HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trevord@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Chrysler, Mobil & McCaw Cellular Choose NeXT
Followup-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Summary: Ya, you betcha
Keywords: money $$$$
Organization: Democrat 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:57:15 GMT

In article <19svfhINNcqo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> isbell@cats.ucsc.edu (Art Isbell) writes:
>
>In article <2AC141D6.26517@news.service.uci.edu> rmyers@dec5200.acs.uci.edu (Richard Myers) writes:
>>Hmmm.  3 million+ / 400 NeXTen
>> $3000000.00+ / 400 NeXT > $7500+ / NeXT
>>Makes ya wonder what configuration NeXTs are being purchased, don't it.
>>Think they're gonna buy a whole slew of Turbo Colors?
>>Does this strike anyone else as being odd?
>
>Not really.  I imagine that NeXT has sold them a number of Turbo Cubes loaded
>with large hard disks as servers, peripherals such as CD-ROM drives, extra
>RAM, and NeXTedge training and service contracts.  All this can add up pretty
>fast.
>

	As an example of this NeXT had(has) a promotion going on where it is 
	selling three tubo cubes , softare (Improv an a couple of others)
	suppport and training for a measly 28k.  in my own experience
	it is awfully easy to spend megabucks on next hardware.
		I would be curious to know if they did sell
	Mobil any servers. i thought they were getting out of
	that business and sending them to dg/auspex/solbourne/etc.

	Also last i heard the Turbo Color is their best selling model
	its outselling the others 2-1. 
-regards
-- 
* Trevor Dewey                                                                *
* System Administrator	 			         	 	      * 
* Holland America Lines                             uupsi4!polari!trevord     * 
* Hey!  			:	trevord@polari.online.com         *
From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Window behavior
Distribution: world
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:04:27 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

>In article <92271.234123MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu> <MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I agree that there is an argument for a different behavior of windows.
>If you are happy with NeXT's behavior, fine.  But from my experience on
>other systems, I really miss being able to type in the partially exposed
>region of a window in the back.
>
>Making a window Key and bringing it to fron should be two separable operations.

    Whew!  ok, I'll calm down now.. I see I'm not the only one with this
    problem!

    BTW, someone posted a mod to /usr/lib/NextStep/windowPackage.ps for
    2.1, but it's totally different in 3.0 and I was unable to get anything
    resembling the operation I want after two hours of hacking.

    If anyone can figure it out, post it!

					    -Matt

--

    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: eps@futon.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Subject: Re: 4.0 Wish: Bundled Groupware Tool
Reply-To: eps@cs.sfsu.edu
Organization: San Francisco State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:25:28 GMT

You are of course, familiar with the "Greyboard" app?  Similar
programs on other platforms cost big bucks (and get massive press
coverage) ... we've already got it for free.  What's all the fuss
about "mail enabled" applications?  We've had that for ... how
long?  Multimedia?  Object-oriented?  We've had those since Day 1.

These aren't extraordinary capabilities for us--we take them for
granted.  When the competition tries to play catch-up--that's
news!

Go figure.

					-=EPS=-
-- 
3.0: traditionally a cursed version number
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: NeXTstep Terminals (was Re: In BYTE (NeXT) veritas)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:43:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.162757.10536@fnbc.com> billb@fnbc.com (Bill Burcham) writes:
>[lotsa stuff about NeXTterminals munched]
>I think the whole terminal idea is retrograde today.  We should be moving  
>to _distributed_ computing and away from client-server.  Further, I  
>believe that if you look at the current market for X-terminals you will  
>see that the price/performance tradeoff just doesn't work in their favor.   
>Terminals were good when interfaces were about 1.5 dimensional, but now  
>with the richer interface requirements, the distrib. model is the only one  
>that can work.
 
  I do not disagree that distributed computing is coming (slowly, but
  nevertheless steadily).  But I strongly disagree with the comment
  that X-terminals' price/performance tradeoff is not favorable.  It
  is particularly favorable in many database-intensive applications 
  with many users where the interface requirements are limited (by 
  limited, I mean that there is not a lot of bit-blitting required
  for the application's content and that it basically involves standard
  "widgets" or objects).  The need to push lots of data across a network
  to support true distributed user interfaces (with full workstations
  on each desk) as opposed to just pushing the user interface bits
  across the network (or better, high-level user interface primitivbes
  like Postscript or X - well, almost high level, anyway :-) definitely
  weighs in favor of terminals in many cases (the pathological case,
  IMHO, would be airline reservation terminals).  

Jon Rosen
jfr@redbrick.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Where is the wisdom? Lost in the knowledge.
  Where is the knowledge? Lost in the information." -- T.S. Eliot
"Where is the information? Lost in the data.
  Where is the data? Lost in the #@$%?!& database." -- Joe Celko
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: NeXT RISC machine out in first half 93...!?
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:24:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.070010.439@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.220751.8408@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  
(Jim De Arras) writes:
> >A NeXT representative told me NeXTSTEP 3.0 would be faster than 2.1 on  
> >identical hardware this past summer.  So take the 200 MIPS with a grain of  
> >salt!
> 
> They lied.  When it comes to technical issues, never belive anyone
> from NeXT unless they work in building 2 at Redwood City (i.e. they
> are a real engineer - don't belive NeXT's system engineers or the
> district Reps. either) or they are in dev support.  But these people
> just don't talk to very many people outside of NeXT (they certainly
> don't talk to me... ;-).  I believe the people I talk to outside of
> NeXT far more than anyone at NeXT who will tell me anything.
> 
> Especially don't believe anyone who lives in the carpeted area of
> NeXT's main building or works in sales.
> 

I've heard all of you clearly on this.  I'm frankly amazed that such a large  
group of otherwise intelligent folks can accept that NeXT will lie to them, and  
not rebel against it.  I don't understand California law, but they'd be out of  
business by now if they were based in Virginia.  Here, bait and switch is still  
illegal.

> 
> andrew
> 
> "What's the difference between a used-car salesman and a computer
> salesman?  A used-car salesman knows when he is lying."

"(Bending over) Please, Sir, May I have another?"

> -- 
> andrew@cubetech.com     | "We shall not cease from exploration
> Andrew Loewenstern      |  And the end of our exploring
> Cube Technologies, Inc. |  Will be to arrive where we started
>                        |  And know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot

Jim
From: coactive@netcom.com (Coactive Aesthetics)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: In BYTE (NeXT) veritas
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:12:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Matthew Dillon (dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US) wrote:
: >In article <1992Sep24.191219.29130@fnbc.com> billb@fnbc.com (Bill Burcham) writes:
: >You can bring _any_ window to the front _without_ making it key by
: >modifying your click with the alt key (alt-click).  I use this a lot when
: 
:     Yes, I know, but you CAN'T make a window the key window WITHOUT ALSO
:     BRINGING IT TO THE FRONT.  In otherwords, ANY TIME YOU CLICK IN A
:     WINDOW YOU BRING IT TO THE FRONT.
: 
:     I want to be able to click in a window, make it the key window
:     temporarily, but NOT rearrange it's depth ordering in any way.

About a year ago, David Koski (dkoski@cs.arizona.edu) posted a patch to the
windowserver code (in the /usr/lib/NextStep/windowPackage.ps file) to fake
out pointer focus. Since this patch changed the key window without changing 
the window ordering, it may be possible to patch the alt-click sequence to
do what Matthew wants. Any postscript gurus out there willing to try it?

Otto

--
Otto Lind                  Coactive Aesthetics
otto@coactive.com          P.O. Box 425967, San Francisco, CA 94142
netcom!coactive!otto       voice:(415)626-5152    fax:(415)626-6320
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: smb3u@kiptron.psyc.virginia.edu (Steven M. Boker)
Subject: Re:   In BYTE (NeXT) veritas
Organization: University of Virginia, Department of Psychology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:34:53 GMT

In article <dillon.0odh@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.191219.29130@fnbc.com> billb@fnbc.com (Bill Burcham) writes:
>>>In article <dillon.0o6h@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
>>W.R.T.:
>>> there is NO method to activate a window without also depth
>>> arranging it and it totally screws up my carefully arranged screen
>>You can bring _any_ window to the front _without_ making it key by
>>modifying your click with the alt key (alt-click).  I use this a lot when
>
>    Yes, I know, but you CAN'T make a window the key window WITHOUT ALSO
>    BRINGING IT TO THE FRONT.  In otherwords, ANY TIME YOU CLICK IN A
>    WINDOW YOU BRING IT TO THE FRONT.
>
>    I want to be able to click in a window, make it the key window
>    temporarily, but NOT rearrange it's depth ordering in any way.
>

Well, you can do it in two clicks.  Its not as good as what you'd like
(and I'd like as well), but its the best I know right now.  

1. Click on the target window.
2. CMD-click on the target window's title bar.

The window is Key and ordered back.  A cheap trick, but maybe it'll help.

