🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4710@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther) writes:

   Why does everyone here think that the future will belong to
   nextstep?  Correct me if i'm wrong, but NeXtstep is the first major
   implementation of an object based environment (except smalltalk
   perhaps), and pioneers only ever lead when a technology is new.
   Where is the Xerox Alto? Let's face it, Pink will be better than
   NeXTstep is today, because Apple will have used NeXTstep as a
   prototype for ideas, identified the faults, and done something
   better. (If they haven't then i'll be mighty surprised, i mean,
   what'd be the point?)

What does being better have to do with anything?  The Mac was clearly
better than DOS.  Unix is a better OS than OS/2.  Price plays a very
important role in gaining widespread acceptance.  For NeXTstep to
become the most popular OS, it would have to run on $1000 computers
and sell for $99.  At $5000 for a networkable machine, NeXT is looking
at a total market of maybe 1,000,000 machines over the next 8 to 10
years.  However, that's not entirely bad.  Sun, for example, has grown
to become a $3 billion company selling b/w 500,000 and 700,000
workstations that are priced at >=$5000 (they're selling 200,000/year
now) over the past 10 years.

As for Pink, I haven't seen any functionality that it will offer that
NeXT doesn't already have.

-Mike