3 ms·
Side-by-side screenshots of NeXTSTEP and Windows are particularly jarring. NeXTSTEP came out in 1989, and its contemporary was not even Windows 3.1, but 2.11 T
by arcticbull 3y ago
Side-by-side screenshots of NeXTSTEP and Windows are particularly jarring. NeXTSTEP came out in 1989, and its contemporary was not even Windows 3.1, but 2.11
This is what Microsoft was serving up [1].
This is what NeXT accomplished. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.1x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.1x
[2] http://toastytech.com/guis/ns10about.png http://toastytech.com/guis/ns10about.png
- tjakab 3y agoDon't forget though that NeXTSTEP was also running on workstation-class hardware and priced accordingly (~$6500), vs. Windows running on late 80s commodity PCs (probably ~$1500-$2000) with lesser specs. For that kind of cost difference NeXTSTEP had better have looked and performed better.
- ataylor284_ 3y agoA better comparison would be the Motif/CDE GUI that commercial Unix workstations were using at the time on workstation-class hardware. I think NeXTSTEP still wins on style, particularly since X desktops were a garish mix of raw X, Xt toolkit and Motif apps all coexisting.
- twoodfin 3y agoBill Gates was so worried about Steve & NeXT that Windows 95—often criticized as ripping off MacOS—is a much more direct ripoff of NeXTSTEP.
- andsoitis 3y agoThere’s the technology, and then there’s style. And stylish NeXTSTEP is…
- Narishma 3y agoThat's a terrible comparison. Windows 2.x ran on much cheaper and weaker hardware. It required only 512KB of RAM and ran comfortably in 1MB while the smallest amount Next computers came with was 8MB.