Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th May 2013 09:36 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "NeXT Computer (the original 68030 cube) was a high end workstation that was manufactured between 1988 - 1990. Back then it was a very expensive machine as a complete system would start at $6500 (in 1988 dollars). The machine is a 1 foot cube magnesium case that houses the computer. At the time, its performance was impressive, with a Motorola 68030 CPU running at a screaming 25Mhz, a dedicated floating point CPU, and a digital signal processor built into the system. NeXT cubes featured a magneto-optical drive that stored a whopping 256 Megabytes (by comparison, high end Mac systems at the time might have featured a 20 Megabyte hard drive.) In its day, this was the "Ferrari" of desktop systems!" No new information for the average OSNews reader, but lots of beautiful photos for a beautiful Saturday afternoon.
Permalink for comment 560567
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The high water mark of computing
by MacMan on Sun 5th May 2013 17:35 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

NeXT was without a doubt the high water mark of computing at least from an elegance / efficiency standpoint.

IMO, OSX has continued steadily downhill since. I would like to know, why with 20 years worth of effort, we still can't have a Linux desktop that approaches the consistency and usability of NeXT? What exactly does OSX do that requires over a gig of ram when NeXT ran just fine on 8-16 meg?

Look how elegant the package system was on NeXT, all apps are self contained in .app directories, these contain the binaries, icons, resources, and a config file that tells the desktop what icon to display them with, what binary to run and what env vars to set. All self contained. Why do we need .desktop files in special directories? Why do I need to write a .desktop file, edit it to reference an icon, binary just to use an app not in a Linux repo?

Enough of my rant, NeXT was just awesome along with BeOS, wish we could one day have something that simple and usable again.

Reply Score: 2