🚀 go-pugleaf

> Darcy Brockbank wrote....
> 
> | I think though that the future of Microsoft isn't the
> | "environment" of Windows2.0 but Windows NT, which will be
> | in the range of $600.
> |
> | That compares nicely with $999 for NeXTstep 486. With the SDKs
> | for NT, and the extended release of NeXTstep 486, we'll see prices
> | climb steeply, but I think they'll be in the same range.

I had an interesting chat with a NeXT sales rep last week.  She confirmed that  
NeXT is intending to run NeXTstep '486 right against Windows NT.  That includes  
some sort of intelligent Windows emulation/switching.  And they will modify the  
price to be competitive.  Should be an interesting match...

There is no way NS will attempt to compete with Windows 3.  Any more than  
Microsoft will make Windows NT run on a '286.
---
There are several possible levels of cohabitation of OSes.  Let me attempt to  
list them, in order.  Which do you think is acceptable?  For that matter, which  
will Windows NT use?  What should NeXT shoot for?

	The first set result in rebooting the machine.

1.  Total TakeOver - one OS takes over the screen and hard disk permanently.   
Can never use the other. (never)
2.  Alternate TakeOver - If you power the machine down and stick the right  
floppy in the drive, you can reboot under a different OS. (cold boot)
3.  Soft TakeOver - you type in the right command, and it will log you out and  
come back under the new OS, and vice versa. (warm boot)

	The second set merely take over the screen.  However, they are not  
symettric (can access one from the other, but not vice versa) 
4.  Grab Screen - you launch the new OS from inside the old one.  You can kill  
it to return to the old OS (like Mouse-X)
5.  Swap Screen - you can toggle between the two (like CoXist)
6.  Mini-Screen - you have a single, smaller window inside your other  
environment (like SoftPC).
7.  Multi-Screen - can have different windows co-existing on the same screen  
(rootless windows)

The ideal, I would imagine, is #7, especially if it is as fast as 'native  
mode', although #5 is almost as good.  I fear we probably won't get better than  
#3 the first time around, though.

What do you think?

- Ernie P.
--
Ernest N. Prabhakar                  Caltech High Energy Physics
Member, League for Programming Freedom (league@prep.ai.mit.edu)
CaJUN President        NeXTMail:ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu
"...and ourselves, your servants for Jesus sake." - II Cor 5:13a
#import <std/disclaimer.h>