NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/sys/next/misc/19605

Text File | 1992-09-14 | 7.7 KB | 157 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!dpp!dpp
From: [e-mail] (David Pollak)
Subject: Break from the past (was Spreadsheets)
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.132437.6038@dpp>
Sender: dpp@dpp
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Pollak)
Organization: Athena Design, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:24:37 GMT
Lines: 144

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Clifford T. Matthews) writes:
> Dear Folks,
>
> Various posts have been made concerning spreadsheets on the NeXT.
> I posted a short note (as did one of our customers, without prompting)
> mentioning that you can run the Macintosh version of Excel under
Executor,
> our Macintosh emulator for the NeXT.
>
> Since then, two posts have appeared that deserve a responce.
>
> David Gursky wrote:
>
>     Clifford's response misses my point.  I know I can use Executor
>     to run Excel, but  if a user can run Excel, they will not switch
>     to Athena Design's Mesa, Appsoft's Solution, Lotus' Improv, or
>     Informix's Wingz.  Athena Design, Appsoft, Lotus, and Informix all
>     realize that backwards compatibility to competiting products is an
>     effective method of winning new sales, because the user will not
>     loose access to any of the information they have generated.  All
>     I'm saying is that the specific set of formats supported needs to
>     be expanded to include Excel (both Mac and PC versions.)
>
> and David Pollak,
>     author of Mesa, a spreadsheet that competes with Excel, wrote:
>
>     I think that Executor is a fine product and a cool concept,
>     but I do not view it as a long term solution.  It is a way of
>     bridging the software gap that still exists on the NeXT.  There is
>     no good word processor (I think that MS Word 4.0 is *GREAT*) on
>     the NeXT.  I was holding my breath for Pages and PasteUp, but I'd
>     now place even money that Appsoft Write! will be out before either
>     of the other two products (I wonder if the folks at Appsoft will
>     trade a copy of Write! for a copy of Mesa :-))
>
>     Nevertheless, Executor will never offer what I bought my NeXT
>     for:  NeXTSTEP applications that are cool, interoperate (i.e.,
>     distributed objects), and look and feel right.  The Mac is almost
>     10 year old technology and looks it.  NeXTSTEP is the leading
>     technology and I want my NeXTSTEP applications.  I'm hoping to make
>     Mesa so cool that people will go "how did I ever use anything as
>     clunky as Excel?" like they are now saying "How did I ever use
>     anything as clucky as 1-2-3?" after seeing Mesa.
>
>     Cliff is doing a great service to the community, but if I simply
>     wanted to run Mac applications, I'd go out and by a Quadra.
>
> I don't think I missed David Gursky's point, but perhaps in my
> desire to make my last post brief (anyone who reads my posts knows
> what an exception that was), I didn't make *my* point clear.  If
> you're in the market for a Spreadsheet, investigate *all* of the
> currently, and even the soon to be expected, options.  That includes
> running Excel under Executor.  Since David G's post was aimed at
> Spreadsheet authors, my point could be reworded to consider the
> *entire* competition; don't lightly dismiss people who run Excel
> under Executor.
>
> I'm not going to do a feature for feature comparison between Excel
> under Executor and Mesa, Wings and Improv; but I do encourage
> everyone to examine *all* sides before making a decision.
>
> Executor currently offers what most people bought their NeXT for:
> productivity, as well as something that many people may not have
> bought their NeXT for: compatibility.  Executor is cool, by David
> Pollack's own admission, does interoperate (allows RTF cut and
> paste, supports Services) and, if you're coming from a Macintosh
> background, most certainly "look(s) and feel(s) right".  I agree
> that David P. and Athena should be concentrating on making their
> product be so good as to generate spontaneous exclamations of "How
> could I have used anything else?", but that is exactly what
> Microsoft has been doing with Excel.  Cliff and ARDI's job is to
> blur the boundaries, so *you* can make *your* choice.
>
> If you've watched what we've done with Executor so far, you know
> what you can expect in the future.  Even though I'm a person of
> principle, I'm always afraid that by acting according to principle,
> I'll dismiss something good without trying it.  If you're opposed to
> Executor "on principle", I hope you'll check it out.  It could be
> the tool that you need.
>

I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept behind the above post.  Before
I go on, I have spoken with Cliff.  He is a very nice person.  He has done
an amazing job with Executor.  I like him as a person and respect him as a
programmer.  Please do not construe what I am about to say as a personal
attack on Cliff or as a denigration of the quality of his product.  I
simply disagree with the concept that underlies his post.

The computer marketplace is a world of occasional revolution followed by
great evolutionary enhancements.  The greatest (both meanings of the word)
advances have come from revolution.  Examples:

The Apple ][ - it was a personal computer that a person could use.  It
freed people from the tyranny of expensive mainframes and MIS departments.
The PC was an evolutionary step forward from the Apple ][.

Visicalc - if there is a program that made owning a computer worth it for
a business person this was it.  Visicalc was revolutionary.  It greatly
fueled the fire of personal computing.

Xerox Star/Lisa - The first two commercial window-based computers.
Neither was the commercial success of the Mac, but they successfully
brought what appeared on the screen closer to what is in reality.  They
were revolutionary products that are still defining what computing looks
like.

These three things (two software, two hardware) come to mind for truly
revolutionary packages.  Living *WITH* the past is important and that's
why programs offer translation from past greats (i.e., Mesa reads 1-2-3
files, 1-2-3 reads Visicalc files... Microsoft Word imports Word Perfect
documents, etc.)  Living *IN* the past is bad.  That was the tone of
Cliff's post.

Executor offers the ability to run good software on the best platform in
the world.  This is good.  Once again, I did not buy my NeXT to run Mac
software.  I bought it to run NeXT software.  I would like to use Executor
to run stuff that is not available on the NeXT (like DAC Easy Light
accounting... does it work yet?)  But once there is an accounting package
for the NeXT, I'll move away from DAC and into the new accounting package.

People keep using DOS because they don't understand that there are much
better things in the world.  Executor simply offers the pieces of the old
world until there are better pieces in this world.  For me, the NeXT world
is not complete, but once it is, I'll put my Mac in my mom's basement
along side my Apple ][, //e, Atari 520ST, C-64, VIC 20, ET-3400, KIM,
SWTP, AT&T 6300, PC-AT, etc.

I think that we should support the revolution that is NeXT.  Yes, we must
run certain packages until they become available on the NeXT (accounting,
page layout, etc.) but we should not expect to use a product like Executor
into the indefinite future.

David

P.S. Cliff, interoperation just got more difficult under NS 3.0.
Interopertion is not simply RTF cut and paste, but live data links.  Mesa
goes one step above live updates right into live spreadsheet views in
other programs.

--
David Pollak - [e-mail] - NeXTMail Compliant
Attorney at Law,
Feeder of the Bears, Athena Design, Inc.