This is NeXT-Review;Quite-a-machine,-but-not-a-Mac in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 20-Mar-1990 08:03:26 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <404@toaster.SFSU.EDU> stan@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Stan Osborne) writes: We all know good things take time to develop, especially good software. In another 12 months many of the limitations and problems mentioned here are likely to disappear. Hopefully NeXT won't introduce to many new ones, either. BACKGROUND The event was hosted by David St. Pierre, Pacific Bell. The introduction was done by Richard L. Miller, District Sales Manager, NeXT. The demo was done by Michael A. Fried, Systems Engineer, NeXT. The demo was a much smoother, better organ- ized, and prepared version of the demo given to faculty at SFSU over 1 year ago. In addition to working as a consultant to a Pacific Bell software development group, I'm employeed part-time by the SFSU CS Department. My familiarity with NeXT equipment started over one year ago when the Computer Science Department at SFSU received its first NeXT system. The first system the CS Dept. purchased was a "developer" configuration. The software on this system has made the progression from software release .8 to .9, and from .9 to the current 1.0 release. We are quite happy with the equipment and the software and recom- mend the system to others when the circumstances warrant. The ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SFSU CS Dept now has four NeXTs, 2 in labs and 2 in faculty offices. [MUCH DELETED] So, when do the circumstances warrant buying a Next? After reading your article you have me convinced that the Mac is definitely the way to go. A 40Mhz Mac IIfx sans graphics coprocessor is looking pretty good. Where does NeXT fit in the market? Will NeXT be here in 12 months? $600 million can only go so far! NeXT knew software was going to be their big problem. Deja vu Steve? It took a year before there was a good word processor for the Mac, or for that matter much of anything besides Mac Draw and Mac Write? If DTP isn't a niche for NeXT then what is? Can you say DeLorean? -Mike >From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Date: Sun 20-Mar-1990 12:01:41 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac "Quite a machine, but not a Mac" ...and a good thing, too. In article <404@toaster.SFSU.EDU> stan@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Stan Osborne) writes: [bunches and bunches of interesting stuff. I'll try to trim it down to what's relevant] >The existence of these problems and limitations should not >overshadow the great advance in desktop computing that NeXT is >bringing to the market place. As NeXT likes to point out, they >are raising the common denominator to a new level. Minor formatting quibble: why on Earth did you indent all this, and (worse yet) right-justify it? It doesn't make it easier to follow your article. More relevantly, I'm not sure I can follow your point. NeXT hasn't raised the lowest common denominator yet, mostly because the vast majority of consumers haven't seen the machine in action, and, to be honest, a pokey 256 megabyte drive that's almost completely full doesn't exactly inspire me to purchase a base model. The seven revolutions in the ads are mostly marketing folks spinning their wheels. Where NeXT has succeeded so far is in forcing competitors to try to stomp them before they get too big (Sun's SparcStation, for example, which I'd *much* rather have a room full of). Personally, I'm damn glad to see it happening. Many of the ideas NeXT has put into their machine are excellent, and will favorably affect the computer marketplace. I'm just not sure that the machine that comes out on top will be a high-concept cube (with a PMS color logo). >SYSTEM FEATURES > o No file or compute servers I've heard this one acknowledged by folks inside the company as something that needs fixing, and I agree completely. A cube just doesn't have the power to handle extensive file service. Of course, this has to be looked at in the context of what they're trying to build. It's quite obvious from the supplied configurations and documentation that NeXT has been concentrating on small, homogenous networks. They really weren't planning on large-scale heterogenous networks, and many of the struggles people went through in 0.x drive this home. Then, of course, there's vision. When you're trying to build the machine of the future, sometimes you forget that it has to work alongside today's machines for a long time. Despite that, they did a pretty good job, and the support people have been extremely responsive when an oversight, incompatibility, or mistake turns up. When NeXT does something that the customers don't like, they fix it. 0.9 /bin/su and the 0.8 filesystem are the first two examples that come to mind, and there have been others. Some other companies aren't as responsive. > o Sound Support not provided in other NeXTStep environments I never thought of sound as a feature of the window system. Personally, I'd be more concerned with Unix incompatibilities among NeXTStep platforms than with the relatively minor issue of sound. The only sound I *need* from my computer is an error beep; the rest is icing. > o Limited Fonts in base system >Very few fonts are provided even when a Laser printer is >purchased. People who have used the Macintosh or other >Adobe PostScript printers are quite disappointed by the >lack of fonts in the base system. Yes, the decision to include only the LaserWriter font set was not the best, but it saved valuable disk space, and kept the price down a bit. And really, for general use, most people won't miss them. >It is misleading to imply that the NeXT system is better >than a Mac for desktop publishing when the base system is >typographically incomplete. "typographically incomplete" What an interesting phrase! Sounds just like a Mac to me (pre-ATM, that is). And, despite the former dearth of fonts, a NeXT *is* a better publishing machine than a Mac. It has the best TeX implementation I've seen, good previewers for DVI files and PostScript, an excellent laser printer, and a decent online dictionary (I'd kill for the OED, but we all have our little problems). The Mac has a wider software base, balanced by a horrible crufty "operating system". > o Limited Additional Fonts >Recently a few more fonts became available from Adobe, >but these must be licensed for each workstation. There >is still no way to get the choice of fonts possible for a >Mac. The Plus Pack is available now, and the whole Adobe font catalog is in the "any day now" stage, last I checked. Yes, they have to be licensed for each machine, but that's not new. My understanding is that there is a substantial savings when licensing fonts for use on up to 20 NeXTs. >Since Adobe has been involved with NeXT development from >the beginning, one wonders why it takes them so long to >provide so little support to the customers of a company >that has generated a lot of positive publicity. Is it >possible that Adobe is not taking NeXT seriously? Well, how many NeXTs have been sold? Of those, how many customers are unsatisfied with the supplied fonts? From what does Adobe get the majority of their revenue? I think the answers to these three questions might explain the time it took Adobe to get geared up to handle a third OS. > o European Language Accent Marks (comments on the missing accent support) "still a few bugs in the system" In the rush to avoid being labeled as vaporware, not everything got fixed in time for 1.0. I've never heard this denied by folks at NeXT, and 2.0 should go a long way towards smoothing the remaining rough spots. > o Big email messages are not compatible with other systems Another clash between a NeXT's natural habitat and the real world. But this isn't really their problem; the featuristic mailer just makes it easier for users to hit the ill-defined limits of foreign mailers. You might as well complain that they use uuencode, which won't go through Bitnet intact. Also, anyone who sticks to a local ethernet or the Internet likely won't notice this problem (and remember, uucp is not supported under 1.0!). > o SLIP is not easily available I can't argue with this one. There has been a working SLIP driver for quite some time, and I haven't been able to get ahold of it. Phooey. >Serial Line Internet Protocol is not provided nor is >there any information in the documentation on how one >obtains this software. People with NeXTs at home are not >able to establish a state-of-the-art network link with >computers at work without this software. People with NeXTs at home, unless they are associated with a university, are unlikely to be able to make any use of SLIP. Better yet, without a fair amount of Unix knowledge, it's not going to do them much good. Since NeXT is trying to build a computer for the naive user, I'm not surprised that it's not bundled. >SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT > o Current versions of some AT&T C code does not easily port >An attempt was made to port to the NeXT the current ver- >sions of some C programs developed and licensed by AT&T. >The NeXT C compiler and other Unix tools would not work >to build these programs. More details, please (preferably by email). I've had a lot of problems trying to work with foreign code, but nothing as bad as you make it sound. I *did* give up on ksh under release 0.9, but nothing has been so rough that it needed "extensive modification of source code". >From this it is clear that NeXT's claim of "Unix Compati- >bility" is marketing rhetoric. Naaah. Without more details on the packages you had problems with, and the problems you had, all I can say is that the software isn't as portable as you thought it was. No, NeXT Mach is not precisely 4.3 BSD Unix, but it's a lot closer than, for example, HP-UX 6.5. >NeXT APPLICATIONS > o WriteNow is a good demonstration program So's MacWrite. 'Nuff said. > o Mail Interface is a good demonstration program Actually it's not a bad mailer for a novice. It's a bit like Elm, although Elm has had more time to mature. Fortunately, NeXT doesn't lock you into it. > o No "Rollodex" application ...and the wind cried "third-party!" > o No "Hypercard" like application My heart *bleeds* for you. :-) My opinion of Hypercard was extremely high until I actually used it for a while. Great idea, lousy implementation. NeXT has built some fairly nice tools, and the market can handle the rest. >Hypercard is available for every Mac. What does NeXT >have to offer?. It is misleading to imply that the NeXT >system is better than a Mac for non-programmers when less >than the commonly understood and expected functionality >is provided. The NeXT comes with a nifty ice pick, which I find far more useful than HYPErcard. "commonly understood and expected functionality"???? Sorry, I don't buy that one. When I owned a Mac, I did interesting and useful things with Hypercard, like build an online drink-mixing guide and a character generator for role-playing games. All of this lasted until I realized that I was playing the spreadsheet game all over again (that is, using the wrong tool for the job, just because it was available). >3RD PARTY APPLICATIONS > o Frame is not suitable for building real books or docu- > ments Hmmmm. I could have sworn I'd heard otherwise from people who'd done it. Maybe someone from Frame can comment? > o Still no spread sheet applications >If my memory serves me right, it was spread sheets that >made PCs take off in the business market place. NeXT now >claims to be aggressively pursuing the business market. Nobody ever said they were *succeeding*, did they? The extremely unofficial sales figures I've heard suggest that there hasn't been much interest in business yet. Small wonder that the spreadsheet folks are dragging their feet. And of course the business people won't buy until their applications exist, and round and round... > o Many are 1st (beta test) versions >This means most of the 3rd party products are really just in their >first or second round of beta testing. Like, say, Microsoft Word 4.0 for the Mac? :-) >COSTS > o List prices of 3rd party products are high compared with > Macintosh Prices tend to get scaled based on expected sales. As long as the number of existing NeXTs remains small, don't expect this to change. "I stopped thinking of HyperTalk as a real programming language when I realized that 'get line 1 of card field short name of the target' was *concise*."
Date: Sun 20-Mar-1990 21:55:33 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <JGREELY.90Mar20070141@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >> o SLIP is not easily available > >I can't argue with this one. There has been a working SLIP driver >for quite some time, and I haven't been able to get ahold of it. >Phooey. > >People with NeXTs at home, unless they are associated with a >university, are unlikely to be able to make any use of SLIP. Better >yet, without a fair amount of Unix knowledge, it's not going to do >them much good. Since NeXT is trying to build a computer for the >naive user, I'm not surprised that it's not bundled. 1) In the San Francisco Bay Area, BARRNET is offering low-cost SLIP service--and not just to Universities. While a bit pricey for home use, quite reasonable for small business customers. Don't forget AlterNet either. Besides, no one said that you had to be Internet-connected to use SLIP. Lots of places use TCP/IP in-house. 2) As for "not quite a Mac," the A/UX 2.0 literature released on 3/19/1990 states that SLIP is included and supported. [ I'm not just looking for SLIP support; I expect NeXT to keep up with things. Right now that means SLIP with Van Jacobson's Header Compression. Soon it will mean PPP. Hopefully one day we'll all be able to get ISDN-BRI at home (56Kb all-digital). ] -=EPS=- >From: jis@lighthouse.com
Date: Sun 21-Mar-1990 00:56:23 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <Ety5g43@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >So, when do the circumstances warrant buying a Next? After reading >your article you have me convinced that the Mac is definitely the way >to go. A 40Mhz Mac IIfx sans graphics coprocessor is looking pretty (stuff here) I just saw a complete demo of the newest MAC IIfx yesterday. Mighty impressive! There's a tool available there (bundled free with A/UX) called "COMMANDO". You open a "shell" window and begin to type a standard unix "grep" command. Sometime during the string of fancy flags, you forget the flag you need. You hit Cmnd-K and a window pops up with ALL of grep's flag for you. You click the ones you need. Not only can you now save this "command macro" for use later, but you never have to pull up a man page (and wait until the bottom of the page to see the feature you need) to remember commands. You could also bag unix altogether and use the MAC interface with ANY of HUNDREDS of MAC software tools all in nicely DMA'd and virtualized A/UX with BSD extensions. OK, it's not DPS, but you can get your work done without having to wait for third party people to follow your lead into the next century (as only you view it Steve...). It was really nice! They also distrubute A/UX on CD-ROM (read-only, Steve wins there) but, get this, they forgot X11 on the distribution CD...also their CD ROM drive is NOT cheap! So Steve has some points still and he did force the lowest denom. But, uh, HEY NEXT! The market ain't standing still! Better get your act in gear with a little more compatibility and some better (read faster cheaper) technology! Thank you again for your support! --Roger Jagoda --Cornell University --FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU >From: hoodr@syscube.csus.edu (Robert Hood)
Date: Sun 22-Mar-1990 15:30:14 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac <6329@blake.acs.washington.edu> This has been an interesting discussion but I have another problem with NEXT. And that is that hardware, software, and compatability aside Steve Jobs has lost his credibility in my eyes. Apple annonced their IIfx like they do most of their machines: available immediately. It was nearly a year after the release of NEXT until you could actually by one with a finshed OS. So even if NEXT annonced a new cube today that fixed all its problems I would be unimpressed until I actually saw it in the stores because if it takes another year its innovation will be common place by the time it hits the market like the last cube. Also what was all Steve's bull about education only, It was good publicity but I don't think he was ever serious about it. I think he could be profitable or possible when he said it. Other problems aside Jobs will also have to do alot to fix his credibility before I'll consider a NEXT. ED >From: rogerj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda)
Date: Sun 23-Mar-1990 00:20:02 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <6329@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this the "Commando" that has in the >Apple MPW environment for years? MPW may look neat in a sales demo, >but let me assure you that MPW has got to be the absolute worst >programming environment it has ever been my misfortune to use. > Yup, it is the same Commando from MPW which is STILL the worst environment in which to be forced to program in. Notice I didn't mention it as a programmer's tool, but as an end-user's learning tool...which is isn't half bad. >I will agree with any comments that the ball is in NeXT's court to do >something or fall behind. Yes, I agree. I just hope that with NeXT's incredible gag order, people don't think NeXT isn't doing anything to try to make their product better. I didn't want to propose that since A/UX 2.0 came out NeXT was doomed. Far from it, Apple is legitimizing NeXT's approach by trying to copy it (friendly GUI over UNIX). I'm sure NeXT will be ahead of the II F_ingXpensive withtheir NeXT machine...I just wisj they'd talk about it some more so my managment will stop telling me to spec other machines from Sales Reps that can discuss future plans. __Roger Jagoda __Cornell University __FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU >From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Date: Sun 23-Mar-1990 08:54:20 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac [Roger: The Followup-To: header is for newsgroups, not e-mail addresses. You made things difficult... ] In article <9958@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> rogerj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda) writes: >Yes, I agree. I just hope that with NeXT's incredible gag order, people >don't think NeXT isn't doing anything to try to make their product >better. There's a wonderful response to this in the March 19, 1990 issue of _MicroTimes_ ("California's Computer Magazine") in Jim Warren's "Realizable Fantasies" column. Note: This is copyrighted material by the author. I think this small excerpt qualifies as fair use, and I'm not going to trim it down lest I be accused of quoting out of context, which is the second-worst journalistic offense (the first being spelling someone's name wrong). Besides, the last time I wanted to use something from MicroTimes I asked for permission "the right way" and they didn't even have the decency to respond. I ended up not using the material. Note that I am giving proper attribution, I'm not doing this for commercial gain, and they are getting free publicity out of it. Since usenet doesn't permit commercial activity in technical groups, I'll just refer you to their e-mail addresses, microx@well.sf.ca.us or MICROTIMES@MCIMAIL.COM if you want to get in touch with them. It's a fine publication, even if their staff have been ----heads about reproduction permissions. (They ARE reading this.) ----- begin quoted material ----- Fixing the Vaporware Problem All but the most naively new computer users know of vaporware-- exciting new ``products,'' announced but unavailable. Their promoters' cliche': ``We won't ship until the product is absolutely solid.'' _Hah!_ [he snorts]. If we can't get it, it's not a ``product.'' There _are_ examples of companies exercising the ethical fortitude of withholding product announcements until they actually have 'em. E.g., when Borland recently announced Turbo Pascal 5.5 with OOP extensions (object-oriented programming)-- _hot dang!_--they distributed a six-foot high stack of _real_- ware, on the spot. When DigiFont announced super-cheap LaserJet font packages--by golly--they shipped 'em, literally, the next day. ----- end quoted material ----- > I didn't want to propose that since A/UX 2.0 came out NeXT was >doomed. Far from it, Apple is legitimizing NeXT's approach by trying >to copy it (friendly GUI over UNIX). IMHO, they're taking very different approaches. The NeXT _User's Reference_ says on p. 1, "You can also enter UNIX(R) commands on the NeXT Computer; however, most users won't need to do this during the normal course of their work." NeXT advocates *hiding* UNIX from users; Apple's Commando is quite the opposite: it promotes UNIX literacy by constructing actual shell commands for you. Once you learn them, you don't need the "training wheels." Apple's "friendly GUI" has a name: MultiFinder. It's little different from the same old Mac interface they've been pushing for years, except it's using a UNIX file system with file protection--hopefully making it somewhat more resistant to the COMPUTER VIRUSES that give MacOS its "Typhoid Mary" reputation. So what if A/UX will run "hundreds of Macintosh applications." You can buy 386-based UNIX systems that will run thousands of MS-DOS applications. The ONLY "GUI UNIX" program you get with A/UX 2.0 (according to their literature) is a mouse-based editor. There are REAL applications for the NeXT. (I don't want to get into comparing A/UX and Mach, other than to note that they're, well, Apples and ...) > I'm sure NeXT will be ahead of >the II F_ingXpensive withtheir NeXT machine... They already are. The *only* thing Apple has to crow about is the 40 MHz clock speed. Other than that it's basically half of what the NeXT is now. Compare retail prices for realistic configurations, and NeXT wins. All NeXT needs to do now is release a low-cost upgrade to a faster 68030 (or 68040) and that's pretty much going to be the end of this discussion. The IIfx is just not a workstation-class machine. It's what the Mac II should have been to begin with. -=EPS=- >From: lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange)
Date: Sun 23-Mar-1990 11:41:36 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <419@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > >> I'm sure NeXT will be ahead of >>the II F_ingXpensive withtheir NeXT machine... > >They already are. The *only* thing Apple has to crow about is >the 40 MHz clock speed. Other than that it's basically half of >what the NeXT is now. Compare retail prices for realistic >configurations, and NeXT wins. Is this necessarily true? Retail prices don't matter. For people in academia, the University prices do, and even for people outside, the street price of Macs are usually close to the academic prices. And, looking at UCLA's prices, a basic IIfx with 4 megs goes for $5949. Sure, add in a full-page monitor, video card, and keyboard, and you're up to $7100 - exactly what UCLA's price for a NeXT is. Yes, that NeXT will have the OD, but frankly, I'd rather have the Mac's floppy. Third-party hard disks are going to run about the same for either. The DSP? Nice, but what is anybody doing with it? NeXTStep? I don't want to develop applications, so how does it help me? Sure, the NeXT comes bundled with applications, but so what? If you want to do any serious WYSIWYG word processing or graphics you're going to have to buy applications. And the Mac's are far cheaper, and so far, better - if you can even find an equivalent application for the NeXT (e.g. spreadsheets). All in all, a fully-configured NeXT will be somewhat cheaper than a Mac IIfx (especially including A/UX), but not by a whole lot. >All NeXT needs to do now is release a low-cost upgrade to a faster >68030 (or 68040) and that's pretty much going to be the end of this >discussion. The IIfx is just not a workstation-class machine. > > -=EPS=- What makes you say this? It seems that the IIfx has solved the biggest problem with previous Macs: the lack of a DMA controller. Add in its other new dedicated I/O processors, the 40 MHz '030, and A/UX 2.0, and what does it lack to be considered a "workstation-class machine"? Now, I'm not a hardware engineer, and I don't know everything about the throughput of the NeXT's total useable hardware vs the IIfx's. But, if A/UX 2.0 turns out to be everything it's cracked up to be, in just exactly what ways (besides bells and whistles) is the NeXT a better workstation? I'd really like to know, because I'm currently trying to decide between the two, and the hardware and A/UX of the IIfx has (currently) removed all of my performance qualms about going with the Mac. - Trent Lange ********************************************************************** * College Basketball Fever: Catch it! * * Yeah, I mixed my slogans. So what are you going to do about it? * ********************************************************************** >From: bates@wingra.stat.wisc.edu (Douglas Bates)
Date: Sun 27-Mar-1990 07:02:32 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <33411@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lange@lanai.UUCP (Trent Lange) writes: >In article <419@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >> >>All NeXT needs to do now is release a low-cost upgrade to a faster >>68030 (or 68040) and that's pretty much going to be the end of this >>discussion. The IIfx is just not a workstation-class machine. > >What makes you say this? It seems that the IIfx has solved the biggest >problem with previous Macs: the lack of a DMA controller. Add in >its other new dedicated I/O processors, the 40 MHz '030, and A/UX 2.0, >and what does it lack to be considered a "workstation-class machine"? > >Now, I'm not a hardware engineer, and I don't know everything about the >throughput of the NeXT's total useable hardware vs the IIfx's. But, >if A/UX 2.0 turns out to be everything it's cracked up to be, in just >exactly what ways (besides bells and whistles) is the NeXT a better >workstation? I saw the Mac IIfx running A/UX 2.0 just last week a day after its announcement and got to sit in front of one for about a half hour and played with it. When running MacX (with 1 session and the Motif Window Manager) and two Mac OS programs (Swivel 3D, and another), it was kind of sluggish. The X implementation (1.07) was slow, and I found XNeXT to be much quicker. Many times, it would take a few seconds for a menu to pop up on the root window. Of course, the NeXT does not have the color that the Mac does. I did not get to see the Mac IIfx running plain MacOS, but the A/UX 2.0 implementation seems to be much better than the old A/UX, but performance was not as quick as I thought it would be... /lih ___________________________________________________________ """""""""" / \ | @ @ | | Andrew "Fuz" Lih Columbia University Center | < > > ___/ Academic Computing for Computing Activities | \ \__/ / <___ / \____/ \ lih@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu AJLUS@CUVMB.BITNET / \ lih@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!cunixc!lih | \__________________________________________________________/ ___________________________________________________________ """""""""" / \ | @ @ | | Andrew "Fuz" Lih Columbia University Center | < > > ___/ Academic Computing for Computing Activities | >From: schock@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig Schock)
Date: Sun 28-Mar-1990 04:44:14 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac lih@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) writes: >I saw the Mac IIfx running A/UX 2.0 just last week a day after its >announcement and got to sit in front of one for about a half hour and >played with it. When running MacX (with 1 session and the Motif >Window Manager) and two Mac OS programs (Swivel 3D, and another), it >was kind of sluggish. The X implementation (1.07) was slow, and I >found XNeXT to be much quicker. Many times, it would take a few >seconds for a menu to pop up on the root window. Of course, the NeXT >does not have the color that the Mac does. >I did not get to see the Mac IIfx running plain MacOS, but the A/UX >2.0 implementation seems to be much better than the old A/UX, but >performance was not as quick as I thought it would be... MacX does not give you a true feeling of the IIfx's power. You see, MacX running under AU/X (that is, ROOTLESS mode where X is running within MultiFinder windows with Multifinder running as an AU/X 2.0 process) will always be a bit slower than the dedicated X screen mode (ROOTED). The version of MacX that you saw was VERY EARLY BETA.... The Apple guy doing our demo told us that the next Beta release is 10times faster in Rootless mode! Please do not confuse the Multifinder process and AU/X programs. The ROOTED mode, I can assure you, is certainly faster than Display Postscript on a Next... Especially with the 8.24GC board, with it's off-screen drawing capabilites and 30Mhz Heater!
