🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> conrad@wucs1.wustl.edu (H. Conrad Cunningham) writes:
>	...He maintained that the NeXT computer will be a failure because
>it not revolutionary enough.  Its only advantage is a short-term
>hardware capability/pricing advantage over the other available
>UNIX-based workstations.  He sees the NeXT as trying to impose a
>visual, object-oriented overlay ("a Smalltalk-like environment") onto a
>text-oriented UNIX base.  These he contended are incompatible
>notions--they mix like "oil and water."  The UNIX base insures that
>the visual and sound-oriented capabilities can't be used in any truly
>revolutionary way.
>
>	Thoughts anyone?

	Oh brother.  Acme corp. comes out with a new, fast, cheap
automobile and people complain, "I don't know, it's not revolutionary
enough... I mean, it's still got 4 wheels.  And folks are too
accustomed to standard transmissions to use this automatic thingy."

	People keep claiming that the cube isn't revolutionary enough.
Let me just summarise what I think is quite revolutionary enough for
me, thanks: {256M removable disk, Mach, speed, DSP, hardware design}
Etc.  etc.  Oh yes: and *price*.  Sure, it's expensive, but I dunno, I
consider this class of computer more valuable and useful than a car.
That's just me.

	As for the installed base of 'textually-oriented' Unix users
-- uh huh.  Right.  Show me the Unix hack who would refuse a graphics
workstation if offered one.  And frankly, I'm interested in this
NeXTStep (and, to be fair, the plethora of other graphic interfaces
that are being developed for Unix).  I think they offer nice
possibilities. 

	Nobody's forcing these profs who have spent $XX,XXX on their
Macs to buy cubes.  
--
					-Jonathan Fischer
					Mr. Walkman