🚀 go-pugleaf

>I'm going to have to disagree on the contention, "Personally, I think  
>that  
>considering the size of the NeXT market, we should be thankful that  
>MATLAB  
>will be ported to the NeXT at all." If it is cost-effective for Maple,  
>Mathematica, FrameMaker, Illustrator, Improv, etc. to be ported to  
>NeXTstep, it should be cost-effective for MATLAB or MATRIXx to be ported.  
>NeXT IS losing sales because of the absence of numerical analysis tools.

I'll explain myself a little more clearly:  We are fortunate that the NeXT  
market is large enough that it is profitable for the Math Works, Inc. to  
port their product to the NeXT.  Although I, too, wish that there were  
more software packages available for our superior architecture, it is  
silly to blaim the software vendors for refusing do something they _know_  
will lose money:

Just because there is a Kroger a block from your house doesn't mean that  
it would be profitable for a Food World (or even a mini-mart) to be built  
across the street from it.  If you want a plethora of services at your  
door, either move to the heart of a big city, or encourage others to move  
into your neighborhood creating a larger market.

If you want to see more NeXT applications, do not yell at the vendors.   
They are the little guys in the picture.  The only entity with the power  
to manipulate the economic reality is NeXT itself.  It can draw more  
software vendors to the NeXT if it can create a larger installed base.   
The fastest way to do that is to port NeXTstep to existing machines and  
sell the software to the people who already own fast machines, if this is  
possible.  That way NeXT can offer them a huge added value to the buyer's  
machine for relatively low cost if NeXTstep is as superior as we think it  
is.  The questions are now: can NeXT do this profitably?

>I may be out to lunch--but I'm STILL pissed off!

That is, indeed, understandable.

--Glenn Brown