This is Is-the-Cube-dead? in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 16-Dec-1991 06:22:18 From: 72011.10@compuserve.com (Mitch Alland) Subject: Is the Cube dead? On the CompuServe NeXT forum someone posted a message saying that he had heard at the NeXT Federal Exhibition that NeXT was going to stop making the Cube because it was too costly. He speculated that it might be replaced with a Mac IIci-type machine that would take cards. If NeXT kills the Cube without continuing to develop boards for it, such as NeXTDimension, or without providing an almost free upgrade to the new machine, they would be breaking faith with their customers. I cannot believe NeXT would do such a thing -- consider how much some with a NeXTDimension Cube has invested -- but it would be comforting to have confirmation on this from NeXT, or a denial that the Cube production will be stopped. Anyone from NeXT reading this? (When I refer to an almost free upgrade to the new machine, I'm talking about the box; there would be nothing wrong about charging for an upgrade to a more powerful microprocessor.) --Mitch
Date: Sun 16-Dec-1991 17:26:48 From: pena@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) Mitch Alland writes On the CompuServe NeXT forum someone posted a message saying that he had heard at the NeXT Federal Exhibition that NeXT was going to stop making the Cube because it was too costly. He speculated that it might be replaced with a Mac IIci-type machine that would take cards. If NeXT kills the Cube without continuing to develop boards for it, such as NeXTDimension, or without providing an almost free upgrade to the new machine, they would be breaking faith with their customers. I cannot believe NeXT would do such a thing -- consider how much some with a NeXTDimension Cube has invested -- but it would be comforting to have confirmation on this from NeXT, or a denial that the Cube production will be stopped. Anyone from NeXT reading this? (When I refer to an almost free upgrade to the new machine, I'm talking about the box; there would be nothing wrong about charging for an upgrade to a more powerful microprocessor.) --Mitch
Date: Sun 16-Dec-1991 19:03:02 From: feijai@kolob.byu.edu (Sean Luke) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) pena@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu writes >The subject of a newer NeXT box leads into the subject of the next >generation of NeXT computers. The new computers will need another box to >live in. I'll post my ideas after Finals. After Finals, NeXT will be announcing the new computers anyway! Sean Luke Brigham Young University sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Date: Sun 16-Dec-1991 23:10:18 From: tms@twins.lanl.gov (Todd M. Swan) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) In article <1991Dec16.190302.14513@hamblin.math.byu.edu> feijai@kolob.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes: > pena@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu writes > > >The subject of a newer NeXT box leads into the subject of the next > >generation of NeXT computers. The new computers will need another box to > >live in. I'll post my ideas after Finals. > > After Finals, NeXT will be announcing the new computers anyway! Not if your finals are in early/mid December like most. Then the announcements aren't for at least a month later. (Late January at NeXTWorld Expo) Plus there is no guarantee that hardware will be anounced then. Maybe only OS3.0 will be rolled out. Todd
Date: Sun 17-Dec-1991 03:37:47 From: cafe@cbnewse.cb.att.com (richard.dib) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) > Instead of trashing the cube, NeXT could make better use of the space inside. > It would be nice to fit a 3.5" HD on one side with room below for a half > height card. Also, when NeXT starts coming out with the multiprocessor > systems, those expansion boards have got to be as big as the ND boards. > The Cube is the perfect place for them. > .......................................................... > Ernesto F. B. Pena erno@uiuc.edu Wouldn't it be nice if they produced a 6"x6"x6" little cube. With 3.5" Optical Disks it could be the NeXT next generation, smaller and better. The cube I have takes most of my desk space, and I don't want to put it away because that is where it looks good. I also agree with you in that the space the cube reserves for each card is way to much. Richard
Date: Sun 17-Dec-1991 08:26:10 From: jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) In article <1991Dec16.231018.16642@newshost.lanl.gov> tms@twins.lanl.gov writes: >In article <1991Dec16.190302.14513@hamblin.math.byu.edu> feijai@kolob.byu.edu >(Sean Luke) writes: >> pena@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu writes >> >The subject of a newer NeXT box leads into the subject of the next >> >generation of NeXT computers. The new computers will need another box to >> >live in. I'll post my ideas after Finals. >> After Finals, NeXT will be announcing the new computers anyway! >Not if your finals are in mid December like most. Then the announcements >aren't for at least a month later. (Late Jan.at NeXTWorld Expo) Plus there >is no guarantee that hardware will be anounced then. Maybe only OS3.0 will be >rolled out. Well, nothing is guaranteed. But the rumor mill is getting hotter yet. Robert X. Cringely today again reconfirmed his unconfirmed rumor leaked in Infoworld last week. This week, he says: "A 68040 box that will be both fast and cheap is the $3,500 monochrome ($5,000 color) downsized NeXTstation to be announced in January. With the first 33Mhz 040 and NeXTStep 3.0, this baby should offer twice the performance of the current NeXTstation for less money." This is after his rumor last week about Canon manufacturing the machine and it containing a 256Mb 3-1/2" optical drive. Who knows? Cringely can be very accurate at times. Also, did anyone note the incredibly positive editorial in this week's Infoworld (Dec. 16th, the one with the cover photo of Mssr. Jobs and the "rumored" 486 NeXTstep announcement)? Stewart Alsop writes: This week, we report on the next steps for Next Inc., creator of the NeXTStep environment and the brainchild of Steve Jobs. It seems that NeXT now believes it is in its best interest to offer its system software on a more standard platform, namely the Intel 486. We could argue that this is a mistake from Next's point of view, just as we might argue that it is a mistake for Sunsoft to make its Solaris available on the Intel platform. But we don't actually care if it is a mistake or not, because we're not in the business of worrying about the health and well-being of computer vendors. But we are in the business of worrying about improved technology and the benefits it will bring to all of us who use computers. We really, really do care about whether those vendors are going to make better computers. And in that respect, NeXT is one of the few companies that has even attempted to define and build a better computer system in the past five years. That's a fairly damning statement for the industry, because we believe there is still much to be done in computing, particularly in networking, application development, ease of use, connectivity and communiciation. But, quite frankly, we don't see many vendors taking significant risks in implementing technology advances in these areas. Worse, we see vendors that are taking such risks being criticized and second-guessed at every turn simply because they are spending more effort trying to make better computers than trying to fit into predefined notions of a standard. And NeXT is an excellent example of just such a vendor. No one knows better than Jobs and his crew that NeXT cannot survive as a company unless it can successfully define for customers a real and significant value of its difference. And yet, few observers have credited the company for recognizing early on the fundamental trends it made in technology - object-oriented development, large writable media, integrated display and networking, and so on. As the company struggles to find a winning business formula, we believe that it should be recognized more readily for what it has accomplished and that all companies like it should be given more credit for at least trying to improve on the model. We believe that is an honorable and desirable objective for any vendor. And that is what Stewart Alsop wrote. (Of course, he and Steve have been long-time buds, but still :-) Jon Rosen
Date: Sun 17-Dec-1991 12:06:19 From: ian@ohm.york.ac.uk (Ian Stephenson) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? In article <1991Dec16.062218.19760@demon.co.uk> 72011.10@compuserve.com (Mitch Alland) writes: > On the CompuServe NeXT forum someone posted a message saying that he'd heard > at the NeXT Federal Exhibition that NeXT was going to stop making the Cube > because it was too costly. > --Mitch I'd agree that the Cube is too costly but I think that it's cost should be reduced (by increased sales) rather than dropping it. The Cube looks cools, where as the slab looks pretty dire (although being black does lift it above other machines). The Cube was a concept, and I'd love to replace my slab with a cube, if only there wasn't such a price difference. Expandability isn't all thats under question here - it's the image. It's also a question of physical space - A cube would fit much nicer on my desk (or under it, or on a book shelf...). The black cube is the image of NeXT, what sets the machines apart from lesser beasts (+the hardware & software of course :-). Even to the most technicaly illiterate the NexT is something special. Ian
Date: Sun 18-Dec-1991 06:58:06 From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) Jon Rosen writes > > Well, nothing is guaranteed. But the rumor mill is getting hotter yet. > Robert X. Cringely today again reconfirmed his unconfirmed rumor leaked > in Infoworld last week. This week, he says: > > "A 68040 box that will be both fast and cheap is the $3,500 > monochrome ($5,000 color) downsized NeXTstation to be announced > in January. With the first 33Mhz 040 and NeXTStep 3.0, this baby > should offer twice the performance of the current NeXTstation for > less money." > Hot diggity! $3,500 list means about $2,500 or less for academic and volume purchases. Between cheap 'Stations and 486 software releases NeXT's volume is going to go ballistic next year. They'll move up into the first rank of workstation vendors on a volume basis, and big volume numbers generate interest from the big developers.
Date: Sun 18-Dec-1991 07:54:25 From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) <1991Dec18.065806.21493@talon.ucs.orst.edu> In article <1991Dec18.065806.21493@talon.ucs.orst.edu> mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: Jon Rosen writes > > Well, nothing is guaranteed. But the rumor mill is getting hotter yet. > Robert X. Cringely today again reconfirmed his unconfirmed rumor leaked > in Infoworld last week. This week, he says: > > "A 68040 box that will be both fast and cheap is the $3,500 > monochrome ($5,000 color) downsized NeXTstation to be announced > in January. With the first 33Mhz 040 and NeXTStep 3.0, this baby > should offer twice the performance of the current NeXTstation for > less money." > Hot diggity! $3,500 list means about $2,500 or less for academic and volume purchases. Between cheap 'Stations and 486 software releases NeXT's volume is going to go ballistic next year. They'll move up into the first rank of workstation vendors on a volume basis, and big volume numbers generate interest from the big developers. If NeXT produces a $3,500 NeXTstation, they won't need an Intel machine. And how do you downsize the current NeXT? Lastly, there's absolutely no way that a 33MHz 040 NeXT is going to to be twice as fast as a 25MHz NeXT. Was Rob. Cringely that guy who said Steve Jobs was going to sell the NeXT factory in California? -Mike
Date: Sun 18-Dec-1991 17:36:15 From: brunkhorst@mayo.edu (Geoff Brunkhorst) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) In article <3_1Hurfd4@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) > In article <1991Dec18.065806.21493@talon.ucs.orst.edu> mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: > Between cheap 'Stations and 486 software releases NeXT's volume is going to go > ballistic next year. They'll move up into the first rank of workstation > vendors on a volume basis, and big volume numbers generate interest from the > big developers. > > If NeXT produces a $3,500 NeXTstation, they won't need an Intel > machine. And how do you downsize the current NeXT? Lastly, there's > absolutely no way that a 33MHz 040 NeXT is going to to be twice as > fast as a 25MHz NeXT. Was Rob. Cringely that guy who said Steve Jobs > was going to sell the NeXT factory in California? > > -Mike I agree with Mike on the first statement, but disagree on the second. I truly doubt the $3500 price. If they can make money at that price, they would do it, but I don't see how they could do it without 'lowering' the NeXT standard of computing (DSP, megapixel, magnesium box, need for memory slots ;-). I'd rather have a 486 clone do that, to delineate the 'purity of NeXT's essence' [my apologies to the screenwriters of _Dr. Strangelove_, et al.]. Now on the other hand, I could see them keeping the $5K system, improving the performance by the higher-clocked CPU, use a 96001 DSP, add the ability of a bus on the slab (ala the S-Bus and Turbochannel format), making the 200mb the std drive, and using 4mb memory 70ns SIMMS (and driving memory fetches at that rate). Now you got a box worth $5K. As for performance. 2.0 provided a boost over 1.0 'perceived' performance (primarily in window 'snappiness'). What happens if NeXT provides a completely '040' version 3.0 (and with fat-apps, you could have a binary for the 030,040,Intel,and the RISC-to-be-named-later for each platform in a .app folder). This could account for a lot of performance, particularly in Postscript rendering on screen. I could see a 50% improvement from the software, coupled with a 33% hardware improvement (and not to mention the indications that NeXT will be using a faster memory cycle time in the new machines), would mean a system 1.995 times faster than the current processor. Remember hardware means very little in terms of performance. Smart software means everything. -Geoff- --------------------------------------------------------------- Geoffrey Brunkhorst brunkhorst@Mayo.edu Research Computing Facility (507) 284-1805 Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN, 55905 USA fax (507) 284-5231
Date: Sun 18-Dec-1991 18:15:03 From: feijai@kolob.byu.edu (Sean Luke) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? (No) Don McGregor writes >Hot diggity! $3,500 list means about $2,500 or less for academic and >volume purchases. > >Between cheap 'Stations and 486 software releases NeXT's volume is going >to go ballistic next year. They'll move up into the first rank of >workstation vendors on a volume basis, and big volume numbers generate >interest from the big developers. > NeXT can barely sustain the $3000 price right now. I have heard that the price for academia is actually going up a teensy bit ($100-200?). Sean
Date: Sun 19-Dec-1991 01:21:01 From: mcarling@leland.stanford.edu (M Carling) Subject: Re: Is the Cube dead? In article <1991Dec16.062218.19760@demon.co.uk> 72011.10@compuserve.com (Mitch Alland) writes: > If NeXT kills the Cube without continuing to develop boards for it, such as > NeXTDimension, or without providing an almost free upgrade to the new machine, > they would be breaking faith with their customers. What?!?!? Is this a joke? Do you think that a company has a responsibility to continue developing every product that it ever introduces? Has Apple broken faith with its customers by no longer developing new products for the Lisa? M Carling
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.