This is whiz-kid-PC-junkies in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 22-Nov-1991 19:07:14 From: vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely) Subject: whiz-kid PC junkies Aaarrrgh! I just had a long winded discussion with some whiz kid that knew all the facts and figures about PC clones like the 486. I told him that I "graduated" to the Next because I got frustrated with fighting with "Windows" all the time, having my system crash or lock up because my megs of memory were not "really" accessible, and so forth. I bought a Next because I wanted something like the Macintosh, but one that actually "worked". I bought the Next, loved it and then bought another one for my students. Well, this guy told me that the Next is too slow and too expensive compared to a 486. Apparently, the prices have really come down, and you can get a 486 for about $2000, and the machine will do 22 MIPS, whereas the Next does only 15. Well just for the sake of the argument, let's say that you could stuff an ethernet card into 486, add some audio coprocessor boards a big monitor and make all this stuff run under Windows (or OS2), and then say, just say, that you really wanted to put up with this monster of a machine because you really loved IBM.... - could you do it for under $4,000? - would it really run faster than a Next when doing something usefull, like loading a spreadsheet, or running a spell checker on Wordperfect? I don't need convincing. I know that it's the software that makes the machine, but I need amunition, just the facts ma'am, for the next time a PC junkie tells me I should have bought a 486.
Date: Sun 22-Nov-1991 21:56:06 From: matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <6086@julian.uwo.ca> vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely) >- could you do it for under $4,000? Do what? Run something as advanced as NeXTstep? You can't, period. Not yet anyways. Getting Unix and X (ick) will run you over $3,000, might be over $4,000. My interest in that market is sufficiently low so that I don't look. :-) >- would it really run faster than a Next when doing something usefull, like >loading a spreadsheet, or running a spell checker on Wordperfect? No. The '486 sucks when doing context switching, which is damn important for any multitasking machine. Sure, the '486 might be faster for one person. But that's the stone ages. Besides, 22 MIPS vs. 15 MIPS totally ignores total system performance, which is what matters. 22 MIPS sounds a bit high, too. >Ivan Vesely, Ph.D. >Electrical Engineering and Medical Biophysics Mike
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 02:38:15 From: jchin@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca (Joseph Chin) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <6086@julian.uwo.ca> vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely) ... > a 486. Apparently, the prices have really come down, and you can get a 486 > for about $2000, and the machine will do 22 MIPS, whereas the Next does only > 15. ... MIPS = Meaningless Instructions Per second. MIPS is an over-abused buzzword commonly used by manufacturers to push their products onto unsuspecting consumers. There are many more factors that determine the overall performance of a computer system; for example, the bus bandwidth, I/O bandwidth, compiler optimization, floating point performance (very important for Display Postscript), etc. Don't bother arguing with "whiz-kid PC junkies". They are so entrenched in the narrow-minded PC train of thought that they can't even pop up from their little world to see the new and better things. Almost all of them are naive spec sheet readers. Don't let yourself become one ... The NeXT is the most productive computer I have ever owned. Besides the two NeXTs, I also have a Mac, a 40Mhz 386 PC, and a 25Mhz 486 PC in my office. The NeXTs can easily outshine the PCs in terms of usefulness and performance. Window 3.0 is kludgy at best, and the performance is sluggish, even on the 486. In fact, when I can't use the NeXT, I choose to use the dinky little Mac Plus over the PCs whenever possible. A good computer is much like a good stereo system ... my Acoutstat 1+1 electrostatic speakers may not look that sweet on the spec sheet and the prices may seem a bit high, but all who've heard them agree that they are the best sounding speakers they've ever come across. Same thing with the PS Audio amplifiers - hell, they are so basic they don't even have bass and treble controls (no need for 'em) - but they put out sounds (with help from the Acoustats and friends) that are sweeter, crisper, tighter (bass), and clearer than any "high tech" buzzword-filled junk from their mass-market counterparts. To summarize, look beyond the spec sheets and the bells and whistles. To really prove it to yourself, use a PC for a day for the tasks you would use the NeXT for. You will discover why the smart ones prefer NeXT. Joe
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 03:32:09 From: blakeley@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (Denise Blakeley) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies My husband Dean had a run-in with one of those whiz-kid PC junkies the other day--an employee of the campus computer store which sells NeXTs, no less. Dean and I are confirmed NeXTers, but he noticed they had a new Quadra sitting there so he asked the kid what the major differences are between the Quadra and the NeXT. The response was (are you ready for this?): "Oh, the NeXT is just a PC." Thought you'd get a good laugh out of this--we sure did! And now you know where we WON'T go to get any information about computers again! Denise
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 04:05:46 From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <1991Nov23.023815.3032@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca> jchin@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca writes: >Don't bother arguing with "whiz-kid PC junkies". They are so entrenched in the >narrow-minded PC train of thought that they can't even pop up from their little >world to see the new and better things. Almost all of them are naive spec sheet >readers. Don't let yourself become one ... As opposed to being so entrenched in a narrow-minded nExt-religious train of thought that you can't even pop up from your very, very tiny world to see that, just maybe, a '386 or '486 PC just might be the best thing for some people?
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 07:43:26 From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <1991Nov23.040546.20334@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <1991Nov23.023815.3032@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca> jchin@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca writes: >>Don't bother arguing with "whiz-kid PC junkies". They are so entrenched in the >>narrow-minded PC train of thought that they can't even pop up from their little >>world to see the new and better things. Almost all of them are naive spec sheet >>readers. Don't let yourself become one ... > >As opposed to being so entrenched in a narrow-minded nExt-religious train of >thought that you can't even pop up from your very, very tiny world to see >that, just maybe, a '386 or '486 PC just might be the best thing for some >people? PC's are a good choice for many people. I really like my cube, and I've also been in the Mac world for years. Both worlds are proprietary and for those with deep pockets. Both will remain niche players as long as they refuse to be cloned. The future, in my opinion, is with systems that have thousands of companies cloning away. When one is talking about the spread of information, one doesn't just mean to and from the BMW crowd. The PC is dominant in the micro world, and it will only get better/worse depending on your point of view. The workstation market appears to be somewhat different. However, we are no longer in the world of personal computing there. I am speaking as a user. My programming days are over. I love the NeXT. It really is the only interesting computer out there that I have tried, at the higher end of things. Unfortunately, next year we will see $500 386's,etc... It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on. Just ask yourself why WordPerfect on the NeXT can't form an equation, why there are no equation editors for the NeXT,etc... I've said it before, and people may not like it: the NeXT needs to be cloned, reduced in price,etc...Why can I get a $200 faxmodem to work on a PC when a $1000+ one may or may not work on the NeXT?( I can't tell since I have no idea which faxes never got to me.). The NeXT may be great as a development platform, and this makes it important. However the computing issue will be resolved on the playing field of the masses. Soo people may laugh at those PC junkies...I wonder who will laugh last. Philip McDunnough Professor of Statistics University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu a beautiful colour station for $7000. He sold it because he couldn't get the simple communications' software he needed.
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 08:52:27 From: jchin@wcraft.wimsey.bc.ca (Joseph Chin) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <1991Nov23.040546.20334@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: ... > As opposed to being so entrenched in a narrow-minded nExt-religious train of > thought that you can't even pop up from your very, very tiny world to see > that, just maybe, a '386 or '486 PC just might be the best thing for some > people? > > -- > Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; > sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." > -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) > Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others. Chill out, Sean ... I was referring to the "whiz-kid PC junkies" at the beginning of this thread who believed that the 386 and 486 PCs are the end-all and be-all of computing. I am very certain you are not one of those individuals. I am sure there are tasks that the PC are well suited for, after all, I own two of them. But it is pointless to try to equip (or kludge) a PC to do what a NeXT does so much better. Let's face it, a 486 PC running Window 3.0 and all the niftiest PC utilities in the world (e.g. Norton Desktop is pretty impressive) is just no match for NeXTstep or even a Mac. By the same token, a 486 EISA PC with SCO UNIX and thirty-two ASCII terminals is better suited (cost/performance wise) to Point-of-Sale in a retail store than a bunch of NeXTs - speaking from experience. If I have an unused 286 PC lying around, I would not hesitate to use it for UUCP, SLIP/PPP, net routing, etc. instead of tying up my NeXTs with such mundane tasks. I am impressed by NeXT computers and I am committed to using them for my work, but my loyalty is not blind. If I come across tasks that can be better served by another computer - be it a Sun Sparcstation or a SGI or a Commodore Amiga - I will not hesitate to take advantage of that fact. Hell, if Sun and SGI offer to dump some systems on my desk for FREE (okay ... I'll take 75% off), I would not refuse. Mmmm ... come to think of it, I can use a Sparcstation 2 Server. cheers, Joe
Date: Sun 23-Nov-1991 05:44:17 From: zazula@bonehead.tucson.az.us (Ralph Zazula) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies > Well, this guy told me that the Next is too slow and too expensive > compared to a 486. Apparently, the prices have really come down, > and you can get a 486 for about $2000, and the machine will do 22 MIPS, > whereas the Next does only 15. > Check out the June issue of Byte magazine. In it, the NeXTstation, 486/33 and 386/33 machines are comared running Byte's Unix benchmarks. The overall numbers are:(higher is better) NeXTstation (040/25): 11.5 486/33: 9.8 386/33: 6.0 Also, don't forget the price of Unix, big disk, 8M RAM etc. when comparing systems... Ralph
Date: Sun 24-Nov-1991 02:35:02 From: bzg52408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Ivan Vesely) writes: >Aaarrrgh! >I just had a long winded discussion with some whiz kid that knew all the facts >and figures about PC clones like the 486. I told him that I "graduated" to the >Next because I got frustrated with fighting with "Windows" all the time, having >my system crash or lock up because my megs of memory were not "really" >accessible, and so forth. I bought a Next because I wanted something like the >Macintosh, but one that actually "worked". I bought the Next, loved it and then >bought another one for my students. >Well, this guy told me that the Next is too slow and too expensive compared to >a 486. Apparently, the prices have really come down, and you can get a 486 for >about $2000, and the machine will do 22 MIPS, whereas the Next does only 15. The 486-50 will do 22 MIPS (not!), but it certainly doesn't cost $2000. The cheapest 486's I have seen (and these are sleezball mail order places) are about $2000 for a 486 (not sure if it was 25 or 33). That was with (all noname) a 14" 1024x768 monitor (relative price index : 17 costs around $800, 14" costs around $330), 2-4MB of RAM, 40-150MB HD, whatever. I think it was an ISA bus, too (EISA, by the same company can cost around $900 more). >Well just for the sake of the argument, let's say that you could stuff an >ethernet card into 486, add some audio coprocessor boards a big monitor and >make all this stuff run under Windows (or OS2), and then say, just say, that >you really wanted to put up with this monster of a machine because you really >loved IBM.... 2000 (CPU) - $3000 for EISA 500 (at least this much more for the monitor) 200 (? for 6 MB of RAM) 150 (ethernet) +100 (SoundBlaster) ----- $3000-4000 And do you really have a NeXT? Do really trust this? I mean, NeXT is more like a name brand clone (or better) in terms of a big company behind you. The quality should very good considering their they have reached this really high quality level (can't remember the name, but it was like 1 in 1,000,000 or level 6) with their advanced manufacturing plant. The question, is, though, does everybody need the ethernet and the 16bit audio? Or the other "frills"? I am not talking about Jobs' vision or the multimedia thing, but do people really want a DSP? >- could you do it for under $4,000? >- would it really run faster than a Next when doing something usefull, like >loading a spreadsheet, or running a spell checker on Wordperfect? The video would be much slower unless you threw in at least $300 for a good video card (like the new Orchid - YES, yes, the open systems work... it has only taken 4 years for someone to give us text in SVGA mode rather the the typical 640x400). Would a spell checker be faster in WordPerfect? Under DOS, it probably would be because we get 100% of the machine and we are using assembly (most likely for WP). Overall, it really hard to say. We are talking about really fast machines here, and unless your stuff is really big you would probably get the results back instantly in most cases. The NeXT also has DMA. I don't know if those really help. I hope they do because they look kind of expensive (they are really big chips). >I don't need convincing. I know that it's the software that makes the machine, >but I need amunition, just the facts ma'am, for the next time a PC junkie tells >me I should have bought a 486.A >-- >Ivan Vesely, Ph.D. >Electrical Engineering and Medical Biophysics >University of Western Ontario, >Heart and Circulation Group, >John P. Robarts Research Institute, >London, Ontario, Canada. >vesely@next.heart.rri.uwo.ca >(519) 663-3859
Date: Sun 24-Nov-1991 06:00:18 From: nweaver@maelstrom.Berkeley.EDU (Nicholas Weaver) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <1991Nov24.023502.12495@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bzg52408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen) writes: > The question, is, though, does everybody need the ethernet and the >16bit audio? Or the other "frills"? I am not talking about Jobs' vision >or the multimedia thing, but do people really want a DSP? Well, I do. 1. Ethernet. One never knows when someone might get another computer. Or buy one for the students. Or get a net connection to the internet so one doesn't have to put up with rn through an annex box... 2. Sound. Well, it's just insanely cool. Frkly, I prefer "your printer is waiting for paper" over "BEEEEEPPP" any day. 3. DSP. Well you have to have it for the sound, but it can do MUCH more then that. A DSP is really VERY good at computation intensive stuff and is why the mandelbrot program (really a brain dead mandelbrot routine) runs so fast. (If only someone would make the Lyapunov program that uses the DSP...) I think that sums things up. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Nicholas C. Weaver>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nweaver@ocf.berkeley.edu |Disclaimer: I don't represent anyone but 193weave@qal.berkeley.edu |myself. Not UC. Not the OCF. And definately Non NeXT mail only please. |not Elvis
Date: Sun 28-Nov-1991 00:44:05 From: Jay C. Beavers Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies Well, there is no arguing the overall technical merits of an 80x86 based machine versus a NeXT machine -- the NeXT wins hands down. However, I made a choice last December to buy a 486/25 clone instead of a color NeXTstation. Both machines were in the same price range at around $5000 - $6000. I've been very pleased with my choice, as I've had many excellent applications to choose from. Yes, the NeXT has a better operating system, but I didn't buy a computer to use it's operating system - I bought a computer to accomplish tasks by using applications. As far as speed is concerned, I still have no exact idea about how well a 80486 stacks up to a 68040, but I do know that my Microsoft Windows applications do seem to run considerably faster than similar applications on a cube. I can't compare speed as well for a NeXTStation because I don't have a lot of experience with them, but from what I have seen, I definitely wouldn't call the NeXTStation faster than my 486. I constantly recommend the NeXT to my coworkers at the University of Alaska Computer Network because the advantages of the NeXT operating system in a networking environment far outweigh the reservations I have about the NeXT computer. However, I feel that my choice of a 486/25 for my personal use was an excellent choice and I am more than satisfied to this day. Let me sum up by saying that I bought an Atari ST back about six years ago because it was a better computer than IBM compatibles at the time -- it had a good GUI environment, lots of memory, excellent graphics and sound, and good speed. However, I was very disappointed in the computer because I could just never get it to do what I wanted it to do due to lack of good applications. My 486, although based in technologies ten years old, excels in everything I need it to do. And that is what makes it a good 'tool', even if it is questionable that it is a good 'computer'.
Date: Sun 02-Dec-1991 05:34:40 From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies In article <1991Nov28.004405.22012@raven.alaska.edu> Jay C. Beavers writes: As far as speed is concerned, I still have no exact idea about how well a 80486 stacks up to a 68040, but I do know that my Microsoft Windows applications do seem to run considerably faster than similar applications on a cube. I can't compare speed as well for a NeXTStation because I don't have a lot of experience with them, but from what I have seen, I definitely wouldn't call the NeXTStation faster than my 486. What applications are you talking about? Adobe Illustrator? Look at ToolBook on the PC. It insists that the Window be move 8 pixels at a time so it doesn't have to do any complicated work when it bitblits. I find it very hard to believe that a 25MHz PC running DOS + Windows 3.0 is considerably faster than the 68040 NeXTstation(or even as fast as). I have access to a 486, so if you would be so kind as to enlighten me... Ugh, I can't stop myself!!! Windows is a joke!!! Apple is showing where their 68030 based Macintoys are faster than 80486 Clones running Windows 3.0. If you buy a 80486 and think you're getting a NeXT, you're dead wrong. You got an engine that is comparable to the one in NeXT, but you're running on flat tires. -Mike
Date: Sun 02-Dec-1991 21:57:33 From: st13w@menudo.uh.edu (Jason L. Asbahr) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies > I've been very pleased with my choice, as I've had many excellent >applications to choose from. Yes, the NeXT has a better operating system, but >I didn't buy a computer to use it's operating system - I bought a computer to >accomplish tasks by using applications. I have a 386 laptop (my only MSDOS concession!) and the differences in ease- of-use is huge. In my experience, (dare I say it?) Mach/Unix is much nicer to use MSDOS. > Let me sum up by saying that I bought an Atari ST back about six years ago >because it was a better computer than IBM compatibles at the time -- it had a >good GUI environment, lots of memory, excellent graphics and sound, and good >speed. However, I was very disappointed in the computer because I could just >never get it to do what I wanted it to do due to lack of good applications. I have an ST, too, and assist other ST users in making their machines do what they want. The NeXT has a lot more going for it than the ST ever did. My NeXT is packed with industry standards, while the best the ST could claim was MIDI and the ability to read low density 3.5 MSDOS floppies. The GUIs do not compare. For software, the NeXT has WordPerfect, Lotus Improv, Sybase, Illustrator, and SoftPC. The ST had PC-ditto, a REALLY slow IBM emulator. The ST did (and still does!) make a good terminal, though. :) Jason Asbahr 116 E. Edgebrook #603 jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com Houston, Texas 77034 next@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTmail) (713) 749-2686 voice st13w@menudo.uh.edu UH NeXT Campus Consultant
Date: Sun 03-Dec-1991 18:39:12 From: dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary) Subject: Re: whiz-kid PC junkies ] Well, this guy told me that the Next is too slow and too expensive ] compared to a 486. Apparently, the prices have really come down, ] and you can get a 486 for about $2000, and the machine will do 22 MIPS, ] whereas the Next does only 15. I have never cared, or even cared to know for that matter, how fast my Honda CRX goes from 0 to 60. It's a good car: comfortable, peppy, low maintenance cost, fun to drive.
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.