HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.180107.8188@cuug.ab.ca> wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.152700.20818@pellns.alleg.edu> smytonj@murr13.alleg.edu (James Smyton) writes:

>Do the Quadras still have to turn off the cache to run software?

This was only the case for STUPID programs like MS Word that didn't think to
write code that could run on an 040.  These programs were quickly updated,
unless the program was STUPID AND unsupported by its developers.

Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:45:23 GMT

In article <ewright.720893515@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>Sure, and? Some of us do not do these things -- or do them in black
>>and white (i.e., publishing). 
>
>Especially those who own NeXTs.  
>
Oddly enough there are far more black and white Mac's out there than NeXTs.

>>A lot of people do not use colour for
>>anything but fiddling with their Windows background colour. 
>
>Yeah, I'm sure.  Then there are those of us who own Macs.
>
Yeah, you guys get to play SimCity in color. Seriously, most people
I know with color machines do word processing. Do they need color?
Only for their games.

>Expensive?  Nonsense.  You can score a 24-bit graphics board, with
>acceleration, for under $400 -- retail.  If NeXT can't do as well,
>everyone in purchasing ought to be fired.
>
Unfortunately, the Mac that color board goes in is either too slow
or far too expensive.
>
>A monochrome monitor is useful for perhaps 20% of the things that
>a computer can do today.  That makes the monochrome NeXTstation 1/5 
>of a computer -- a (much) faster version of the Mac Classic with a
>large screen.
>
Oddly enough, the only thing I do on my machine that would really
benefit from color is looking at pictures. Word processing, software
development, spreadsheets, math... don't need color (unless you want
Quicktime in your essay paper. What a joke.)

>Renderman, however, is one of the few remaining advantages that NeXT
>has.  Apple will soon negate the advantage of Display Postscript with
>Quickdraw GX.  NeXT has promoted its objected-oriented programming and
>development tools, but those are no longer unique.  You can get MacApp,
>TCL, AppMaker, Marksman, etc. on the Mac -- at a fraction of the cost.
>NeXT programmers say, "there's no comparison, NeXTstep is so much better,"
>but they're never able to say *how*.  Display Renderman, on the other
>hand, is neat.  A very elegant way of creating impressive 3D graphics 
>-- which you then have no way to display on the NeXT.
>
What happened to Prototyper? You used to use it as the example. As for
Quickdraw GX, why bother when Taligent is so close?

Why can't I view 3-D graphics on my NeXT? 
>
>Yeah, they have NeXTdimension.  "Color for the rest of us" --
>where the rest of us is defined as people like Steve Jobs and
>Ross Perot.  If you can afford to spend $60 million to buy a
>Presidential election for a buddy from Arkansas, you can afford
>a NeXTdimension.  If you can't, you can't. :-)
>
Hardly anybody has a NeXTdimension board. I would estimate that 90% of
NeXT color machines are Color Stations. 

Terry Wilcox
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Long time Mac users
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Summary: are there any left?
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:32:34 GMT

After the big 'NeXT has no software etc.' hoopla, I'm curious
about the attitudes of long-time Mac users (say pre-Mac II) compared
to newer Mac users (post-Mac II). When I say Mac user, I mean someone
who really used the machine, not someone who just knew about it. It seems
to me that the long-time users bought Mac's without color, big monitors,
or slots. When harassed by DOS users about expandability and software,
how did they reply?

Terry Wilcox

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.211728.8948@ms.uky.edu> justin@graphlab.cc.uky.edu  (Justin Sullivan) writes:
>The Big Color Wolf writes
>> The scroll bars scrolls the window REAL-TIME! i.e. When you HOLD the scroll
>> bar WHILE moving, the contents of the window MOVE at the SAME time.
>> LIFE would be much easier with REAL-TIME scroll  
> 
>bars.
>
>Are you sure? On this NeXT here, they move at the same time all right, but you usually have to WAIT before the scroll bar stops moving (and the spinning disc gives you a little show). 
>('040 station, 20MB RAM, not running any crap like AltDock)

If you're using WordPerfect, you'll die waiting for scrolling. If it's 
FrameMaker, your grandchildren will die.

On NeXTSTEP 2.1, scroll right to the bottom then back up to the top.
Scrolling should go faster then.

On NeXTSTEP 3.0, you have to suffer. The price of progress... (sigh).

Terry Wilcox

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:30:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.170715.24197@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>
>>I don't think I have any software that takes up as much space as MS Word.
>>Come to think of it, WriteNow, Edit, and FrameMaker combined don't take
>>up as much space as Word.
>
>Word is an exceptionally bloated program.  Framemaker takes less room than
>Word on the Mac, too.  However, when I write a smallish C program, the 
>executable always seems to end up significantly smaller on the Mac than on 
>the SUN.  Is this also the case for the NeXT?

Depends on the program I guess. You also need to strip the executable.

Terry Wilcox


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!) SCROLL BARS
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:00:28 GMT

lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.192028.22300@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
>guiyu@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu (The Big Color Wolf) wrote:
>> 
>> The scroll bars scrolls the window REAL-TIME! i.e. When you HOLD the scroll bar
>> WHILE moving, the contents of the window MOVE at the SAME time.
>> 

>> CANNOT be incoporated into the MAC OS? 

>There's nothing in the Mac that prevents you from doing this, although it
>is more work.  

  For an example, see the text editor Alpha 5.1.3.  Scrolls realtime.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
"...there is only one thing worse than having marketing people on a project,
 and that is having no marketing people on a project."  - Larry Tesler.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: na
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:03:39 GMT

dmt@grenada.ign.island.COM (Darryl Trujillo) writes:

>required the MPW 3.1 libraries, which are now outdated.  There was
>some noise about Apple porting gcc 2 for internal use, but if they
>did it was never distributed.  

  It is still being worked on.  Send questions to mpwgcc@apple.com.

>I'm not aware of any Objective-C compiler for the Mac.

  Stepstone makes an Objective-C compiler for MPW.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
"...there is only one thing worse than having marketing people on a project,
 and that is having no marketing people on a project."  - Larry Tesler.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: raist@rmece02.upr.clu.edu (Ricardo Hernandez)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Organization: UPR-Mayaguez--ASEL Lab
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:15:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.133846.14559@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
|> Also, does this A3000/Emplant system have:
|>   *built-in Ethernet
|>   *accelerated 24-bit color w/ the addition of VRAM SIMMs
|>   *three NuBUS 90 slots
|>   *built-in sound input
|> 
|> If not, then the A3000/Emplant system is a less than Quadra-level machine
|> for these reasons as well.

   Well, it is more in the sense that not only you get a decent Mac, but
also an Amiga.  You can run the Word, Excel, etc. software (Nisus, Hyper
card, etc.), and at the same time run the powerfull multimedia packages
for the Amiga.

|> 
|> Jess Holle

- Raist

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: smytonj@carr54.alleg.edu (James Smyton)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.152214.10139@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes:
***text deleted***
>....... monochrome NeXTs to expandable, color Macs.  NeXT's selling point  
now is  
> software.
> 
> Jim Matthews
> Dartmouth Software Development

From what I have seen(note this qualification), the Mac has a much larger  
software selection compared to NeXTs.  How is NeXTs selling point  
justified by software in leiu of this difference?
--
J S  (smytonj@alleg.edu)
From: ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:36:54
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
	<1992Oct23.211012.20812@javelin.sim.es.com>
	<bmccnnll.720056834@unix1.tcd.ie>
	<1992Oct28.041251.118883@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Oct29.051139.11315@cs.uow.edu.au> <6281.2af56fde@hayes.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mustarastas.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 2 Nov 92 18:13:50 EDT

In article <6281.2af56fde@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <1992Oct29.051139.11315@cs.uow.edu.au>, u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:
   > 
   > The Mac only has one button, which cripples. 

   Wrong. It enables. Having only one button is a FEATURE. It makes the mouse
   much easier to use because it completely eliminates the confusion over which
   button to press.

   The Mac is MORE POWERFUL because it has only one button. Less IS more.

I wonder if people can deal with the ten (10) finger they have, why
would it be so difficult to deal with a 3-button mouse?
-- 
         Tero Nieminen                      DANGER!
         ttn@cs.tut.fi                   Computer Bytes!
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:35:53 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Nov9.200928.9043@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com writes:
> In article <16899EABB.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu> UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:
>>So you don't want anymore software developed for the NeXT? You're
>>happy with the current level? ;) Seriously, more software gives you
>>a wider range of choices. Why limit your options?
>>Its very nice to say you don't need choices when you don't have any!
> 
> It's funny...  now all the Macintosh people are saying exactly what
> all the PC people said when Macintosh came out...  you guys forget too
> quickly...