Steve

-- 
 #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#
 #  Steven M. Boker            #          "Two's bifurcation           #
 #  boker@virginia.edu         #           but three's chaotic"        #
 #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Make it Cheap
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:24:01 GMT

In article <SOWA.92Oct1141414@netcom.com> sowa@netcom.com (Erik Sowa) writes:

[RE ATI Ultra, S3, etc...]
>
>Yah, right. With what software? I would guess Windoze drivers that don't
>know how to do local bus correctly. Just because Windoze can't take
>advantage of it...

With Windows' software of all types (and OS/2). The advantage of the 2
local bus schemes that they looked at seemed to be minimal. Perhaps if
the local bus had a graphics' accelerator...
 
Philip
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Make it Cheap
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:37:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.200423.956@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:

[ ]
>
>Besides, the cost difference between a high-end 386 and a low-end 486
>is negligable.  By the time NS486 is out the difference will be
>insignificant - particularly once Cyrix gets it's 486 out on the
>market.
>
>Performance will be unacceptable on a 386.  The albatross around
>NeXT's neck is the 030 Cube w/optical drive.  NeXT won't make the same
>mistake twice.  Microsoft certainly isn't telling anyone you can run
>NT on a 386.

Why would the performance be unacceptable on a 386? As far as NT is concerned,
it's not finished and should they push on with this idea of demanding high
end equipment OS/2 (which I saw another demo of this week, with some interestingaddons) will simply be the OS of choice.
 
Notebooks are becoming increasingly popular. There aren't too many 486 ones out
there.
 
As far as the current cost difference between a 386 based system and a 486, thatmay be negligible now. But what about owners of 386's? I think requiring
NS to run on a 486 and up is a mistake. The idea of establishing a minimum
platform capability standard for your OS and then waiting for the hardware to
catch up in price/ performance does not make sense to me. NeXT should be
going after marketshare. In particular they have to come out with colour 
systems that ae inexpensive enough for students to afford. Noone wants b/w
anymore except for a few holdouts. Lose the current student market and you've
given up on the future.
 
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Need help over in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:28:00 GMT

spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Sean Luke writes
>> John Coolidge, who has for a long time insisted on the net
>> that NeXTs are inferior to Macs and now works for Apple,
>> refuses to stop telling everyone at comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>> that NeXTSTEP comes free with NeXTs.

>bookstores handling NeXTs, it is not impossible that his bookstore  
>was all screwed up and got it wrong.  Perhaps the best thing would be  
>if someone could contact the campus rep at his old bookstore (was it  
>UIUC? I lost the original post) and have them post either a  
>disclaimer or a 'oops, we goofed back then, the truth is...'

I don't remember ever talking to him, but I might have.  I cannot
imagine that anyone in the store that sells NeXTs would have told
him that they don't come with the OS.  I have been the rep here
since 9/91. I surely wouldn't have told him something like that.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: thf@zelator.in-berlin.de (Thomas Funke)
Subject: Re: US versus European prices. What the hell is going on?
Reply-To: thf@zelator.in-berlin.de (Thomas Funke)
Organization: NNU Corp. - NeXT is Not UN*X
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 10:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.105121.18238@cs.tu-berlin.de> ciardo@cs.tu-berlin.de  
(Gianfranco Ciardo) writes:
> Seriously, everything is, at the moment, extremely (30-100 %) more  
expensive
> in Europe than in the US, due to currency (dollar is low), and VAT (which
> is incredibly high in Europe, 20% in Germany, up to 38% in Italy).
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nonsense ! Now it's 14% and from 1993 it'll be 15%.


 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Funke  ** E-mail: thf@zelator.in-berlin.de
NeXT-Developer * Unix-Consultant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: sdk@shadow.twinsun.com (Scott D Kalter)
Subject: Re: Window behavior
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc.
	<92271.234123MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu> <dillon.0ogs@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:32:33 GMT

In article <dillon.0ogs@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:

->     Whew!  ok, I'll calm down now.. I see I'm not the only one with this
->     problem!

I also am upset that I can't easily select a partially obscured window
to be the key window.  This problem bothers me almost every time I use
the machine.  I'm fairly new to the NeXT though and thought I might be
missing something.  By the way, where did you find out about the
command {up,down} arrow for changing the window arrangement?  Is there
some important documentation that I haven't read closely enough?

-sdk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why didn't Apple sue?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:09:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.113724.992@yvax.byu.edu>, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
[deletia- why didn't Apple sue NeXT on Look-and-Feel?]
|> 
|> I would disagree.  In its suit against Windows, almost every convention  
|> that Apple noted (that I know of) exists, to an even greater extent, in  
|> the NeXT.  And the only convention that Apple won on (the trash can),  
|> exists in the NeXT (same place, same function, different icon) but not in  
|> Windows in a strict sense.  
|> 
|> It's clear to me that Jobs took a *lot* of his interface ideas with him to  
|> NeXT.  The NeXT has resize bars in the same place as the Mac, windows  
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> without menus, a flat windows-managing system (as a opposed to Windows'  
|> "windows-within-a-window" concept) and a Workspace Manager that is  
|> frighteningly similar to the Finder.  Windows has none of this.  Heck, the  
|> NeXT even ejects floppies by dragging them to the trash!

Pardon a poor ignorant Machead, but what are resize bars? The only
thing I can think that would be like that are the pane-resizing things
you use when you've split a window up into chunks.

Also, just out of curiousity, what's the Workspace Manager? The only
file manager I've seen on a NeXT didn't look anything like the Finder.
[not that I looked very hard]
-- 
			- 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.
From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:   In BYTE (NeXT) veritas
Distribution: world
Date: 26 Sep 92 10:57:29 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

>In article <1992Sep24.191219.29130@fnbc.com> billb@fnbc.com (Bill Burcham) writes:
>>In article <dillon.0o6h@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
>W.R.T.:
>> there is NO method to activate a window without also depth
>> arranging it and it totally screws up my carefully arranged screen
>You can bring _any_ window to the front _without_ making it key by
>modifying your click with the alt key (alt-click).  I use this a lot when

    Yes, I know, but you CAN'T make a window the key window WITHOUT ALSO
    BRINGING IT TO THE FRONT.  In otherwords, ANY TIME YOU CLICK IN A
    WINDOW YOU BRING IT TO THE FRONT.

    I want to be able to click in a window, make it the key window
    temporarily, but NOT rearrange it's depth ordering in any way.

>code while typing to the gdb session.
>
>Also try command followed by up or down arrow.  This will pop the bottom
>window to the top, or push the top window to the bottom resp. w/o changing
>the _key_ window.
>
>I hope this helps.  I have heard the same complaint many times from other
>people who have come from the X-World.

    Yes, I do know about these things, and thank you for your help, but
    they have little or nothing to do with the problem.  Having to go
    through a dozen key or mouse clicks to fix what shouldn't have been
    rearranged in the first place is not an acceptable solution.

    To reiterate, I want to be able to click into a partially obscured
    window (say a shell window), type in it,then click back into my main
    window without *ANY* windows changing their depth arrangement.

					-Matt

>--
>+--------------------------------+----------------------------------+
>|	    Bill Burcham	  | "The real world is the place     |
>|     Protector of the Realm	  |  between your toilet at home and |
>| First National Bank of Chicago |  your toilet at work."           |
>|    billb@fnbc.com  (NeXTmail)  |				     |
>+--------------------------------+----------------------------------+

--

    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: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Make it Cheap
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:53:33 GMT

Ernest Prabhakar writes
> Low cost has always been 'in' on the low end. NeXT is going
> for the high end, i.e. corporate, market.  People who want
> a low-power machine get a low-cost DOS box. People who want
> a high-power machine get a high-cost NeXT box.  You can't
> get high power for low price.

The problem with this argument is that it prevents many enthusiastic  
young programmers from cutting their teeth on the machine.  Instead,  
they putter about on a cheap DOS box and write windows apps.  Once  
they've moved up in the world and have the money to buy the power,  
they're less likely to make the move to a different system because of  
all the human capital they've invested in developing their  
DOS/Windows/mac skills.
The other problem is that even at the high end, there are many  
shades.  A cheapo 486 that doesn't have enough whiz-bang features to  
run NS is still quite a powerful machine.  People who buy such  
machines (ie high end but not necessarily highest-end) are often  
great consumers of shrink-wrapped apps.  By not tapping into this  
market more, NeXT is limiting the potential market for developers.   
Why do you think so few big houses are developing for NeXT (and lets  
not get into arguments about whether that would be a Good Thing (TM)  
or not, I just want to make a point about perceived market size).


> When low-end '486 clones become fast enough to do everything
> NeXTSTEP wants to do - including all the graphics and memory
> access - then you'll see cheap NeXT boxes.  Until then, only
> the dedicated (or rich) will have them.
> 

Yes, it takes a lot of expensive hardware to run NS.  But you'd still  
think that in almost two years there could have been _some_ price  
movement.  DOS and Mac prices are in freefall; NeXT prices have  
barely budged.  

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)