HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: caro@adobe.com (Perry A. Caro)
Subject: Re: More Marketing Malarkey(LONG) (Was: Mike Slade)
Reply-To: caro@adobe.UUCP  (Perry A. Caro)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:10:21 GMT

In article <Dec.11.01.47.39.1992.17798@gandalf.rutgers.edu> szatrows@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Kheit) writes:
>	What I think is that when you want true inovation and progress
>in this world you better make sure that a marketing person is no where
>near it because they do not belong there.  Once the inovation is made
>then it is completely out of the hands of the creators.  It will
>either be maintained or not because the environment finds it useful
>and this is where marketing is crucial; ONLY AFTER the inovations has
>come into being can the marketer start positioning it and seeing if
>its useful.

Sigh.  What have you got against marketing people?  I've been in
situations where marketing got in the way of success, but I haven't been
pushed to the point of blanket comdemnation.  The problem wasn't that
marketeers couldn't innovate -- the problem was that neither the
marketeeers nor the engineers understood what each could do for the
other, and ended up defining conflicting roles for each other.

The roles that I've found to be successful are:

	* Marketing goes out into the field and finds people who have
	problems, and are willing to pay money to have them solved.
	Note, this differs from Sales in that marketing doesn't limit
	itself to current products or technologies, and also take a
	more global view of problem areas.  Marketing SHOULD NOT
	dictate solutions, but should focus on articulating problems.
	Marketing should be as innovative and forward looking as
	possible in terms of defining the problem.

	* Engineering (R&D, product dev, etc.) focuses on finding
	solutions for the problems articulated by marketing, using
	existing technology and products, or developing new, innovative
	products.  Engineering SHOULD NOT create solutions for problems
	that may not exist, but should rather best satisfy the
	requirements of the problems identified.

It's true that trouble follows when Marketeers dictate specifics on
engineering or product development, but it is even more true that
self-righteous, arrogant, inflexible engineers foist ridiculous,
non-cost-effective technologies and products on the world when left to
their own "innovative" devices.  Consider Apple's "twiggy" drive.

Innovation is worse than useless (since it represents negative
productivity) when there is no market.  Creating products for the sake
of innovation, and then throwing these products over the wall for Sales
and Marketing to make successful, and then holding Sales and Marketing
accountable for the failure of these products, is an unfortunately
common scenario in the U.S.  Too bad for us.

Perry
-- 
caro@adobe.com	...!{sun,decwrl}!adobe!caro   Contents: my opinions, no others
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  100 Mips Intel NeXT (moved from comp.sys.next.misc)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Dec15.142154.10812@glv.uucp> andersen@reality.glv.com (Robert  
Andersen) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.180303.20755@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)  
> writes:
> > Matthew Dillon writes
> > 
> > >     Why spend major kilobucks on color NeXTStation hardware when
> > >     I can spend a quarter of the money on a 486 box with equivalent
> > >     capabilities?
> > 
> > You couldn't get anywhere near the ColorStation's capabilities for
> > 1/4 the price.  Or even half.  You'd be hard pressed to match it
> > dollar for dollar, though it could be done if you love fiddling
> > with the gazillion primitive dip switches that are always present
> > on PC hardware to remind you how out of date their architectures
> > are.  
> 
>   So you know for a fact how well NS486 runs, I would like to know the  
> configuration of the machine you used to base your comparison on and where 
> you got a copy of NX486 from.
> 

