From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* way to go...
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:08:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.211150.24769@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>What does NeXT have that the others don't?  Its plus may be speed,
>sure, but minuses are that it still doesn't have nearly the amount of
>software available that Mac, DOS, and Windows platforms have, and its
>software still ain't cheap.  The ability to run Unix is nice, but most
>people in business need a machine that can run DOS, not Unix.

It's plus may be speed? Software quantity and software quality are two
different things and most business people need a machine that does what
they want. If they all need DOS, why buy Macs? SoftPC runs on Macs and NeXT,
but NS486 runs on 486's. If all else fails, reboot in DOS (ick).

>I haven't heard of anything major from them in years.

Kind of like Apple. Thousands of variations of 68030's, but nothing major.
Newton and PowerPC are far enough away that NeXT could announce and ship
a major new product before we see either of Apple's.

>NS 486 1.0 can't hope to run Windows programs nearly as well as
>Windows 3.1 can.  Like I said: I don't trust version 1.0 of ANY
>operating system.  I remember NeXTStep 1.0... plainful memories...

IF you remember NS 1.0, how come you said NeXT had an advantage in speed? :)

>>Executor on the NeXT runs Mac programs twice as fast as a IIci.
>
>I was only aware that it ran Word currently; does it now do full
>emulation?

The company that created Executor is going through major Mac software
I piece at a time. They started with Microsoft products to get rid of
the misbehaved software right away. As a result, it's guaranteed to
run a bunch of MS software and will run a great deal of Mac software,
but they won't guarantee the extras.

>>Windows NT and NS 486 are not going to be heading for the same
>>people.  Surely you see the difference between the two?
>
>I don't, no; what's the difference?

NT is heading for servers and early adopters. Eventually most MS slaves
will buy it. NS486 is aimed at people that want 486's but also want
something better than Windows. Those are the people that tried OS/2 and
SCO.

>
>>NS 486 (so I've heard) can also co-exist with other OS's on the same
>>hard disk.  So how does the hardware become obselete?
>
>The hardware doesn't, the software does.  If you make a large
>investment in one operating system -- mainly by purchasing large
>amounts of software that runs under it, over time -- and the operating
>system then goes out of style, your investment is at risk.

Like Macs. What happens when PowerPC and Taligent make our Macs obsolete.
Will my Plus run Taligent's OS or am I doomed?

>
>NeXTStep 486 is a nice idea that would probably do very well if all it
>were up against were DOS.  However, businesses run on machines that
>have to be as compatible, powerful, and inexpensive as possible;
>bringing a new standard into the works is a risky thing.  I just don't
>see NeXTStep 486 being much more than an interesting diversion over
>the next few years.

But compatibility and cost are NS486's advantage. Buy machines from
Dell or Compaq or Epson or whoever. Run the OS you want. NT, DOS/Windows,
OS/2, Solaris, UnixWare, or NS486.


Terry Wilcox



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy