🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37341@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes:
>In article <1989Dec17.064813.16650@nueces.cactus.org> chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) writes:
>>There are a few misunderstandings...
>>
>My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the
>optical drive is slow; he has to me.  The optical drive was a gutsy
>technological advance that I think was a little bit ahead of its time.
>Competing technologies today are much faster and are approachine 30ms
>access times, which I consider a watermark of working in a tolerable
>unix enviroment.  the Canon optical does not come close to these
>specifications.  Also, most of todays technologies will get you 600
>meg on a disk, not 256.  The Canon was state of the art when it
>was ready in 1987.  The NeXT machine, unfortunetely, was not.
>And if you think you can't get a removable manegto-optical drive
>for the Mac, then you haven't been shopping lately.
>
 
Well, with Canon owning almost 20% of NeXT, does this mean we (the
brave souls who bought the early machines designed in '87 for
that year's technology) will get Canon's latest and greatest drives
as an upgrade option (I won't hold my breath for the "free" part
of that line...but if NeXT REALLY wanted to reward us for debugging
their product for them...). SONY has 30ms Optical drives for the PC
and MAC and there's no reason for NeXT not to but the very best from
one of their benefactors (Canon, not Sony. A friend of mine who works
for Canon says they've had 30ms AND BETTER for "a long time now". I
am sure Canon has even better one's in the wings. Why can't we get
'em, even as a (gulp) cost upgrade?
 
Just 'causin trouble...
 
Roger Jagoda
FQOJ@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU