🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxEyK2.G5E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:
>If NeXT wants to make money, I would think they'd stay far away from porting 
>just any platform.  Ease of porting doesn't necessarily it would be a good  
>port to do.


	It cannot _hurt_ NeXT to have the software available.  The 
	Mac port would be, essentially, a recompile with some work
	to handle IO (hd, video, mouse, kbd..).. The basic OS would 
	remain essentially unchanged.  Not a huge investment.

	The Amiga port would be a little bit more difficult (if just
	because the Amiga is kind of weird--take a look at the way 
	the floppy controller works some day..) but also, still 
	no huge investment (probably not terribly more difficult
	than the Mac version)..



>For the Amiga and Atari markets, piracy is rampant.  Unless there's a hardwar
>dongle or board necessary to run it, chances are the number of people that



	No problem.  Make a dongle.  This wont stop a pirate, however, so 
	it would be a waste of time (i.e. the Mac emulator is widely
	pirated on both machines, using pirated ROMs and a custom written
	software loader).  

	On the other hand, I sincerely wonder how many people are going to 
	be pirating an OS that would probably be around 60 or 70 megs in
	all.  This is not something, certainly, that is going to see 
	Bulletin Board distribution.  How long would it take to download
	such a thing--even compressed?  

	In any case, most pirates (in the Amiga world, that is) own Amiga
	500's or 2000's, and while plenty own 3000's, most couldn't
	care less about copying NeXTStep.  (And most couldn't run it, 
	either).. 

	I don't think piracy is a real danger there.  Unix is available
	for the Amiga, but I've only seen it "offered" once, and that 
	particular indicudual was requesting a copy party.  

	In any case, given that it's an almost $0 investment, and that
	there are a number of Amigas capable of handling NS--Amiga users
	who are sick of the lack of decent software (Wordperfect 4.2??) 
	and lack of task protection (yes, even on machines with MMUs 
	Amigados doe s not offer any kind of hard memory protection) 
	would probably be interested.


>would be willing to spend the money that NeXT would need to justify porting 
>a platform where there are relatively few professionals where money is no  
>object.  Both of these platforms are mainly composed of young people that 
>have much money to spend on computers in the first place.


	Amigas capable of handling NS are not too rare, and they cost in 
	the $3500 range.  I don't think these are machines owned by young
	people--rather, they are a pretty normal mix--about equal
	to the distribution Macs see. 



>Given that a top-of-the-line Mac equipped with what a top-of-the-line NeXT  
>offers would be in the same ballpark price range as the top-of-the-line NeXT
>why not just buy the NeXT to start with?  Also, since Quadra machines don't  


	Offers about the same.  Last I checked, a Q900 was running about 
	$6000 (16 megs, ~300 meg drive).  This is more than a color
	slab (well, about equal) and does not include the monitor.  However,
	they really aren't equal at all.  If they both ran NeXTStep, 
	the Quad would be a much better deal.

	There is no fear that Apple is about to pull out of the hardware
	market or go under.  There is already a large installed base of
	QUADs or Rocket'040 equipped macs. (Theyv'e probably got more
	Quads out there already than NeXT has shipped Turbo machines--
	anyone know the figures?  The Quads are selling _very_ well.) 
	Apple seems to get a new, more powerful machine out the door 
	every couple of months.  The Quads have a greater capacity 
	for expansion (next to the unexpandable slabs in the same price
	range), the Quads had a much wider selection of down right superior
	video choices (24 bit color, accellerated color, etc..).  
	The Quads could always just boot up the Mac OS if the user
	wanted it.... etc.etc.etc..
	

>compose the majority of the Mac market, yet these machines would probably be  
>the ones targeted by a NeXTSTEP/Mac, I don't think it would be very wise to  
>pursue such a thing.


	Not yet, but they make up a large part of current sales.

	Given the low investment, and the huge potential market that 
	a Mac port offers (not to mention just making NeXtStep look
	just that smidgen more viable), I think it is a perfectly
	reasonable step.

	To be honest, I don't expect it.  I think NeXT and Apple
	have too many differences and that NeXT would be risking
	the civil relationship they've had with Apple if they 
	did such a thing.  

	A final word about piracy--If piracy is a legitimate
	fear, then the single most dangerous platform would be
	the PC.  I _have_ seen BBS's with copies of various
	UNIX clones (>40megs compressed) online.  PC pirates
	get together regularly to swap software, normally
	bringing their machines (or  copies on tape backup).  

-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?