[rollei_list] Way OT: NeXT computers


On Nov 28, 2005, at 7:49 AM, Thor Legvold wrote:

I got in at the right time - I had purchased an IBM PS/2 only 6 months before, and was visiting the university research lab where they had just bought a few NeXT's. They demonstrated the system to me and I was hooked. I think that was in 1988, Just when the new MB's were announced (25 and 33MHz, wow!). So I got an old Cube from a "Firesale" in the US (I phoned the same day I found out about the upgrade deal) for next to nothing, upgraded to the latest MB and sold the PS/2 for more than I paid for the Next. I found a second hand NeXT printer about 6 months later. It was the best system I've ever had. I sold it to a guy in Japan in 1995 and got an Intel license and kept running the OS on a PC. I still have it :-). I'll bet the guy in Japan still has the cube :-).

I think your chronology needs a minor adjustment. The original NeXT cubes used 68030 CPUs running at 25MHz. They were only sold to beta testers starting in 1989, and for general consumption in 1990. In 1991 the NeXTStation was introduced in a pizza box form factor with, I believe, a 33 MHz 68030. Eventually they started using 33 MHz 68040 CPUs in the Stations, but I am not sure they made their way into the Cubes. Maybe that upgrade was what caused the "Fire Sale" you took advantage of. I don't think they ever used the ultimate 40 MHz 68040 in NeXTs, since by 1993 they had decided to abandon custom hardware design and become a software company.

I used NeXT systems in 1992-94 at our university to do computer music. It was a killer system for academic computer music, the Music Kit having been designed (or at least handed over) to the wizards at Stanford's CCRMA, the Center for Creative Research in Music and Acoustics, one of the world's top two centers of computer music (the other being IRCAM in Paris). Also, every NeXT computer (Cubes and Stations) came equipped with an FPU and a Motorola DSP56000, which allowed all sorts of operations to be carried out in real time which would take hours on a DSP-less platform.

Another advantage of the NeXT platform was that they did all the rasterization for the laser printer on the computer itself, which meant the control systems for the laser printers could be much less sophisticated. I seem to recall that a NeXT 400 dpi printer cost something like $1000 at a time when the equivalent 300 dpi HP LaserJet was in the $5000 range. It also had digitized audio of a very nice English lady who would chime in to tell you that "Your printer is jammed" from time to time.


Anyone want to say a few words on the comparitive advantages/disadvantages to 4x5 vs. 6x6? Not regarding movements, but primarily size of negative. 6x6 is around 3x bigger than 35mm. A big jump in quality. Is the jump the same (or bigger/smaller) to 4x5?

Quantitatively, the jump from 35mm (1x1.5 inch) to 6x6 (2.25 inch) is 1.5 inch^2 to just over 5 inch^2, making the ratio of film area 1:3.375. Going from 6x6 to 4x5 is 5 inch^2 to 20 inch^2, which is of course a ratio of 1:4. Qualitatively, however, I notice a much larger difference in prints going from 35mm to 6x6, especially for 8x10 and smaller prints. What I find most noticeable about prints from larger-format negatives are the smoother, more detailed highlights, rather than greater detail, unless the print is quite large (16x20 or larger).

I feel like that NeXT stuff is posted from another lifetime.

Best regards,
Aaron

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: