Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #1997Re: NT: please define vapor.
From: waltrip
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:18
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:18
51 lines
2870 bytes
2870 bytes
In article <jbone.716138789@splat>, jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes: > I hate to engage *again*, but... No, no, Jeff, it was my fault... > > waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes: >> >> And, of course, we should note, Steve, that porting NeXTSTEP to NT >> would permit it to run on the DEC ALPHA 8^) >> > > Okay, goal: get NeXTStep on Alpha. ...but that's not quite what I had in mind. Porting to NT will get you on whatever platform happens to be running on NT. One of those happens to be ALPHA which I mentioned since Steve was from DEC. Others would be MIPS and Intel. You'd have one hell of a server with the parallel processing box from Sequent that runs NT. So my point has really been that you wouldn't have to port Mach to ALPHA and then to MIPS and then to ... Instead, one port to NT and the rest are free. Well, almost (you need to port the compiler/linker and debugger if it hasn't already been done). But I concede your point (again) that it'd be a lot of work to make that initial port to NT. > In fact, there is *nothing* that NeXT can gain by porting to NT that > can't be gained cheaper/faster/better by remaining with their own > kernel architecture, *EXCEPT* the supposed market advantage of being > able to say they're on NT. Repeat: the *only* reason to port NeXTStep > to NT is to *be* on NT. And I believe we're in complete agreement here. We just take a different view on the probable market impact of NT. And it's that market impact that determines whether or not it would be smart for NeXT to port to NT. And that determines whether there's likely to be a NeXTSTEP box on my office desktop (black would look great 8^} And, oh BTW, I'd personally find a black-portable-NeXTSTEP-Dell-mono- 32meg-box with built-in Ethernet for docking at home mighty hard to resist...with or without NT. I might even volunteer to travel. Opinions expressed are my own. _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ cfwaltrip _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep10.171812.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!netnews!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltripReferences:
<1992Sep09.164238.2487@microsoft.com> <1992Sep9.203008.9838@adobe.com> <1992Sep10.013222.14702@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Sep10.101204.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> <jbone.716138789@splat>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!netnews!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu Subject: Re: NT: please define vapor. Message-ID: <1992Sep10.171812.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> Lines: 51 Sender: usenet@netnews.jhuapl.edu Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL References: <1992Sep09.164238.2487@microsoft.com> <1992Sep9.203008.9838@adobe.com> <1992Sep10.013222.14702@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <1992Sep10.101204.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> <jbone.716138789@splat> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:18:12 GMT