From: neubert@cuphub.cup.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: X11 must die (was Re: IRIX vs. NeXTStep).
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:45:01 GMT
Organization: California University of Pennsylvania, California, PA

In article <1992Jul17.152139.140501@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard) writes:
> In article <nd21fkc@zuni.esd.sgi.com> olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson) writes:
>>In <1992Jul17.014935.29260@leland.Stanford.EDU> kocks@jessica.stanford.edu (Peter Kocks) writes:
>>| I would also add that X11 based computers I have used have taken too
>>| long to set up.  I worked with some dec3100s that came with X11 and
>>| it took us (chemists) two days to get the things to even boot up.  It
>>| was a month before we compiled emacs from the tapes.  When I bought my
>>| NeXT all I had to do was:
>>
>>So DEC doesn't know how to ship/configure systems!  That has nothing to do
>>with X vs NextStep.  The SGI systems all come up directly with nothing
>>to configure (but plenty to customize, if you wish); presumably so
>>do some other company's systems.
>>
>>| 1) Open the box
>>| 2) Plug in the machine, monitor, and keyboard
>>| 3) Turn it on.
>>| 4) Find and launch the terminal app. (took me 30 seconds).
>>
>>You don't even have to do this on the SGI system; it comes up itself
>>
>>| 5) type "emacs" 
>>
>>OK, so here you would have to use vi, or take the time to install
>>emacs :)
>>
>>--
>>Let no one tell me that silence gives consent,  |   Dave Olson
>>because whoever is silent dissents.             |   Silicon Graphics, Inc.
>>    Maria Isabel Barreno                        |   olson@sgi.com
> 
> I have been watching the flaming from the sidelines, and am frankly 
> amazed at the narrowmindedness of most of the commentary.  I have used a
> NeXT in the past, as well as Sparcstations and the like.  I have the
> following to say:
> 
> 1: X11 is compatible.  I can go anywhere and find X-Windows, and I can also go
> anywhere to find X-APPS!  It was said that compatibility was undesirable,
> and that new technology requires a break from the compatible way of doing
> things, which leads me to point 2:
> 
> 2:Revolution vs. evolution.  The NeXT has some very attractive elements in
> its design and in the design of its OS.  However, it should be noted that
> these changes are not RADICAL departures from the norm.  The CPU's that NeXT
> has been using are GROSSLY ordinary, both in terms of interested vendors and
> in terms of performance.  The operating system is, indeed, highly objective
> and tightly coupled with its Postscript Imaging Model and Mach kernel.
> However, this is merely an EXTENSION of what already exists.  With OSF/1
> coming out, NeXT's Mach advantage will be largely obliterated when it goes
> into wider use on other platforms.  Also, it seems likely to me that the
> upcoming versions of OSF should implement Mach 3.0 microkerneling, a feature
> that NeXT hasn't implemented yet in 3.0 of the OS.
> 
> 3: Ah, the infamous GUI.  Yeah, it's a good looking system, and for the MOST
> part I like how it's organized, and the features like the directory tape and
> recycler.  But, all this bunkum about how X can't do this, and X can't do
> that, shows me that some of the NeXT moguls have been reading too much of
> their own marketing propaganda.  If you want a 3D toolkit that is REALLY
> useful, it has to be device independent.  PHIGS is one of the greatest
> toolkits around for this, and who uses it?  X11R*5* does, as well as
> scalable fonts, improved network security, and a slew of other features.
> Furthermore, I can RUN X11R5 on more than one kind of computer (including
> the NeXT from what I hear) which allows me to not worry as much about
> writing machine-dependent code.  Sure the NeXT is tightly coupled and all
> that, but X11R5 will IMHO succeed because it provides all the features
> required for high-performance network graphics (in 3D no less) with the
> option of using different graphics libraries (like GL).
> 
> 4: System power.  We all know that the NeXT is taking it in the shorts in
> this category.  I've used the Turbostations, and they're REASONABLY
> responsive, but they simply aren't FAST.  When I think of the HP9k systems
> and they're raw power, or even an RS6k, and then think of the NeXTs, I sort
> of cringe.  I think it's really a shame that the wonderful NeXTOS doesn't
> run on a machine that has the power to really move data.  Unfortunately, for
> compiling, imaging, or raw numerics, I must say that while the NeXT is a
> CONVENIENT platform, the HP9k and other like systems are PRACTICAL
> platforms.  With VUE (and hopefully X11R5 soon) I can get just as much work
> done on a HP, and FAR FASTER, as I can on the NeXT.  What I find myself
> doing is using the NeXT for its native apps, but using coXist to fire up X
> on a more powerful machine if I REALLY need to get some heavy work done (ray
> tracing).  What would be nice is to implement RPC's or something similar to
> make NeXT apps use more powerful machines as backend compute engines, and I
> hope this will become easier as OSF/1 gains acceptance.
> 
> 4: Money.  The NeXT is still one of the best computing values per dollar out
> there.  Yeah, I doubt many of us here (myself included) is in a position to
> purchase a HP9k/750.  The NeXT ships with more of the useful bundled
> software than any other platform I know of, and it does it at a very low
> price.  In this respect, the NeXT is worth having not only for the KILLER
> development environment (which I still haven't seen equalled) but the low
> price to buy it with.
> 
> In fine, the NeXT is a good machine for using, for software development, for
> writing and maintaining in-house applications, and for various graphic-arts
> and publications pursuits, all of which NeXT is marketing for.  In the realm
> of SCIENTIFIC computing, where people evidently are not SCARED of a
> commandline (I know that was cheap, couldn't resist :) ), it seems like the
> NeXT is good for prototyping and personal use, but not necessarily for the
> actual scientific crunching.  I know that the proposed NRW might correct
> this, but being that the chip in question is the 88110 in PARALLEL (an area
> that NeXT is somewhat unproven in), I'm not gonna hold my breath too
> tightly.

NeXT has had some *very* good parallel processing people *from day one*,
and they have Mach (and some of those best people too)...don't count
them out of that most interesting of platform architectures...of course
Sun's parallel architecture gurus are also first rate...will be *very*
interesting next ten years on the desktop and at the server...Jerry
Pournelle's old adage of "one person, one processor" becomes "one
person, *many* processors".  ('Zilla is no intellectual pastime)

John Neubert

> 
> Mark Neidengard
> (no NeXTmail please)
> mneideng@nike.calpoly.edu
> "The other 'P'???  Well, that's not that simple..."
> 		Naughty by Nature
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy