Date: Mon,  2 Nov 92 15:34:02 MST
From: yackd@alaska.et.byu.edu (Don Yacktman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: Snake oil and lost love
Keywords: NeXTstep


In article <1992Nov2.172220.22386@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, nicolek@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Nicole KAIYAN) writes:
>In article <3618@news.cerf.net> billabs@nic.cerf.net (Bill Romanowski) writes:
>>... While NeXT seems to put out hype as it's primary product, 
>>SGI cranks out newer, faster, more capable machines....
>>
>>If they don't cut the HyPE and crank up the innovation they 
>>will be just another blip in computer history.
>>
>>bill romanowski
>
>Yet another person who sees the innovations in terms of MIPS and MFLOPS, well
>the game changed and those that see where we are going as an industry see 
>that software is the battleground.
>
>Anyone can quote MIPS all day but how many many workstation manufacturers have
>software worth raving about?
>
>Basically, give it a rest, the record is scratched from being played too often
>

Ok, yes.  NeXTSTEP is great software, and software is very important.
But software requires horsepower to make it function.  If I have to
wait 15 minutes to launch an app and open a document, than I don't
give a _damn_ how pretty the screen is when it's finished.  I just
wasted fifteen minutes opening the file!  Fifteen minutes that my
boss is paying for...  Now, obviously, fifteen minutes is an exaggeration
in the case of NeXTSTEP, but as NeXTSTEP improves, the hardware it
runs on will have to do the same in order to keep users satisfied.

You can say the software's great, and that that's what matters, but
when I see several users posting to the net that they're dissatisfied
with the slower perceived performance in NeXTSTEP 3.0, I think that
speed _does_ become an issue.  I'm as impatient as anybody, and when
I grab a scrollbar, I want my window to scroll NOW and do it SMOOTHLY.
I don't want it to jerk around or play dead for half a second before
responding.  When it does that, it feels worse than an Apple IIGS
to me...good software notwithstanding.  Now, where does the speed come
from?  Two places:  efficient code and fast hardware.  Possibly 3.0
could be made more efficient.  Perhaps faster hardware would be a
good solution, too.  Either way, I don't feel that you can just wave
your hands and *>poof<* make hardware unimportant.  It still matters
to most people.

What I'd like to see is the same NeXTSTEP I have on my ColorStation
cranking away on a machine which is much faster.  NeXTSTEP makes me
more productive, but think about how much more productive I'd be if
I didn't have to wait for windows to open/close...wait for things to
calculate...etc.  Think about how much more productive I could be if
I found the environment more _comfortable_  -- smoother scrolling and
so on.  Some may say it's only cosmetic, but I don't think you can
ignore the human factor.  If it "feels" good, I'll use it more, and
use it more effectively.  The faster the hardware, the better it
feels.  (Another analogy:  you may never drive a fast car 180MPH,
_but_ that extra "unused" power makes for improved handling and
better responsiveness when driving.  "Driving" a NeXT would be much
more comfy if it had more "spare" power!)

So, yes, software's important, but it's not worth beans without fast
hardware.  If you don't believe me, port NeXTSTEP to an Apple ][ and
use that.  The hardware would be cheaper and you'd still have your
wonderful software...who needs speed?  (And :-) a million times over.)
Of course, I agree with the flipside, too.  Fast hardware does nothing
for me if the software isn't useable!  So, while NeXT has innovated in
the software, I'd like to see a bit of the hardware, too.  Or at least
a port to these faster up and coming architectures.  Software and
hardware need each other.

-Don Yacktman
yackd@alaska.et.byu.edu

 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy