HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kent_stuart_smith@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: End of NeXT
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:10:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Interesting to read the NeXT news again, I've been away from it as I sold my 
Colorstation last year (Back to the Mac-sorry).  Anyway, a friend of mine who
should know (he used to be at NeXT) said that Jobs delayed the NS '486 intro 
not because of technical glitches, but because he fears the effect on hard-
ware sales.  The code is already done.  Apparently Grove(from Intel) came
to convince Jobs to start shipping the product, and twice Jobs ended up 
cancelling his meetings with him.  I don't think this bodes well for NeXT,
as I feel there has been a real decrease in media attention the company has 
gotten in the last year.  The real enemy is Microsoft (for Apple too).  It
is sad, but true that people have brand loyalty in computers.  It seems that
the vast majority of users will buy inferior products, just because they know
 the 'name' of IBM, DOS, or Microsoft. I fear that when Windows NT is 
introduced, there will be a big push for that product that will obliterate
NS '486,as well as Mac networking. It won't matter that Windows NT is a secon
d rate product- it will be a huge success just because Microsoft is behind it
Its much like Ford Motor Co. in the early part of the century.  I fear that
NeXT will be be eventually bought by the Japanese.  They may be able to 
eventually use NS in a successful fight with Microsoft in the future. I also 
fear that Jobs won't be able to hold out forever- remember, he's lost a lot
 of his fortune in NeXT, as well as his credibility in the computer world. It
 took me back to see the cheap prices of NeXT machines offered by Spherical
(even though they are used).  Watch out for the prices, though when NeXT is a
wholly owned Japanese company...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox)
Subject: DOOM!
Keywords: doom
Reply-To: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca
Organization: Not Really, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:54:32 GMT

Why is is that the new year brings out the 'End is Near' people? Every year  
these people predict that NeXT will collapse if it continues on its present  
course. These people always provide a master plan guaranteed to make NeXT the  
industry leader.

Every year it's the same thing. Mr. Doom claims he heard that NeXT is going  
under. The financial statements prove it. He knows somebody who used to work at  
NeXT. NeXT's line of credit is bad news. A major employee of NeXT jumped ship.  
NeXT should do this, NeXT should do that if it wants to survive.

Every year NeXT ignores these people and continues on. It enjoys modest  
success.

Now these people are back, with their same old tired predictions and master  
plans for success. Don't they realize that things change from year to year? The  
plan they came up with last year is obsolete. It's time for a new one. People  
are tired of hearing the same old thing.

So my plea to the Doom Patrol is this:

Can't you guys come up with something new? NeXT hasn't collapsed yet, so your  
old predictions are obviously wrong. Make up something with more pizzazz.  
Repeating the same old thing day after day is getting you nowhere.

While you're at it, give up the 'I like NeXT, but...' line. It just doesn't  
sound sincere. It sounds sincere with constructive criticism, but not with  
repetitive messages of doom.

Terry Wilcox
-- 
Terry Wilcox		| 'Next to the originator of a good sentence 
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca	| is the first quoter of it.'
NeXTmail welcome	|  - RALPH WALDO EMERSON
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: 100 Mips Intel NeXT (moved from comp.sys.next.misc)
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:43:17 GMT
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT

In article <1992Dec21.213251.24669@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>  
vesper@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Vesper - RMS) writes:

> HP needs to get PA RISC going with SMP. but I doubt HP/UX is up to the  
task.

Well, have we got the solution to that problem or what ;-)

HP: take the next step!

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOOM
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:05:29 GMT
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT

In article <92363.122907HARRAPR@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <HARRAPR@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>  
writes:

> If you doomsayers spent half as much time, and as much brainpower on actually
> writing NeXT applications and Objects, and perhaps demoing the computer to
> friends and co-workers, NeXT might be doing better.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there are only two types of people
posting to this group (doomsayers and yes-men).  There are many folks
in between those polar opposites that consider the discussions
about legitimate NeXT problems to be important to NeXT's continued
success. These folks spend plenty of time making contributions to
NeXT's vision of computing.

> In this newsgroup lukewarm support seems to manifest as doomsaying.
> I suppose that if NeXT does go under you'll all consider yourselves wise.
> Well, I will consider you accomplices. No other newsgroup supposedly about
> using a great technology spends so much effort blathering on and on about
> mistakes made by the company, lack of applications, etc. etc. etc.

This reminds me of something a NeXT sales rep said to a developer that
was honest with a customer about some software bugs in NeXTstep 3.0. 
The rep said: "say only good things about NeXT".  What bullshit!

Do you think there would be an immanent NeXTstep 3.1 release if the NeXT
community, lead by several notorious "trouble-makers", hadn't
screamed at NeXT about the problems of 3.0?  NeXT hadn't planned on the
bug-fix release, but wisely responded to the demands of their paying
customers.  Everyone wins.

> NeXT will never beat Windows. NeXT will never sell more hardware than SUN.
> But NeXT is respected for vision and delivering on that vision. That can
> be a very nice niche market. Look at Silicon Graphics. They do very well,
> even though SUN sells more machines in a month (week?) than SGI does in a
> year. NeXT can be like that - respected for proven, delivered technology.

Sounds reasonable to me!  Now if we could get NeXT and SGI together... ;-)

> So please, if you think NeXT is going under, put your machine for sale in
> COMP.SYS.NEXT.MARKETPLACE and SHUT UP. Some of us are optimistic, at least
> cautiously, and hope NeXT will find that niche.

Can't do it, sorry.  Gonna keep flaming, but only when I can back
it up with facts...unlike many of the doomsayers.

--
Nathan Janette				"So this is Christmas,
Dept MB&B, Yale Univ/HHMI		 and what have you done?"
New Haven, CT
nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXTmail OK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: smg@orb.com (Samuel M. Goldberger)
Subject: Re: NeXT: Economist Article
Organization: CR Labs - Internet Dialup Access (415-389-UNIX guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:58:05 GMT

In article <726037340.AA00000@blkcat.UUCP>  
Mitch.Alland@p956.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Mitch Alland) writes:

<body of excellent article deleted>

> RSun wants to kill us,S laments Mr lobs. It may succeed.

And here I thought the British used language so beautifully! 

Come to think of it, the image of Mr. Lobs slamenting the murderous intention  
of RSun is really quite moving.

--
Samuel M. Goldberger	smg@orb.com--NeXT Mail OK
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: edwardj@microsoft.com (Edward Jung)
Subject: Re: Weight of NT OS-level "objects"?
Date: 04 Jan 93 00:28:35 GMT
Organization: Strategy Division, Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: NT,Smalltalk,Windows,Microsoft,Object Oriented

In the newsgroup comp.sys.next.advocacy <1992Dec31.234458.6859@fnbc.com> you wri
te:
>Will OO languages shipped for NT be able to base objects on NT objects, or
>will objects in a running app exist in a whole different name space?  I

NT objects are all kernel objects, so they are generally not used
by user-level processes (which generally don't need -- and for safety
and security should not have -- the ability to define kernel objects)
The NT object manager can be extended to handle more object types
(although there are many limitations to this), but it is not expected
that this is the way developers get OO support. Even subsystems (i.e.
Win32, Win16, OS/2, POSIX) do not define new NT kernel objects since
they are user-level code (similar to Mach 3.0's architecture, but
not NeXT's, which uses a variation of an earlier Mach). NT objects
are very low overhead (hey, they're in the kernel!), and in many
ways are thus also low functionality (they do not, for example,
transparently distribute across networks).

In some sense, microkernel architectures are not the way to TRULY
support objects from "top to bottom". In fact, virtually all of
today's chip architectures don't support objects efficiently. Any
object system running on a modern kernel of traditional design
such as Mach, NT, OS/2, etc. is generally layered on top of
traditional kernel services which are in turn on top of traditional
chip architectures. There exist research object-oriented systems
(like Choices) that are "ground-up" OO, and a number of failed
chip architectures that support OO better. Many IBM chip
architectures are better at supporting objects than others;
these are not found in workstations or personal computers.

Microsoft defined a basic object model and released it in a
set of interfaces called "Object Linking and Embedding" (OLE).
This object model is primative and only contains the minimal
definition required to enable linking and embedding functionality.
The next version (widely available in beta) also includes
storage and external programmability functionality. A future
systems product will extend this model for transparent 
distribution and "plug and play" protocols, and base the entire
suite of OS services on this model.

A point of fact that is lost on many people is that OLE is
the object model that has the widest use today by applications.
It is neither a class library nor a language-dependent model
(although there are class libraries that "make it easier"
shipped by various other parties). And, I'll admit, it has
an ugly API and no interesting tools. But we're working on it ;-\

--
Edward Jung, Software Architect     edwardj@microsoft.com
Advanced Systems, Microsoft Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: monty@bismark.bsd.uchicago.edu (& Mullig)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.databases
Subject: Grant Management
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:35:45 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Does anyone know of a post-award grant management system based
on an RDBMS, preferably Sybase ? We are looking for a tool to 
help us monitor and project expenses on Federal Grants.  Tools
written for NeXTstep would be favorably received.  Please respond
directly.

--Monty
  Director, MIS
  Bioological Sciences Division
  University of Chicago
  monty@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: NeXT vs Mac, Whats the difference?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:33:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.212520.15988@cuug.ab.ca> wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.142201.17973@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>1. NeXT has a great (possibly best around) development tools.
>>
>>
>>	Has anyone got the low down on whether the release
>>	shrinkwrap ~$900 version of NS486 will include these tools,
>>	or will you have to buy the $2200 developer version?  
>>
>>	I hope it'll be in the release version.  At $900, it's sure
>>	to have a hard time--at $2200 it's sureto be a failure.
>>
>
>That's a relief. Now we don't have to worry about Solaris or Univel's
>UnixWare either. Neither one of those are shipping development tools
>with their user version, and their prices aren't much different.


	Unixware USER + Development :  $500 + $950.  < NeXtStep )$2200

>>
>>>2. I will soon be able to run my NeXTstep apps on a PC system with NS486.
>>
>>
>>	Believe it when you see it.  NS486, sure--but will NS486 run
>>	DOS and win apps?  At this point, who knows?
>>
>>
>Yes, NS486 will run DOS and Windows apps. Don't you keep up with the
>news? Your opinion would be worth so much more if you were at all
>informed.


	Was that necessary?  

	1.  NeXT hasn't made a commitment.  They say it'll be available.
	The haven't said what we all suspect--it'll be an additional
	cost (how many hundred $?) to the already overpriced user package.

	2.  The compatibility also hasn't been determined.  It probably
	wont be as good as OS/2, which most people find "sufficient" or
	"adequate"
 
	Now, if you had given any thought to your post before just
	blathering the prattle that NeXT has been feeding you, you 
	might have said something useful.
>
>Terry Wilcox
>


-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.143726.3939@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	Hewlett Packard LaserJet 4M Postscript Level two < $2500.
>
>	600 dpi, 8 ppm.
>
>	No processor time sucking.
>

Meanwhile, I have a PS level 2 printer, 400 DPI for a great deal less than
$2500. When PS gets upgraded again, my printer gets upgraded again. No 
cartridges, no checking for fonts in memory.

>	Still think the NeXT laser is a good deal?  Then consider:
> 
>	HP LJ4 (not PS) + 4 megs: $1500 
>	ghostscript (free)
>	== postscript 600 dpi for $400 more than the NeXT edu price.
>

Since I have built-in PS, why would I need Ghostscript. Why would I pay
$400 more for the HP? I've got a fast, compatible, PS level 2, 400 DPI
laser for a good price. Why should I complain?

>	NeXT designed their systems so that adding non-next peripherals
>	(who else would be dense enough to make a printer that can only
>	hook to a NeXT??) is either impossible, or agonizing.  A parallel
>	port (which would add, what, 30 cents to the cost of the machine?)
>	would have opened the doors to printers that are arriving now.
>	By the end of '93, those lowly PC users will be buying fast
>	600 dpi printers for about $1000 to $1200. 
>

So those same PC users can have their parallel port and run NeXTSTEP 486.

Terry Wilcox
From: mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Subject: Re: 100 Mips Intel NeXT (processor comparison)
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:31:41 GMT

I think that the way of getting around this bottleneck is to use EXTENSIVE
caching with sophisticated read-ahead logic.  I figure that a 200 MHz
processor like the Alpha should be mated with 5 ns RAM in order to do "hot
cycle" memory access, which is a practical impossibility.  So, like everyone
else, they have waitstates and attempts at caching.  And the Alpha is only
the tip of the iceberg.  If you got a chip that executes a lot of
instructions at once (say, three or more in parallel sustained), just
trying to keep the instruction prefetch pipelines filled would require more
throughput than the memory bus could handle.  The only solution will have to
be making faster memory, and caching to a farethewell until then.

Don't be surprised if CPU's start coming out with 1 meg of onboard cache
within the next year...

Mark Neidengard
mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
"You gotta concentrate on the mission you be takin'.
 It's not so much the mission, but you got crazy ignition!"
           A Tribe Called Quest
From: samurai@cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: 100 Mips Intel NeXT (processor comparison)
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:18:27 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Dec24.190008.25875@ohsu.edu> filibert@ohsu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.192238.18955@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>  
>vesper@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Vesper - RMS) writes:
>> > 
>> > A little commentary....
>> > 
>> 
>> Your commentary is out of date.  Look at the NEW new HP's. ie the 735 and  
>755.  
>> They beat the alpha's, and at only 99 MHZ - alpha is good, but PA RISC is  
>> better..
>


Can someone tell me how main memory is expected to function with
99 - 200 MHz chips? 

I don't think that 10ns main memory is quite the norm yet, so won't
these wound-up processors spend most of their time waiting?

How do they get around this?

- db
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: vin@netcom.com (Vin Locke)
Subject: Re: Infoworld Review:  "NextStep [sic] 3.0 crosses multiple platforms"
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:09:05 GMT

In article <FISCHER.92Dec17034138@vagtel.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>
>>>>>> "andrew" == andrew  (andrew@cubetech.com)
>
>andrew>  It said something like "Our configuration was an NeXTstation
>andrew> monochrome with 8 megs of RAM" <I started to feel really sick
>andrew> at this point>
>
>I hate it. Why is it that Computer rags *must* test configurations
>that no sane person would ever use? Especially with RAM, where you
>time and time again see long talk about this and that hardware or
>softawre and all their problems with memory, in a world where 16M
>costs practically nothing.
>
>andrew> "Even after running 10 applications simultaneously, there was
>andrew> little or no perceptible slowdown" <he's lying, but it's OK I
>andrew> thought...>
>
>No, it's not OK, 'cause it's obvious to everyone that he's out of his
>mind. You don't have to have tried to know that you will not get
>*anywhere* with 8M.
>
>/Lars

Wrong. It will get you somewhere, albeit slowly.
Before NS3.0, the slab with 8Mb RAM was considered the minimum configuration,
and NeXT was encouraging developers to arrange it so their apps would run
on such.  The only way I knew that I would need a RAM upgrade, prior to
having installed NS3.0 on my system, was the chatter on the net that has 
been going on since NS was in pre-release.  I couldn't find anything in my
release docs saying I needed more RAM.  If I missed it, I guess NeXT didn't
think it was so important, lest they would have put the announcement in
a more conspicuous location.
If the reviewer was unaware of a necessary memory upgrade, it was probably
because he wasn't keeping up with net chatter.

But don't get me wrong -- the 8Mb RAM NS3.0 performance stinks -- it can 
take 10-15 seconds to scroll in WorkSpace Manager; I can't use LaunchPad
because it's too taxing; I've had to curb my natural inclination to be a
window slob (lots of windows up on the screen all the time) and have 
joined windowSlob's Anonymous.  I'm a little hesitant about upgrading this
piece of iron, though -- the SIMMs it takes are not the most popular type,
and when this box becomes archaic (in x months) I wonder how the memory can
be recycled.
 
-- 
					--vin

vin@netcom.com

"Every reform movement has its lunatic fringe"
					--Teddy Roosevelt

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: comp.sys.next.announce is it dead?
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:40:32 GMT

In article <1htaksINN6pi@pith.uoregon.edu> bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn  
S. Fjeld Pettersen) writes:
> Is comp.sys.next.announce dead? I havent seen any postings there for a  
_long_  
> while. I know it is moderated, but isn't anything slipping through the  
censors,  
> or is it just that no one has anything to announce for the NeXT?

Andrew is away, and I'll be posting the small number of submissions
within a few days, along with the FAQs.

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:55:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.051539.5455@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  
(Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.010923.3689@mercury.cair.du.edu>  
lbrahm@denver.cba.du.edu (Lans Brahmantyo) writes:
> >Hmm, ... I thought Jobs has been the keynote speaker in several  
important  
> >computer exhibitions and shows this year! I must say that he is gaining  
> >credibility with his Object-Oriented stuffs and NeXTSTEP 486. Perhaps,  
your  
> 
> 
> 	Pretty interesting considering NS486 is still vapor.

You should get out more often.  NeXT has been showing
NeXTstep 486 to the public since Jan '92.  We had a copy
running on a DeLL 486-50 system for a demo on campus two
weeks ago.  It ran fine, only crashed in flames once ;-) 

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jon@afs.com
Subject: Re: A rosy forecast for 93
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:46:03 GMT

Re: Inexpensive Color boards for the cube:
 
They've already got all the stuff for interfacing the ND with the Cube mother-
board done. They've already got the 12-bit color circuitry done.
 
Why not throw the NS Color color circuitry on an ND board instead of the
ND stuff, use something cheap insteap of an i860 (AMD29000?) Maybe
add that dedicated Postscript chip someone came up with. Hell, make it 
8 bit.
 
Okay, I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but it doesn't strike me as being
earth-shatteringly difficult or expensive to do a cheap color board.
If they used more high-volume parts (like the amd chip) they could bring
the price down. Also, if they could get it cheap enough, and if they kept
the cube around, they just may sell more of those than they sold of the ND.

Just thinkin' out loud here.

If anyone feels the need to flame, keep the flames low. I realize I am 
not fully up on the economics of electronics.

Jon