NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/hardware/26851

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 5.4 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!nntp.Stanford.EDU!news
From: [e-mail]  (Avery Wang)
Subject: NeXT vs Mac (was Re: NeXT (Was: Power PC/68060/Taligent/Windows NT))
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr News)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:52:51 GMT
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Chris Trimble) writes:
>
>  I think the real problem here is that NeXT computers do not offer
>     1) good software choices
>     2) good hardware.
>
>  I'll elaborate on both of these ---
>
>    1) Yes, some software for the NeXT blows away most other software
>       packages on other platforms. The interface for WordPerfect, for
>       example, far exceeds the interface for the program on any other
>       platform. The thing is that WordPerfect is basically the only
>       word processor to choose from. WriteNow, IMHO, doesn't offer the
>       things that are really needed in a word processor and Frame is
>       overkill. There are some softwares for the NeXT that are completely
>       unreliable compared to their other platform counterparts.
>    2) NeXT's hardware stinks. Let's face it - workstation-like tasks on
>       an '040 just doesn't cut it most of the time. When I use those things,
>       I find myself waiting a LOT more than if I use the Macs or other
>       workstations. The Macs because the software is more streamlined and
>       the other workstations because the hardware is better.
>
>   - Chris

My god, are you kidding?!  Well, I agree that a net-mounted NeXT with minimal
memory is pretty brain-damaged, but if you are running a system with
everything mounted directly, and with 20+MB of memory, even a slow, slightly
obsolete 25MHz '040 NeXT spins circles around a Mac IIfx.  I've never used a
Quadra so I can't judge, but the 700 has the same processor (25 MHz '040) as a
1.8-year-old NeXT Station, and the newer NeXT Turbos (since about June) have
the same processor as the Quadra 950.  But in any case, unless you're running
a NeXT with a memory deficit, there's no way anything short of a Quadra could
beat a NeXT in speed (for most generic purposes, I must qualify that).  Also,
isn't there a lot of overhead taken in Macs dealing with those stupid illegal
instruction traps used for implementing the Toolbox calls?  The NeXT calls its
subroutines directly, like a civilized machine.

On the other hand, we have a large Mac cluster of about 80 or so Mac II's for
student use here, I am amazed at how slow the machines are!  The ethernet must
be brain-damaged (a few K per second transfer rates);  it's as slow as going
through the serial port.  Also, I see the machines breaking out into Macsbugs
all the time:  at any given time there may be up to 33% of the machines in
some kind of crashed state.  Plus, I've lost more work to Macs going down than
I have on NeXTs--perhaps it's a blessing for NeXT that Microsoft doesn't write
software!  If you think that the software is more streamlined on the Mac, you
haven't used a correctly configured NeXT for long enough (say a few hours).  I
like having literally up to a hundred windows simultaneously open running from
arbitrarily many applications, and I like especially the ability to
miniaturize my windows, or even shrink entire application contexts down to an
icon.  True multitasking with real virtual memory is very nice.  I hate the
way Macs freeze whenever you try doing anything that occupies the processor,
like displaying dialog boxes or copying files.  I've written software for the
Mac--multitasking is voluntary, and a pain to implement.  Also, when an
application on a NeXT dies, it usually goes quietly.  On a Mac, the whole
machine goes south--that's what you get for programming everything in
supervisor mode.


I must admit that with their new 3.0 operating system, NeXTs are a bit more
unstable (due to a few bugs in their window server), but with the 2.1 system,
it was totally solid, and the only reason it would go down was if we had to
shut it down.  Hopefully 3.1 will come soon, since 3.0 was rushed out the door
to meet a deadline (compare with Mac's system 7.0!).  And there are more and
more people catching on with NeXT and writing software.  Doomsayers have been
pronouncing NeXT dead or dying for years now, and that is probably mostly due
to NeXT's incomprehensible marketing strategy.  But their products are
top-notch.  Even though the NeXT is behind in availability of software, it is
at an advantage because it can evolve faster.  Development is faster, and
there is less history (paleontology!) to deal with.

Comparing Macs to NeXTs is like comparing Volkswagens to Porsches.  But
considering the price/performance ratio, NeXTs are actually more cost
effective!  Just check out what you get for a Turbo NeXT and a Quadra 950 at
your student bookstore.

Nonetheless, I just bought a Powerbook 210 that I'm pretty happy with, except
when I run Microsoft stuff on it and it crashes.  I'm just waiting for
NeXTStep 486 to be released out of beta testing and running on notebooks.

Anyway, if you want, I can give several good reasons why Macs are more popular
than NeXTs.  But none of them have to do with hardware.



cheers,
-Avery