We have NS-486 running in-house. The configuration is a Compaq DeskPro 66M  
(66MHz '486) with 32MB of RAM, a 520MB hard drive, an Ethernet card, some  
Compaq local video system (which only gives 800 x 640 x 16-bit graphics; about  
55% of the screen real-estate of the NeXT), mouse, keyboard, monitor (some NEC  
17", I believe). It cost us roughly the same as a ColorStation at developer  
prices (i.e., 70% of list price). We got our copy of NS-486 from NeXT (revision  
G, I think).  Any other questions?  ..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  Shall I start a BBS? Do I dare to try to teach?
Chief Technical Officer      |  I shall take my palmheld portable and 
Pages Software Inc           |     and hack upon the beach.
bwebster@pages.com           |  I have heard the networks passing packets
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |     each to each
                             |  They have no traffic for the likes of me.
                             |            -- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Insults (was: Re: standardizing NeXTSTEP)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 16:20:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1gmleqINNm78@phakt.usc.edu> rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert  
Alexander Wyatt) writes:
> So the war will continue and no one will win and eventually no one  
will care
> as NeXT carves out its market - with or without MicroSoft...I for  
one am happy
> that MicroSoft isn't writing anything for NeXT - not that I would  
so much as
> pay one cent for software like Excel or Word - on any platform!
> 

Why?  Word is one of the best (perhaps the best) word processor on
the market, and Excel is THE best spreadsheet on the market. In
fact, for a long time, nobody was even close to Excel, though
several others such as Quatro Pro have made major advances in the
last couple of years, so it's a close race these days.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews)
Subject: Re: More Marketing Malarkey
Reply-To: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/JSC Engineering Computation Facility
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:09:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.191522.2941@netcom.com> abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:
>matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews) writes:
>
>> Steve Jobs is a marketer.  Bill Gates is an engineer.
>
>No, Bill Gates is a hacker. Steve Jobs is an exception.
>
Yes.  I was using the terms "marketer" and "engineer" somewhat
loosely, but my point was that Gates started out implementing
technology (writing software; and I have heard many -- probably
apocryphal -- stories about his coding prowess), while Jobs started
out "marketing" technology, which is to say that he was able to
recognize those technologies (the personal computer, GUI's, object-
oriented design, etc.) that would have far-reaching effect and
broad appeal, and bring them to market.

This is not to say that Jobs has no impact on the engineering of his
products -- it is, in fact, his vision that drives the goals of the
engineering teams.  But that vision is driven by Jobs' view of what
people need and want and can use, which is what marketing is all
about.

I'm also not saying that Gates isn't more of a marketer than an
engineer now.  Arguably, Gates could be noted as the better marketer,
since he was able to "make a silk purse of a sow's ear" -- convincing
gazillions of poor unsuspecting wretches that they need such tripe as
MS-DOS and Windows.  Or perhaps that's more sales than marketing...
the line between them can be is somewhat blurry.
--
Mike Matthews, ex-Tether Dude +------------->   matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
"Had the Shuttle on a String"  \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)!
Lockheed-ESC                  |  
Houston, TX                   |          *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD ***
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: shanega@athena.mit.edu (Shane G. Artis)
Subject: Re: GO LOW/MID END I SAY
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:51:03 GMT

>
>>NeXT 3.0 is NOT slow!  I am running it OK on my 030 cube with 24 Mb RAM
>>and it's fine there even though it's not recommended for the 68030!  This
>>machine even acts as an NFS server for my PC!  
>
>>I wish my SUN IPC would perform as swiftly!
>
>>NOT SLOW
>
>Taking IconBuilder as a part of NS 3.0, make the following test:
>
>1) quit as much apps as you can.
>2) Run IconBuilder on some resonable image (loginwindow-format, e.g.)
>3) get the obese bits window
>4) enlargen it o it covers some interesting portion (about one of the blank spaces)
>5) try to move parts of it with the block tool.
>
>On my 040/25/8 station, performance dropped to sub-zero. No disk activity and still
>20 sec. response time for mouse clicks. Call that NOT SLOW. Hey, I had a ZX Spectrum
>in the old days that zorched compared to that, doing the same thing!

Give me a break!  Hell, I've got a Super Nintendo that blows my
Nextstation out of the water in high-speed graphics.  On ANY machine
in the world you can come up with a test the machine will not pass.
But test-for-test, my NeXT performs generally faster than the Sparc
IPC that I use at school.  If you want to talk about arbitrary tests
on an individual basis, I could do a convolve operator in Mathematica
on the school Sparc and grind the machine to a swapping halt that my
NeXT would finish in seconds.

I don't usually get drawn into flame-bait like this, but the earlier
poster was right - the NeXT does feel faster than a similarly
configured Sparc.  The later poster gave us a clear documentation of
everything that's wrong with computer benchmarks today by coming up
with a terrible one himself.

Shane



Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: NeXTSTEP 486 delayed to Q3 - are you serious ?
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.032004.21028@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>  
helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.204643.14091@bernina.ethz.ch>, flog@open.ch  
(Florian Gutzwiller) writes:
> |> Is it true, that NeXT has officially stated, that NeXTSTEP 486  
will be delayed  
> |> to Q3 1993 ?
> 
> How's this for a theory?
> NS 486 is already completely
> debugged and ready to go.  Its the ultimate OS which
> delivers even more than it promises.  Little
> shrink-wrapped boxes are sitting RIGHT NOW in NeXT
> warehouses. 
> 

Since we're all speculating...

MY theory ("it belongs to me..." <-- in a Python tone of
voice) is that the bulk of the OS and AppKit are done and
work pretty well. They're probably working on the
support apps ("Jeez! Look what NetInfoManager
does!!!", "Have you tried the HP LaserJet IIP option in
PrintManager yet?", "Hey! IconBuilder wor...DAMN!"),
and doing a LOT of work on device drivers. The engineers
are probably having a hard time explaining to the
documentation people which configuration switches
should be set on a MultiSync monitor so that it works
optimally with a JAWS card versus an SVGA card. My guess is
that these activities are taking much longer than
anticipated. The product-izing of NS486 is bound to be a
lot more problematic than getting the guts up and running
on a particular 486 machine. 

The good news though, is that key large accounts like
Chrysler can get (and probably already have) their hands
on copies tuned to specific hardware requirements and
set up by NeXT personnel for evaluation purposes and to
keep them happy until the "shrinkwrap" version is ready. 

I would also guess that some amount of energy has been
diverted from NS486 to getting a 3.1 together. I don't
know as there is a lot of overlap between the two teams, but
there is bound to be some. 

They might also have concerns about the Windows support coming together  
in time, but that's a complete guess. The compatability testing alone  
would be a time-consuming nightmare.

This is all just speculation on my part, but having heard
what they had at Seybold and the current delivery
projections, I would guess this is what's going on. 

NS486 is a highly complex product. It's not suprising
that it would take a lot of calendar time to get it to
market. 

Gordon
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re:   100 Mips Intel NeXT (moved from comp.sys.next.misc)
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172845.5016@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:

[ ]
>
>Actually, 100,000 is the around the threshold where some large
>applications companies with recognition-name software will decide
>to port.  Or at least that's what I'm told from here ;-).

This will mean the beginning of the end of the NeXT community and any hope
of having elegance being an acceptable computer term for years to come. After
a while with a 486 I just can't see how anyone can make it right. The i/o will
just be a pain, as it always has been. 
 
Good applications don't come from committees of people, and large application
companies don't necessarily produce anything neat. They do produce what has
been forced onto corporate <country>. It's a shame that will be the driving
force now.
 
For a time I really thought that NS486 was a great idea. I have changed
thinking. The world does not need something else on Intel platforms. 

[ ]
>
>
>And it'll take a reasonably large number of installations on PCs
>before the NeXTSTEP market becomes "interesting".

Oh no! I can here it now. I have this interrupt problem, DMA conflict,
addressing issues, etc...My SVGA card doesn't quite seem to work even though
it claims to be standard x compatible.
>
>I'll know NeXT has "made it" when I can go to the cheezy computer
>superstore (Fry's or CompUSA) and find a "NeXT" section of software...

That will be a sad day. What is needed is NeXt applications and not more PC
ones. Now, if the PC operations were to be used to fund innovation on real
Next's then perhaps...I just doubt it.

Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  100 Mips Intel NeXT (moved from comp.sys.next.misc)
Distribution: world
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:18:14 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <BzD5I6.GG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes:
>dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>
>>    Dell Dimension 486DX2/50	$2700
>>	8MB ram (64KB cache)
>>	212MB 15ms HD
>If this is an EISA machine, tell me and I'll buy one.
>
>>    Lets try another configuration:  page 143
>
>>    Hyundai 433S	price:	    $2000
>>	486SX/33
>I can't believe you are saying that any 486SX is reasonably close to
>the same speed as an 040 at 33 MHz.

    An SX is basically a DX minus the floating point hardware.	Probably
    not suitable for the NeXT, but DX chips are not all that much more
    expensive.	A 33MHz 040 will beat out a 33MHz 486, but not by much.

    Still, I don't see that processor speed has all that much to do with
    it.  While you and I would settle for nothing less then the fastest
    hardware we can get our hands on, most PC consumers don't care so much.

    If NeXT can get a handle on its misuse of memory, that is.. they do not
    seem to realize the huge amount of bad press they are going to get if
    NS486 turns out to be slower then Windows in effective response, and
    Windows runs quite well with 8MB of ram.

					    -Matt

>--
>David Lemson						     (217) 244-1205
>University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
>Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu		   UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
>NeXTMail accepted				    BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

--

    Matthew Dillon		dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    1005 Apollo Way		uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Incline Village, NV. 89451	ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA 			Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: vesper@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Vesper - RMS)
Subject: Re:  100 Mips Intel NeXT (moved from comp.sys.next.misc)
Reply-To: vesper@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 17:13:44 GMT

In article <dillon.0spj@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US  
(Matthew Dillon) writes:
>     Intel's pentium is a joke.  Since NeXT cannot possibly compete with PC
>     maker's 486 boxes (they've dropped below a $1000, see latest issue of
>     computer shopper), and since NeXT would be wasting it's development
>     money working on new hardware of its own (why bother when you can OEM
>     faster hardware from others for less money?), NeXT should get out of
>     the hardware business and start concentrating on its NeXTStep software.

Yes Yes Yes - I thought Pete Van C. was gonna go this direction.  If NeXT  
continues to sap its resources worrying about hardware, its software will  
continue to suffer neglect in crucial areas (VM,SCSI).  Deep six the hardware  
and give me the best software on the planet.
  
>     Second, to cut a deal with (predominantly hardware) companies to port
>     NeXTStep to other state of the art platforms and to OEM those
>     platforms.	You can't hope to develop your own hardware faster then
>     others have, so don't even try!

You said it.  Give me NeXTSTEP on an HP 735 or 755.  That's 140 SPECmarks with  
Fast and Wide SCSI (20 Meg/Second).  Tune your software to exploit this  
hardware and your cookin.  But that means a real SCSI driver and a real paging  
algorithm.

>     As it stands, NeXT is trying to have its cake and eat it to, trying to
>     do everything from the hardware to the software to the peripherals and
>     getting badly beat on everything except the software.

The only reason for NeXT hardware is to gain immediate market share for  
NeXTSTEP.  If they get ports to better hardware, they could jettison their own.
 
>     Work on the software, please... for example, the SCSI drivers. If
>     Commodore can support arbitrary third party drives, chaining,
>     synchronous SCSI negotiation, reselection (multiple operations in
>     progress), etc... then you can too.
> 
> 						-Matt

-Greg.

--
Gregory W. Vesper, SEWP BOWL, Goddard Space Flight Center
                   email: vesper@sewp.nasa.gov
                   Phone: 301-286-1478
                   FAX:   301-286-4627
From: kline@cs.arizona.edu (Nick Kline)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftp access
Keywords: ftp
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:57:55 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

>
>We are experiencing some immature and improper access of our ftp area,  
>probably in response to my posting earlier today.  This is to inform you  
>that our "netman" takes such abuse very seriously and it may be dealt with  
>accordingly.
>
>For your own protection and peace of mind, please observe proper  
>identification procedures when accessing our ftp area.  At this time there  
>is nothing there for you anyway!
>

so what does this mean, "improper access of our ftp area"?

Do this mean when it says "enter your login name" that people just
put something there like nobody@nowhere?

I guess the place ftping knows that I am coming from say optima.cs.arizona.edu
but it has no way to check that I really am nick@optima.cs.arizona.edu.


It can't find out what command nick is doing at a remote location.
It could finger nick@cs... but it could not tell what I was doing.

About a year ago there was this massive hoax where some silly sysadmin said
that he had been monitoring who had ftp'ed various controversial files
like say naked gifs and things like that.  He claimed he was going
to inform this system admins of what they were doing.  It later turned
out that he had no way of knowing who really was doing those things.

Sure its interesting to know who gets a file, but there is no real way
to check what is going on.  Its pretty standard that people just put
some garbage when asked to enter their name and location on the
ftp password line.

I personally don't care to leave a trail of everything I have ever done
on the net, just to satisfy some control freak somewhere else.  Anonymous
ftp is anonymous, for anyone.  No, I have nothing to hide, but I don't
want the govt reading my mail also or knowing all of my actions.

I guess this whole thing could be about people putting things there instead
of taking them, in which case I apoligize. But I hate this attitude about
ftp.

-nick
kline@cs.arizona.edu


Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: Jim_Brownfield@radical.com (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: More Marketing Malarkey(LONG) (Was: Mike Slade)
Reply-To: Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com
Organization: Radical System Solutions, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:34:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.153724.18793@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov  
(Michael C. Matthews) writes:
> In article <Dec.14.12.32.44.1992.23089@gandalf.rutgers.edu>  
szatrows@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Kheit) writes:
> >>Steve Jobs is a marketer.
> >>Bill Gates is an engineer.
> >
> >IMHO
> >
> >Steve Jobs is cool.
> >Bill Gates is a jerk.  I dont care if he's into trains.
> 
> Agreed.  That's my point.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I'm an engineer.
> --
> Mike Matthews, ex-Tether Dude +------------->   matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov

Steve Jobs has a life.
Bill Gates has a life.
Recent posters to this thread have...?  ;-)

--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com)  NeXTmail accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: dlw@atherton.com (David Williams)
Subject: Re: More Marketing Malarkey
Organization: Atherton Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.193447.5102@netcom.com> abell@netcom.com (Steven T.  
Abell) writes:
> rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop)) writes:
> >If AMD thought like this we wouldn't have sold $1.5B this year.  It was our
> >customers that drove our product decisions - through out marketing folks! 
> 
> >Thats spelled "M-a-r-k-e-t D-r-i-v-e-n" thank you....
> 
> Well, how long has it been since AMD came out with a product that's
> revolutionary? Sorry, but cheap Intel clones don't qualify. You guys are
> in the evolution business, so it's appropriate that you spend a lot of
> time listening to the marketeers.

It is the bottom line that ultimately matters. AMD has $1.5B, whether it is  
revolutionary or evolutionary or also ran. The important question is will it be  
able to continue to sustain such revenue over the long haul with its current  
strategy. The tactic could involve uber-engineers building the next great  
thing, or it could be building and selling cheaper and profitable clones of the  
next great thing.

Investors look for RETURN on investment, not "how long has it been since XXX  
came out with a product that's revolutionary?"

Thats not to say that having the passion and skills to do revolutionary things  
isn't needed or wanted...it just sometimes doesn't always figure into the  
equation of success. In fact it takes more than the creation of revolutionary  
technology/products, it takes articulation of the product as a value to the  
market that will determine its success in the marketplace. Thats Sales and  
Marketing's job.
--
David Williams -- dlw@netcom.com   -- NeXTMail welcome