One. Not "All". One Macintosh person said that. Not All of us.

The irony is clear, though.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:24:09 GMT

In article C1B@javelin.sim.es.com, mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson) writes:
>In article <j!f12wm@rpi.edu> Daniel Norman Johnson responds:
> 
>In article <1992Nov1.041154.735@seldon.fdn.org> (Thierry CHARLES) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct21.003624.28831@javelin.sim.es.com> mmunson@animal.es.com  
>|> (Mark Munson) writes:
>
>|> MM> Application Support (QuickTime, HyperCard)
>|> MM>
>|> HyperCard is great, but IB is far more powerful and more future oriented: it
>|> is fully integrated with the system
>
>DJ> Hypercard and Interface Builder are qurie different. (what either has
>DJ> to do with QuickTime I dont know). Hypercard is for dabblers, basically-
>DJ> its not a real programming environment. Interface Builder goes all the way.
>
>When I was writing the original advocacy post, I wanted to cite Apple's
>support for new software technologies.  Word processor programs can now
>include real-time video (just like clip-art) via QuickTime.  Even sound
>information can be attached to a document.

I know. I was just pointing out that Hypercard and IB aren't
really the same sorta critter.

(ps- what does Hypercard have to do with application support?)

>When Hypercard was first introduced, the idea of Hypermedia and do-it-yourself
>GUI applications was revolutionary.  Even today, Apple is introducing new
>concepts into the personal computer industry.  Have you wondered what the
>microphones that are standard equip. on Macs are for?

Nifty Beep Sounds? :)


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2499 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:28930
From: jfriesne@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Jeremy Friesner!)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:25:42 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov11.212012.2134@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes:
>jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>
[Macs are not more expensive even if you add all the necessary stuff]


>You forgot about your lovely SCSI harddisk... it isn't too fun to have
>a Mac without harddisk, you know...



Even if the EMPLANT was a little more expensive (and it ain't),
it still carries a few features the Quadra doesn't--like IBM
PC hardware emulation, and this really neat Amiga system you
can add around it :-)

Jeremy


-- 
|~~~~///~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|   ///  "Channel Z! All Static! | "WaddayaMEAN my A3000's not    |
\\\///  All Day! Forever!" -B52s |  AGA compatible!  D-OH!!!" -Me |
|\\X/____________________________|________________________________|
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 260-8100)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.182151.16948@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes:
>Terrance Wilcox 260-8100 writes
>> Not too many machines use the Mac Toolbox.
>
>If 9+ million == "not too many" I'd hate to hear your term for the NeXT  
>installed base!  There are more machines running the Mac Toolbox than  
>there are running BSD-style kernels, much less any Unix-based GUI (Motif,  
>Open Look, NeXTSTEP, etc.).  

I think that quote was taken out of context. Let me clarify it.

The question was about the value of objective C on the NeXT when
porting to other machines. The poster thought that obj C had
disadvantages because no other machine uses NeXT objects, so portability
was low. My point was that no machine other than the Apple Macintosh
uses the Mac Toolbox, so it's not terrifically easy to port Mac 
software either.

Terry Wilcox
From: dmt@grenada.ign.island.COM (Darryl Trujillo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT OS, TOO SLOW TO $#@#$, etc.
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:18:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Island Graphics, Santa Rosa, California

oliverm@nevada.edu (Moises Oliveira) writes:

>The Objective-C extensions (Objective-C is a true superset of Ansi-C), have
>been incorporated by Gnu into gcc.  The source is available. Thus Objective-C
>is available on just about every platform under the sun.  Even a Mac.
>I'm sure it will even be ported to PowerPC. 


Every platform *except* the Mac.

Although it's true that gcc 2.X supports Ansi-C, C++ and Objective-C,
a Mac version is not available.  Gnu is still boycotting Apple for the
latter's legal maneuvers and refuses to do any Mac ports.  The last 
version of gcc that was ported to the Mac was 1.37, and it didn't
include g++, gnu's C++ at the time, or NeXt's Objective-C patches,
which had yet to be integrated into the general gcc release. It also
required the MPW 3.1 libraries, which are now outdated.  There was
some noise about Apple porting gcc 2 for internal use, but if they
did it was never distributed.  I'm not sure how likely it is that
Apple would port it to the PowerPC platform, given that they're already
spending time porting the Lucid compiler.

I'm not aware of any Objective-C compiler for the Mac.
-- 

	- dmt
From: ttn@cs.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: the NeXT option (Was Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:52:42 GMT
	<1992Nov4.044023.819@cubetech.com> <c!h1_p+@rpi.edu>
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mustarastas.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: johnsd2@jec313.its.rpi.edu's message of Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:25:32 GMT

In article <c!h1_p+@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec313.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

   In article <1992Nov4.044023.819@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com writes:

   |> the function call to cause a
   |> context switch and tell the thread scheduler to make a different
   |> thread runnable is called cthread_yield().

   Ah, but this will be usefull to me since by Eds (admittedly strange)
   definitions, this makes Unix a co-operatively multitasking system,
   since tasks (particularly X-windows tasks, I bet) can/probably do
   co-operate by calling sleep!

Notice that the routine name refers to threads (light weight processes).
Threads are cooperatively multitasked. Since each program has it's own
set of threads, it is assumed that the programmer knows what he is doing
and cooperates between the threads as he sees fit. It is completely
another thing to schedule processes, which still is preemptive.
--
         Tero Nieminen                      DANGER!
         ttn@cs.tut.fi                   Computer Bytes!
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs. PC
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:43:00 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Nov4.132301.6160@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> In article <torrie.720726145@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:
>>   The IBM AT came out in August 1984.  I have the Byte issue to prove it.
>> The Macintosh 512K came out in the same month, 7 months after the
>> Mac 128K.
> 
> 	But when did the Mac plus come out?

January 1986, I believe. Along with the LaserWriter printer.

What difference does it make when each machine came out? Does the date of entry
into the market somehow determine the performance and usability of a
machine? No. 

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:22:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Rob Parkhill writes
>  If you want colour, how about a NeXTstation Turbo Color
> machine?  Even with the 21" Monitor it's less than a Quadra.

Not any more.  The Turbo Color 16/250 lists for $6650 according to my  
price list, and the 21" monitor is $3495, for a total of $10,145.  The  
Quadra 700 4/230 lists for $5039, and I believe that the Apple 21" color  
display lists for $3999; in any case there are a raft of third party  
alternatives for around $2500.  Even with additional VRAM and DRAM the  
Quadra is cheaper, and it gives you the option of 24-bit color and 3 NuBus  
slots.  The Quadra 950 8/230 lists for $7359, so you could build a 21"  
color system with that box cheaper than with the Turbo Color.

Unless NeXT does something between now and February the expected Quadra  
800 and Centris line will make this comparison look even worse for NeXT.

NeXT's hardware price advantage is gone, unless you compare unexpandable,  
monochrome NeXTs to expandable, color Macs.  NeXT's selling point now is  
software.

Jim Matthews
Dartmouth Software Development
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Subject: Re: specifically comparing NeXT with Mac...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:40:39 GMT

According to several independent tests, A/UX 3.0, Apple's latest version of
its UNIX variant for the Mac, was substantially faster than the latest NeXT
OS.  This was with both being run on 25 MHz 040 machines, a Quadra 700 or
900 vs. a NeXT whatever.  These tests were non-graphical in nature to negate
the Display Postscript overhead arguement.  I believe that I saw these
results in Byte among other places.

This seems to indicate that the NeXT OS is a sloth to some degree.  Even
without its slower graphics, its kernal has a lot of unecessary overhead.
Given that the Mac OS is generally a fair amount faster that A/UX, except 
in cases where lots of processes are fighting for processor time, this 
means that a Quadra running the Mac OS should out run a NeXT rather handily.

Screen display of Postscript would be faster on the NeXT, but I don't see 
a great need for this in my work (or play), so I'd rather not be bogged 
down with it.

Development IS important to me, and, therefore, the IB is very interesting
to me.  One ENORMOUS problem, however, just how close is Objective C to
C++?????  As I understand it, they aren't very close at all.  Objective C
is NOT a very standard language in comparison to C++.  I cannot see myself
expending a lot of effort to learn Objective C and to write programs in it
which wouldn't be anything near portable.  Anyone care to comment on this?


Jess Holle
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy