way of "compute-intensive" work; it
stays put until called into service. I don't know what set you off on a
tangent with regards to the NeXT, but it sure beats the hell out of
contemporary offerings from Apple, IBM, and yes, dare I say it? Even
glamorous Sun, which in spite of it's best efforts at licensing to cloners
and other chip makers has failed to sweep the other inferior chip designs
into the ashbin of history.

The much-maligned IBM PC, with all its warts, has one overwhelming redeeming
quality; it's damn cheap. And the aps the run under the Son of CP/M,
otherwise slurred as Mess-Dos, have a very high quality user interface and
equally high utility. I know I aught to stop because I'm sounding like a
jerk, but hey, you can't do it any better than here on the net! Give me a
Sparc-based machine that sells for $1899 complete (read that with sufficient
memory AND disk space to do useful work) with tools of equal quality, depth
and breath that I have grown to expect on PCs, and I'll close my little
mouth..