3 ms·
At the time of NeXT, you did pay for some of the dynamic-'nice'ness of ObjC with efficiency... and efficiency was critical in the days of 16MHz 030's. Like man
by TickleSteve 11y ago
At the time of NeXT, you did pay for some of the dynamic-'nice'ness of ObjC with efficiency... and efficiency was critical in the days of 16MHz 030's.
Like many technically-superior technologies, they don't find market success because of momentum of an inferior product.
- protomyth 11y agoIt was actually quite nice to use. Windows felt a lot more sluggish than NeXTSTEP on the same hardware.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tosseraccount 11y agoDid Windows and Nextstep run the same hardware?
- protomyth 11y agoYep, NeXTSTEP 3.3 had and Intel version (as well as versions for other hardware). I had the NeXTSTEP 3.3 and 4.x on an Intel 90MHz Pentium with a SCSI drive (Microway was the company I bought it from). NeXTSTEP was smooth, and Windows was a tad bit cranky.
- mschaef 11y agoIn a manner of speaking, yes. It ran on PC hardware, but when it was first released the system requirements were at the high end of the spectrum. (Local bus, 32MB RAM, fast disk, specific graphics cards, etc.) In 1993-4, I lived in a dorm over a store that focused on NeXTStep/PC hardware (Omegabyte in Austin, TX), and remember it being around a 4-5K proposition to get started, at least. Flash forward a couple years to Summer 1995, and the NeTXStep system requirements are easier to attain. Unfortunately, by then both Linux and Windows 95 have made it a lot less important.