Date: Sun 29-Mar-1990 17:06:00 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac Pascal Gosselin says: >Please do not confuse the MultiFinder process and A/UX programs. The ROOTED >mode, I can assure you, is certainly faster than Display Postscript on a >NeXT...30 MHz heater! FLAME ON! If it's one thing I hate, it's people who talk without knowing what they are talking about. FLAME OFF. In other words, it's a 25 MHz heater. ^^ (Sorry, Pascal, I just couldn't resist. 8 :-)). David >From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Date: Sun 29-Mar-1990 23:09:42 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac I just remembered another "feature" about the Mac, which reminds me why I intend never again to do software development on the Mac platform. Like MS-DOS, the Mac operating system splits memory into 64K segment; no object may be larger than that. So, if you need a 100,000 character string, you have to split it into chunks. Also, there's no memory mapping, so system memory management is done by shuffling. The way they do this is by a bizarre system of double- indirect pointers. Although this is OK for memory-tight systems, it's a lot of work for the programmer to keep track and for large memory systems this is slower than allocating enough memory for the application to begin with and shuffling it to a larger chunk with a single base register than making all those double-indirect references. I guess this was all for CP/M compatibility. ;-) _____ ____ ---+--- /-\ Mark Crispin Atheist & Proud _|_|_ _|_ || ___|__ / / 6158 Lariat Loop NE R90/6 pilot |_|_|_| /|\-++- |=====| / / Bainbridge Island, WA "Gaijin! Gaijin!" --|-- | |||| |_____| / \ USA 98110-2098 "Gaijin ha doko ka?" /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ +1 (206) 842-2385 "Niichan ha gaijin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \ mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU "Chigau. Gaijin ja nai. kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita Omae ha gaijin darou." sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" >From: mwilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins)
Date: Sun 30-Mar-1990 02:18:47 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <6453@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > >I just remembered another "feature" about the Mac, which reminds me >why I intend never again to do software development on the Mac >platform. Like MS-DOS, the Mac operating system splits memory into >64K segment; no object may be larger than that. So, if you need a >100,000 character string, you have to split it into chunks. > >Also, there's no memory mapping, so system memory management is done >by shuffling. [ stuff deleted ] Not to get into any sort of machine war or anything, but... Your comments on memory mapping are well taken. However, memory is NOT split into 64K segments. Only certain types of data ever had a size restriction. Furthermore, at this time there are no such size restrictions on any data type. The only restriction which still stands in practice is that relocatable code blocks must be less than 32K. However, since you can split your code into as many as you like, that's not a problem. Things have changed a lot in the Mac world over the past several years. You might consider giving it another look. In my opinion, features have been added and many things have gotten simpler at the same time. -- Mark Wilkins mwilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu >From: philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Date: Sun 30-Mar-1990 07:01:39 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <85206@tiger.oxy.edu>, hammersslammers1@oxy.edu (David J. Harr) writes: > Pascal Gosselin says: > >Please do not confuse the MultiFinder process and A/UX programs. The ROOTED > >mode, I can assure you, is certainly faster than Display Postscript on a > >NeXT...30 MHz heater! > > FLAME ON! > If it's one thing I hate, it's people who talk without knowing what they > are talking about. > FLAME OFF. > > In other words, it's a 25 MHz heater. > ^^ > (Sorry, Pascal, I just couldn't resist. 8 :-)). > > David You deleted too much. The original read > Especially with the 8.24GC board, with its off-screen drawing capabilites > and 30Mhz Heater! The 30MHz referred to the Mac graphics processor, not the NeXT's 68030. Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu >From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Date: Sun 30-Mar-1990 15:06:53 From: Unknown Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac In article <6453@blake.acs.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > >I just remembered another "feature" about the Mac, which reminds me >why I intend never again to do software development on the Mac >platform. Like MS-DOS, the Mac operating system splits memory into >64K segment; no object may be larger than that. So, if you need a >100,000 character string, you have to split it into chunks. *sigh*. main() { char *x; x = NewPtr(100000L); /* do whatever you want to put 100000 chars in x */ DisposPtr(x); > The 32K limit is only on global data and on program segments. If you keep your big global data in resources, you take up exactly 4 bytes of that precious 32K of global data. >Also, there's no memory mapping, so system memory management is done >by shuffling. The way they do this is by a bizarre system of double- >indirect pointers. Although this is OK for memory-tight systems, it's >a lot of work for the programmer to keep track and for large memory >systems this is slower than allocating enough memory for the >application to begin with and shuffling it to a larger chunk with a >single base register than making all those double-indirect references. Is this worse than that for other micros, where no double-indirect pointers are used and the heap just gets fragged? Besides, you don't have to make all those double indirect references: speedcode(h) Handle h; { long i; Ptr p; HLock(h); p = *h; for (i=0; i < 56785678; i++) { *p++ = somefunc(); } HUnlock(h); }
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.