This is The-NeXT-and-the-Mac in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 19-Dec-1989 06:10:22 From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac My comment on all of this is: . a NeXT is a Unix workstation with an user-level interface of the Xerox type . a Mac is a PC with a user-level interface of the Xerox type. There is such little overlap between the two a comparison is difficult. This is true even in price. You get a bottom of the line Mac for much cheaper than a bottom of the line NeXT. On the other hand, a NeXT is significantly cheaper than a comparably-equipped Mac. I've been a systems programmer for both the Mac and the NeXT. I hope never to be a Mac systems programmer again. The Mac has got to be one of the most programmer-hostile machines I have ever had to work with. By comparison, the IBM PC is a joy ride. The NeXT has a wonderful tool -- Interface Builder -- that makes the development of applications quite pleasant. Unfortunately, the programming interface under it -- Application Kit -- is often "backwards". Often you can't do what you want directly. Perhaps the nastiest thing are the two parallel sets of objects under Cell and Control that really should have been a single set. However all this is still leaps and bounds better than what exists on the Mac. The NeXT has real memory management and real multi-processing. You cannot call MultiFinder "multi-processing." I can get a lot more done a lot faster on the NeXT. The Mac has a more intuitive graphical interface. I rarely use the icon based interface on the NeXT, preferring instead the Unix shell (and as an old TOPS-20 hacker I'm a shell *hater*). The Mac has a more convenient form of diskettes. Some of the things I dislike about the NeXT are the things that make it Macish. I hate double-clicking, for example; I wish I could use both mouse buttons. I think there's been a bit too much "cutesy" in both interfaces. But that's just opinion. Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU -- MRC@PANDA.PANDA.COM -- (206) 842-2385 Atheist & Proud -- R90/6 pilot -- Lum-chan ga suki ja!!! tabesaserarenakerebanaranakattarashii...kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru
Date: Sun 19-Dec-1989 19:49:16 From: cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac In article <5094@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >My comment on all of this is: >. a NeXT is a Unix workstation with an user-level interface of the Xerox type >. a Mac is a PC with a user-level interface of the Xerox type. > I am confused now. If I am not wrong, the NeXt is a personal computer according to the article first appeared in Dec 1988 issue of Byte. And then some ads says "the most powerful personal computer ever build". Now people say the NeXT IS a workstation and compare "workstation" to a PC here... I don't get, I am lost. So please, people on the net, tell me what a NeXT really is. Is it a Worstation? or it is a personal computer? (yes, I know the mach support multiuser, and allow other people to login to the same machine...So I am really confused now.)
Date: Sun 20-Dec-1989 16:00:25 From: jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac What's the difference between a workstation and a PC? I think the line is fuzzy. Five years ago you could point to Suns and say "Work station" and point to 8088/80286 PCs or Mac Plusses and say "PC." I don't think you can quite do that anymore. Some "Workstations" are becoming cheap enough that they can be thought of as high-end PCs. Some PCs and Macs are becoming powerful enough to be called workstations (MAC II CX, 25 and 32 MHz 386 and 486 machines). What's the NeXT? Both. Either.
Date: Sun 21-Dec-1989 16:05:35 From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac <1989Dec19.194916.1008@eng.umd.edu> <500@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> In article <500@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: What's the difference between a workstation and a PC? It has nothing to do with processing power, but everything to do with design philosophy. A workstation is most fulfilled as part of a network of its kin, a PC is perfectly happy sitting in a cave somewhere contemplating its own navel. What's the NeXT? Both. Either. Schizophrenic, ambiguous, and undecided.
Date: Sun 22-Dec-1989 07:15:06 From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac in article <5094@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:48060 comp.sys.next:4581 > The NeXT has real memory management and real multi-processing. You > cannot call MultiFinder "multi-processing." Actually, you can't call the NeXT "multi-processing" yet either, though of course Mach supports multi-processing. But, unless you count running the 68030 at the same time as the 56000, you're single processing on any NeXT that NeXT is currently talking about. However, you are really multitasking. With friendly applications on the Mac, you're really multitasking too. The big difference with a system like the NeXT, designed for multitasking (like all UNIXs), is that you never waste CPU time sitting in a task that's waiting for some external event, while you certainly can under Multifinder. And of course, you've got real IPC on the NeXT. > Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098
Date: Sun 22-Dec-1989 22:02:34 From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac In article <9138@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Actually, you can't call the NeXT "multi-processing" yet either, though of >course Mach supports multi-processing. But, unless you count running the >68030 at the same time as the 56000, you're single processing on any NeXT >that NeXT is currently talking about. > >However, you are really multitasking. With friendly applications on the >Mac, you're really multitasking too. The big difference with a system >like the NeXT, designed for multitasking (like all UNIXs), is that you never >waste CPU time sitting in a task that's waiting for some external event, >while you certainly can under Multifinder. And of course, you've got >real IPC on the NeXT. Foo. By your definition mainframe timesharing systems are "multitasking" and not "multiprocessing". In the past 20 years that I've been involved with computing, "multitasking" has referred to facilities where you could dynamically load programs as more or less cooperating co-routines into a single-processing computer. Generally, there is only a single address space; programs are relocatable (via a base register) and must be careful not to step out of its memory bounds. In the case of multi-processing, each program runs in its own virtual machine. Memory relocation and protection is generally done in hardware. Process control is handled via scheduling based on time quanta instead of voluntary relenquishment via a co-routine call. Internally, most operating system kernels are multi-tasking (e.g. between scheduling, interrupt servers, etc.), but present a multi-processing environment to the user-level programmer. And anyway, what's all this Amiga junk doing on comp.sys.next anyway? The Amiga has even less to do with this newsgroup than the Mac does. At least the Mac and the NeXT have some overlap in their customer base. Why not go back and hash it out against the Atari ST? Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098 mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU -- MRC@PANDA.PANDA.COM -- (206) 842-2385 Atheist & Proud -- R90/6 pilot -- Lum-chan ga suki ja!!! tabesaserarenakerebanaranakattarashii...kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru
Date: Sun 07-Jan-1990 07:52:19 From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac in article <5142@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:48428 comp.sys.next:4648 > And anyway, what's all this Amiga junk doing on comp.sys.next anyway? > The Amiga has even less to do with this newsgroup than the Mac does. You're confused. Architecturally, the Amiga and the NeXT have much more in common. For example, dedicated DMA channels (the NeXT "mainframe on a chip stuff"), hardware coprocessors (the Amiga's blitter/copper, the NeXT's 56001). The Macs are still using the fool CPU to grab data, a byte at a time yet, from the the hard disk! But I'll leave the bashing up to others. I'm typing this on an Amiga. Tell me why it isn't comparable to the NeXT to some extent. I have a 25MHz 68030 driving this machine, so does the NeXT. I have a 1024x1024x2 monochrome display; NeXT's have 1280x1024x2. I also get 1 MB/sec performance off the hard disk, though the filing system. I can call up a command-line shell any time I don't want to go through the multitasking WIMP interface. The NeXT is certainly doing it's stuff with newer technology, but it's not all _that_ different. > Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.