Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!reading!riddle!domo From: domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Display PS vs NeWS Message-ID: <941@riddle.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 88 16:29:35 GMT References: <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) Organization: Sphinx Ltd., Maidenhead, England Lines: 24 In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >standards is a big part of their business stragegy... Er. NeWS a standard? Sun would have liked it to be a standard, but, unlike -- say -- NFS and SPARC, it hasn't caught outside Sun: X is sweeping it aside even if, arguably, X isn't addressing quite the same problem as NeWS. (Hell, corporate deceision makers don't want to be bothered with little details like that.) PostScript, on the other hand, is a de-facto standard, and to me, Display PostScript looks to me like an obvious next step (groan), provided that its performace is adequate. According to what I've heard of the NeXT cube, it is. Certainly on the Mac, living with QuickDraw on the screen and PostScript on the printer can be a problem. Can't it? You could even (if you wanted to play the devil's advocate) argue that those who don't have a (possibly optional) migration path to Display PostScript are the ones who are ingnoring standards... -- Dominic Dunlop domo@sphinx.co.uk domo@riddle.uucp