Thread View: comp.sys.next.misc
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Jeff HENSHAW
Sun, 05 Apr 1992 23:13
NeXTstep & Windows NT & Windows 3.x
Author: Jeff HENSHAW
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1992 23:13
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1992 23:13
48 lines
2362 bytes
2362 bytes
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 think you make a very good point here, Darcy. Windows NT is (from what I understand) not aimed at the person who has a single low-scale 2/386 in the basement running some lightweight software. It has been publically announded that NT will require 8 Mb of RAM and >= 386 to run. I agree; that would put NT at the "higher end" (whatever that means) of the OS scale. My question is: "Is NeXT always going to market exclusively at the higher end, or are they going to try to put NeXTstep on everyone's machine?" I think that NeXTstep is a truly beautiful interface. I always have, ever since I ran v. 0.9. But I think that NeXT's supposed "break" into the Intel world will be far from successful with regard to sales, both because of the system requirements and because of the price (both of these were a disappointment to me). I realize that Windows 3.x and NeXTstep are worlds apart with regard to what they try to accomplish, but Windows is cheap, easy to aquire, and runs on just about everything. Who knows, though, maybe someday we'll see something like a scaled-down NeXTstep; perhaps "NS-light?" _________________________________________________________________ | | *less expensive ascii version of my sig ==== | | o o | Darcy Brockbank ============================ | | > | samurai@uriel.cs.mcgill.ca ================ =|---- | | \__/ | SOCS system staff, McGill University ======= | | | I believe in coyotes... ==================== | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R.E.M., Darcy? -- -Jeff Henshaw jhenshaw@microsoft.com not speaking for Microsoft.
Re: NeXTstep & Windows NT & Windows 3.x
Author: Ernest Prabhakar
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 17:24
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 17:24
54 lines
3107 bytes
3107 bytes
> 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>
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads