From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Marc Barrett is irrelevant. Atari Falcon is REAL
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:16:32 GMT

philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:

>In article <torrie.711786976@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:

>[ ]
>>
>>  I think the point is that most Macs don't have the computing power
>>of workstations, so things like S+ are unlikely to be ported to them.
>>For example, how many S+ users are there who don't have access to
>>some high-powered workstation?  If I wanted to do statistical analysis, 

>S+ runs on a NeXt and does not use a CLI, until you are inside the program.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  That's exactly my point.  What Mac LC II user is going to bother with
a CLI-driven program on his 1 SPECmark machine, when he can login to the
RS/6K Model 550, and get a 40-50 SPECmark machine running exactly the 
same interface.

>Both Mac's and NeXT's use 040's. Why make a Quadra? Does Apple expect it to
>run Word and Excel faster?

  How many people buy NeXTs to run S+?  Most people buy NeXTs NOT to run
them as a CLI-driven Unix workstation.  That's a waste of the machine.
You can buy cheaper, more powerful workstations from Sun and HP if
that's all you want to do.  
  The reason for making a Quadra (or a NeXT) is so that high-end users
(usually involved with graphics, although it could be Word/Excel - there
are lots of people who have huge Excel worksheets/macros that take
hours to run) can run their graphical applications faster.

>Having a frint end is a good idea. SAS does not put out a front end to their
>main program, which in any case is not in the same league as S+. Mathematica
>does for both the Mac and the NeXT. 

  And that's the way I think it should be done.  An 040 just does not
compete with an HP 710, or IBM Model 320.

>A nice front end to S+? You can use X on the Mac and a terminal, but then 
>you're back to the mainframe days. The point is that S+ could not be ported
>easily to the Mac under the MacOS.

  I know that the main reason SAS wasn't ported to the Mac (back in 87
or so when they were planning to) was that the Mac didn't have virtual
memory, and they required 4-8MB of memory to run efficiently.
  I think they could now, but why bother when they have an appropriate
tool for the machine's power in JMP.

>As for cost, there are site licenses. In my opinion Apple has given up on 
>the high end. They are sticking to the middle, which isn't a bad strategy.
>The Mac OS is useful for many things as is. But it hasn't improved greatly
>for years. 7.0 was really no big deal. Let them put in preemptive
>multitasking.

  They're working on it.  For me, the more important things are the
software layered on top.  OCE, Worldscript, QuickTime, the speech
recognition manager, and QuickDraw/GX for example.  QuickDraw/GX in
particular will keep Apple on top of the desktop publishing heap for
the forseeable future.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy