HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:25:11 MST
From: yackd@virginia.et.byu.edu (Don Yacktman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: What is with the advertising in NeXTworld?


> Someone that both these companies can learn from is Stone
> Design.  No b.s. with Stone Design.  They talk about their
> product, and only their product.  They realize that their
> products can sell based on the fact that they are high-quality
> merchandise.  The only thing I would suggest to them is to change
> the color of the word "Design" in their logo to something that is
> a little more readable. 

...and maybe change the layout of the Create ad so that it's
readable and not so ghastly.  In the attempt to use every PostScript
effect in the book in a 3" by 5" (approx) box, they make it look
like someone barfed on the page.  Hire an artist, please! [with
the soulful "Babmi" eyes pleading look :)  ]

-Don Yacktman
From: ricardo@pencom.com (Ricardo Parada)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT should improve, not eliminate, its hardware line
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:30:43 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <1993Jan9.045138.21917@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> lmccullo@nyx.cs.du.edu  
(Michael McCulloch) writes:
> Michael McCulloch
> Huntsville, AL
> 
> P.S. Does anybody have contact/product info on those Epson Progression
> 486s. Price points, features, etc.?


There's an article in Byte Magazine on the Epson Progression


--
+ Ricardo J. Parada
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: When Will NeXTSTep Become Drag and Drop
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:46:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <63319@mimsy.umd.edu> alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore)  
writes:
>   look at the doc using FileViewer's content inspector (command-2).   
again, this is a 3.0
> feature (well at least the ability to customize it) that requires  
application support.
> its better than in 2.1 and should improve.

It would be really nice, though, if this could at least display
the contents of a text file. At present, it can't even do that.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: kirchner@tera.cs.umn.edu (Roger B. Kirchner)
Subject: Re: NeXT should improve, not eliminate, its hardware line
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:26:50 GMT

One improvement would be to bring back an OD of some kind.  Starting with
the most incredible hw/sw bundle I could imagine two years ago (Dig
Lib, Webster, Quotations, Shakespeare, Framemaker, WriteNow, Mathematica,
unix and access to languages and utilities that dos users have to pay for,
TeX, InterfaceBuilder, graphics, music, drawing "developer exales,
Sybase, Allegro Common Lisp, MusicKit, Workspace (a fantastic file
management program), etc.), upgrading at a very reasonable price to an 040,
with Mma, Allegro, Sybase 2.0 upgrades, a HD to supplement my original 330,
a PLI floppy and NeXT CD-ROM drive, 28MB RAM, 3.0 OS, I couldn't be more
satisfied with the value, functionality and flexiblity  my NeXT
system.  The 400dpi printer is really what ties it all together.  All
the power and capability is only "real" when you can get beautiful output.

But I feel sorry for people who don't have an OD along with a
Floppy, CD-ROM.  Only the OD gives you indefinite storage at 256MB
per side.  And it sure isn't slow compared to Floppy or CD-ROM.  And it
performs flawlessly along with my other drives.  The OD was a dramatic
innovation with the first NeXT.  Before that not many knew that a read/
write OD even existed.  I didn't.  The OD didn't work well enough as
a primary drive, but it is great for auxiliary storage.  It would be
an improvement to bring it back in some form.

Roger Kirchner
rkirchne@mathcs.carleton.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:53:31 GMT

Marcel Weiher writes

>> This is the same mindset that relies on dumb frame buffers when
>> common sense tells you that it's much, much smarter to at least
>> have a line draw and bitblt engine.  (Things like hardware zoom,
>> hardware cursor, panning, etc. etc.  etc. as well).

> No it isn't. Why have special purpose processors when you can make
> general purpose processors that are fast enough to saturate memory
> bandwidth?  This becomes especially true once multiple CPUs become
> a reality (and it looks like they'll be upon us NeXTers soon).

> With some chunk of silicon dedicated to just one function, like
> moving bitmaps around, you have a dead piece of silicon if you're
> not doing that sort of stuff.  With general purpose CPUs, it can
> go off and calculate some more digits of Pi, render some
> photorealistic image, filter news, predict the users next input or
> just goof off.  Same goes for the processor in the printer:

Exactly.  Special purpose graphics hardware, besides being generally
more difficult to program for, is much more difficult to pipeline.

Besides, if you put a mistake in software, you can correct it with
another release.  If the graphics hardware has a mistake, you've
prevented at least that part of the chip from ever being used.
And very, very few graphics processors implement everything correctly.
Especially line drawing.

Hardware zoom, a la the Nintendo blit-zoom, is junk.  It looks
awful.  It doesn't belong anywhere near any machine that does page
layout or other real graphics work.

Special-purpose hardware also tends to only have a speed advantage
in certain situations, where a large amount of work has to
monolithically done.  However, this just isn't the case currently
for workstations.  The most common operation, by far, is a small
blit.  This can often be done by software in the same or fewer
instructions that the setup for a hardware blit would require.
Only when the resolution gets very high (>1000 dpi) do the per-pixel
speed advantages of hardware outweigh the setuptime enough to
justify the time and expense requires to create the special hardware.

Naw, give me a framebuffer and another main CPU (or more!) rather
than special purpose hardware anyday.

--
Scott Byer                             NeXTMail: byer@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jefferis@manas.engr.widener.edu (Raymond P Jefferis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buffalo Bills Analogy
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:40:51 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: engr.widener.edu

In article <29277@oasys.dt.navy.mil> kurhajet@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert  
Kurhajetz) writes:
> I was just musing that perhaps with all the talk about doom + gloom
> maybe NeXT could use the Buffalo Bills Football team ( down by
> 30-some points and still coming back to win it against the
> Houston Oilers ) as an example of what can happen when you believe 
> in yourself and have some talented people. Just a thought.
Good point! Does NeXT believe in itself?
Ray
From: isbell@cats.ucsc.edu (Art Isbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT may not be doomed yet, but I sure have a lot of goose-bumps.
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:05:25 GMT
Organization: Cubic Solutions - NeXT software development and consulting
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan6.155930.460@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.080134.3244@microsoft.com> edwardj@microsoft.com (Edward Jung) writes:
>>Their software group is small, has undergone a number of changes
>>of management and direction, and has lost a number of senior
>>people.


>	If NeXT pulled out of hardware, their software group could be a lot
>	bigger.

An important point that NeXT should consider seriously...
-- 

Art Isbell                                                      Cubic Solutions
NeXT Registered Developer #745         NeXT software development and consulting
NeXTmail: isbell@cats.UCSC.EDU                             Voice: (408)335-1154
USmail: 95018-9442                                           Fax: (408)335-2515
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: kevins@slow.inslab.uky.edu 
Subject: Re: Gosip in 1993
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:31:13 GMT

Michael Ross writes
-> In article <2B4DB9C1.2464@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark  
-> Thomsen) writes:
-> > Heard that one of the NeXT software product developers is about to hit  
-> the  
-> > financial skids --- anyone know who?
-> > 
-> Yes. I do.
-> 
-> :)
-> 
-> -- 
-> Michael Ross
-> Antigone Press, San Francisco, California
-> e-mail: mross@antigone.com
-> FAX: 1-415-431-3650

Gee! I wonder who....
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
	"There's a reason for everything."

	Kevin Solie
	Director of Developement:	benchMark Developements, Inc.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: wag1@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (d.wagley)
Subject: Re: NeXT may not be doomed yet, but I sure have a lot of goose-bumps.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:16:23 GMT
Summary: RISC ports

In article <C0E0Lx.2C7@cs.mcgill.ca>, samurai@cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK) writes:
> Well, it's just that Steve uses the old "Silent Snap Count on 2". We
> wouldn't mind hearing "RISC  31, RISC 31, Set, HUT!!!" ;-) At least we'd
> know that they were going to play the ball... 8-].

Anybody see this? Comments?

Open Systems Today 1/4/93, Page 3, "RISC Ports planned for NextStep":

"Next Computer will be porting NextStep to several RISC platforms, company
officials have confirmed."

The article doesn't name specific platforms, but lists leading candidates
as: SPARC, PA-RISC, Alpha AXP and PowerPC.

It goes on to state that NeXT has already settled on a RISC platform for
it's own systems. Of course they won't reveal which.

					Doug

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: randall@redfish.atmos.colostate.edu (Dave Randall)
Subject: NeXT harware vs software
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:47:22 GMT
Reply-To: sh.atmos.colostate.edu (Dave Randall)
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Regarding the recent speculation about NeXT getting out of the hardware  
business, the hardware manager resigning, etc.:

 There is pretty clear evidence that:

1. For the forseeable future, NeXT will make more money selling software than  
they will selling hardware. Lots more.

2. If NeXTSTEP makes it on multiple platforms and NeXT becomes insanely  
profitable, this will reassure folks that the company is not going to  
disappear, and will thus indirectly help boost hardware sales.

3. NeXT is not planning to get out of hardware altogether, e.g. recent press  
reports confirm that there WILL be a NRW.

So my guess is that hardware is not disappearing but is becoming a small  
fraction of the business. That is probably a good strategy, and not just from a  
dollars point of view. The strength of NeXT has been in its software, from the  
beginning. They can't compete on harware with the likes of HP or IBM or even  
SGI. I don't really care who builds the box, so long as it runs NeXTSTEP and  
has good performance and a reasonable price. Of course, I do prefer black....

These changes in the company's plans (and in personnel) probably reflect the  
actions of the company's new president. Watching from afar, I would say that he  
seems to be a very practical fellow.
From: isbell@cats.ucsc.edu (Art Isbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXTSTEP development opportunities
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:08:20 GMT
Organization: Cubic Solutions - NeXT software development and consulting
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <PFKEB.93Jan8080725@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> pfkeb@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul F. Kunz) writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:10:21 GMT, jcorallo@ccsi.com (P. John Corallo) said:
>
>> Do not put the down payment on the boat quite yet, consider the source of  
>> that quote is from VP of a major NeXT consulting firm.  Right now their  
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   I have the impression that Pencom (the firm refered to) was in
>business as a UNIX consulting firm long before they got involved with
>NeXT consulting.   In fact, isn't their co-Xist product a result of
>consulting contract with some clients?

Paul's impression seems correct.  Pencom apparently started as a mainframe
consultant before 1970, I believe, and moved into Unix in the 70's.  It was
looking for a Unix system for internal development purposes and chose NeXT from
among the many choices, so it has added NeXT to its list of Unix platforms.

I'm sure that NeXT consulting is a small part of Pencom's total business (most
of Pencom's ads in Open Systems Today don't mention NeXTSTEP opportunities),
but apparently a rapidly growing part of its business.  There are a number of
Pencom employees who will undoubtedly correct me because I'm merely reporting
what I recall from the Open Systems Today article (it's outside in the recycle
bin soaked from all our rain, so I don't think I'll use it to verify my memory
:-)

The bulk of the full-page Open Systems Today article was about consulting
opportunities other than NeXTSTEP.  Only a couple of paragraphs mentioned
NeXTSTEP, but it was mentioned in a very positive light in a publication that
isn't sure the NeXTSTEP should really be called an "open system."  So I got the
feeling that Pencom truly considers NeXTSTEP as one of its important growth
markets.
-- 

Art Isbell                                                      Cubic Solutions
NeXT Registered Developer #745         NeXT software development and consulting
NeXTmail: isbell@cats.UCSC.EDU                             Voice: (408)335-1154
USmail: 95018-9442                                           Fax: (408)335-2515
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: 100 Mips Intel NeXT (processor comparison)
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:12:21 GMT

In article <BzvJys.CwD@cs.mcgill.ca> samurai@cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK) writes:
>
>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?

The HP chips can function with 8ns SRAMs for external primary cache.

The Alpha chips use small on-chip primary caches, then access secondary
cache off-chip with a few wait states.

If you have a toy benchmark like Dhrystone or Whetstone, you can fit it
all in the primary cache of the Alpha. (Or even the little caches on the
80486 and 68040.)  For a real code, the difference in hit rates favors
the HP enough to greatly compensate for the slower clock speed, e.g. a
99 MHz HP slightly outperforms a 150 MHz Alpha, which sits and waits on
external secondary cache accesses often enough to lose its speed advantage.
Crank it up to 200 MHz, and Alpha wins over a 99 MHz HP.


See my previous posting....


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: mark@cyantic.com (Mark T. Dornfeld)
Subject: Re: NeXT may not be doomed yet, but I sure have a lot of goose-bumps.
Organization: CYANTIC Systems
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 14:09:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.211623.15279@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> wag1@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (d.wagley) writes:
>In article <C0E0Lx.2C7@cs.mcgill.ca>, samurai@cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK) writes:
>> Well, it's just that Steve uses the old "Silent Snap Count on 2". We
>> wouldn't mind hearing "RISC  31, RISC 31, Set, HUT!!!" ;-) At least we'd
>> know that they were going to play the ball... 8-].
>
>Anybody see this? Comments?
>
>Open Systems Today 1/4/93, Page 3, "RISC Ports planned for NextStep":
>
>"Next Computer will be porting NextStep to several RISC platforms, company
>officials have confirmed."
>
>The article doesn't name specific platforms, but lists leading candidates
>as: SPARC, PA-RISC, Alpha AXP and PowerPC.
>
>It goes on to state that NeXT has already settled on a RISC platform for
>it's own systems. Of course they won't reveal which.
>
>					Doug
>

This was in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Wednesday:

JOBS IN TALKS WITH HEWLETT

New York Times Service

SAN FRANCISCO -- Setven Jobs may have found a way to move his struggling
work station company to centre stage in the desktop computer industry.

  Next Inc,. Jobs's five-year-old maker of work stations, is now in
discussions with the Hewlett-Packard Co. over licensing Next's Nextstep
software technology, three executives familiar with the talks say,

  The discussions between Next and Hewlett-Packard were initially not
limited to Next's software, which is widely viewed as the industry's
most innovative.  Originally, the talks included the possiblity of a
Hewlett-packard investment in Next and the possibility that Next might
use a version of Hewlett-Packard's microprocessor in a versin of its work
station.

  A broader relationship has apparently been ruled out by Hewlett-Packard
executives.
-- 

Mark T. Dornfeld                              Voice: (416) 234-9048
CYANTIC Systems                               Facsimile: (416) 234-0477
101 Subway Crescent Suite 2103                Email: mark@cyantic.com
From: samurai@cs.mcgill.ca (Darcy BROCKBANK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT may not be doomed yet, but I sure have a lot of goose-bumps.
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:34:44 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1993Jan5.003434.23442@dvorak.amd.com> rpomeroy@aunext1.amd.com writes:
>
>Hey, it's like a game of football.  You don't want your quarterback
>telling the opposing teams defense what play he's about to call. Capish? (sp)

Well, it's just that Steve uses the old "Silent Snap Count on 2". We
wouldn't mind hearing "RISC  31, RISC 31, Set, HUT!!!" ;-) At least we'd
know that they were going to play the ball... 8-].

- db
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: marcel@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Marcel Weiher)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:52:07 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	This is the same mindset that relies on dumb frame buffers when
>	common sense tells you that it's much, much smarter to at least
>	have a line draw and bitblt engine.  (Things like hardware zoom,
>	hardware cursor, panning, etc. etc. etc. as well).

No it isn't. Why have special purpose processors when you can make
general purpose processors that are fast enough to saturate memory
bandwidth?  This becomes especially true once multiple CPUs become
a reality (and it looks like they'll be upon us NeXTers soon). 

With some chunk of silicon dedicated to just one function, like moving
bitmaps around, you have a dead piece of silicon if you're not doing
that sort of stuff.  With general purpose CPUs, it can go off and
calculate some more digits of Pi, render some photorealistic image,
filter news, predict the users next input or just goof off.  Same 
goes for the processor in the printer:

Why not put it in the computer, where it can be put to good use while
it's not rinting?  Same for the memory in the printer.

And of course, your printer software gets upgraded real quick.  How
many HP LaserJets with built-in PostScript Level 2 out there?

Special purpose hardware is great when you have a special purpose 
situation:  a fixed problem set that you know cannot be handled
adequately by general purpose hardware and will also remain
fairly constant.  Take SGIs wonderful graphics pipeline.  You
know what it does when rendering photorealistically?  It sits
around idly.  Pretty much the same goes for conventional graphics
hardware with PostScript, because the bottlenecks simply aren't
where you think they are!  

Think Software!  Use Hardware when you REALLY REALLY need it.
Remember the CISC/RISC wars and the "test bit, shift left,
clear the cache and dim the lights" type instructions.

Something interesting to read for anyone who has made it this
far are the chapters on graphics architectures in Foley/VanDam.


Marcel
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT - printer version
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:34:18 GMT

hal@niftyneato.com(Hal Fox-Palmer) writes:
> Yes yes yes, other printers are catching up and in some cases (HP4 & 4M)  
> surpassing the NeXT Printer but what would you think if NeXT came out with  
> a 11x17 800 dpi printer for under $3000.00 ? Would you buy one, I would.
> Or how about just a 8.5x11 800 dpi printer. Canon has the engines and the  
> Adobe license allows up to 900 dpi.

400dpi is nice enough for just about everything I do, so I'd be happy if the  
current printer was just a few hundred dollars cheaper...   :-)

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
From: paul@seer.demon.co.uk (Paul Lynch)
Subject: Re: NeXT should improve, not eliminate, its hardware line
Organization: P & L Systems
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:54:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.222650.12713@news2.cis.umn.edu>  
kirchner@tera.cs.umn.edu (Roger B. Kirchner) writes:
> One improvement would be to bring back an OD of some kind.

There are bigger, smaller :-), faster and better optical disks available  
out there now.  What is needed is for NeXT to "standardise" on one of them  
in some way.

> the most incredible hw/sw bundle I could imagine two years ago (Dig
> Lib, Webster, Quotations, Shakespeare, Framemaker, WriteNow,  
Mathematica,
> unix and access to languages and utilities that dos users have to pay  
for,
> TeX, InterfaceBuilder, graphics, music, drawing "developer exales,
> Sybase, Allegro Common Lisp, MusicKit, Workspace (a fantastic file
> management program), etc.), upgrading at a very reasonable price to an  
040,

Current purchasers don't get: FrameMaker, Sybase, Lisp, WriteNow,  
Mathematica or MusicKit; and Librarian doesn't work very well.  The fact  
that some (not all) of these are available commercially doesn't cut much  
ice with me, as the extra price to buy even just what you may decide that  
you can't live without is phenomenal.  I was one of those who bought NeXT  
because it was the cheapest viable Unix workstation at the time; that  
certainly isn't true now.

Paul
-- 
Paul Lynch
P & L Systems                   (NeXTmail) paul@seer.demon.co.uk
Tel: (0494)671501                      paull@cix.compulink.co.uk
Fax: (0494)680228                       76711.451@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy