This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
NeXT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | NeXT is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | NeXT has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice article! But it seems to end abruptly; please tell us more!! What's it doing now? What happened to Steve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 May 2002 (UTC)
We need to create a paragraph about WebObjects. It's an important NeXT product that still exists. -- tooki 17:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the comparison to 8088/8086/286s is appropriate time-wise. By the time the NeXT was released, 386s were definitely in use, and I think even the 486 was not too far off. Also, when my college received our NeXT cubes, we already had some Mac II computers, with color. I think we even had Macc IIci and IIsi models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
This sentence needs to be re-worded: "Basically the drive itself, while faster than a floppy, was simply not fast enough to run a Unix based OS as its primary medium." It sounds like the OS is the primary medium of the MO drive, where it is in fact the MO drive that is the primary medium for the OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
Sneakernet could probably be an article link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
I have gone through and performed a pretty serious copyedit... I also added a large number of {{fact}}s. It's important to remember that this article is about NeXT, not Apple, so I removed a lot of statements about OS X that weren't directly related to NeXT's software contributions. Themillofkeytone 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the article, I've determined it to meet the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, comprehensive, and of a good neutral tone. The last copyedit by User:Themillofkeytone seems to have done the trick.
The biggest step for improvement now would be filling all the {{fact}} templates with actual citations. If anyone wanted to help the article out, verifying and citing a few of those little facts would go a long way!
Keep up the good work, folks. Phidauex 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph lists every new Apple machine that was released during the transition from PPC to Intel processors. These details are tangential overkill in an article about NeXT. No one who comes here to learn about the NeXT corporation needs to know the specific date the Apple MacBook was released. Just say when the transition began or ended and be done with it. emw 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
'NeXT's software was originally intended to be used as the foundation for Mac OS X[2], however they opted to base it on a BSD variant instead.'
This is not accurate. NeXTStep was a Mach 2.5-derived kernel with a BSD server which provided most of the UNIX services. During the Rhapsody era, Apple imported a lot of NetBSD code into the BSD component, to replace ageing 4.2BSD parts. With OS X, they imported more FreeBSD code. They also took a load of userland components from NetBSD and FreeBSD, although some (e.g. top) are still the NeXT versions.
If you read the XNU (OS X kernel) source code (or Amit Singh's excellent book on the subject) you will see a large number of source files with copyright notices dating back to 1996 and earlier. Most of these were present in NeXT's operating system and do not originate from any other BSD system.
The new IOKit, based on Embedded C++ replaces the old NeXT driver kit based on Objective-C (for performance reasons), but this is entirely new, and not found in any other OS.
At the kernel level, OS X is an updated OPENSTEP. At the API level (Cocoa) it is an updated OPENSTEP. The window server component was re-written in a large part to take advantage of the features of modern 3D cards, and to address some issues with DPS (e.g. the fact that it is not possible to determine how long a program written in a Turing-complete language will take to execute, making scheduling of drawing difficult).
-- David Chisnall 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So which office had the glass staircase? The first or the second? It is mentioned as being in both. Geneffects 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This article mistakenly refers to the first-generation NeXT workstation as the "NeXTcube"; this name was only officially used for the second-generation '040-based cube. The original NeXT model was simply called the "NeXT Computer" (or "NeXT Computer System") in NeXT's literature - see the brochure. Also, looking at the brochure scans, the company seems to have been called "NeXT, Inc." at the time of the original launch, and later changed to NeXT Computer, Inc. Letdorf 10:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This article, says Steve Jobs resigned from Apple Computer. Yet the Steve Jobs article says he was fired ClEeFy
can some one please place these values as found in all the other company portals. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilhuilgol ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Though a minor point, I have some reason to think (a private e-mail message by Jobs) that it started before 1992. Is this 1992 date based on good sources? If not, then from the message I got in Sep 1991 it seems they were already at work then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gctwnl ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The port began in October 1991. A demo version was displayed at the NeXTWorld Expo in January 1992. Subsequent to that, a full product version was developed and completed by May 1993. Tystnaden ( talk) 11:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that the New York Times article "The Executive Computer; Fresh Momentum for Unix, but Still Hurdles to Clear" [1] is acceptable a source, but I have chosen not to add it because do not know the proper way to do so. -- AdamTheWebMan ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yoinked the following for myriad reasons:
Since the early period after the millennium rumors have been circulating in the back rooms of 1 Infinite loop Cupertino, California that NeXT is to make a comeback. Some employes have reportedly seen large black MacPro cases with a covered up logo in place of the usual Apple Logo, being hurriedly transported in and out of rooms. In February 2007 an employe was added to the apple payroll under the heading "New and Continuing Product Division", the name of this employee is Maxx Kai-Morten who previously worked for the now defunct Quicksilver (UK) software. From the very limited information that has been leaked, the new machine could be based upon the current MacPro and the OS would be based around Mac OS 10.5. As to be expected with NeXT the computer would have an insane spec and be very cutting edge. NeXT was also rumored to make a comeback around the 2003 area but these plans never came to fruition as apple was concentrating all its energy on the iPod. From the time that the product development started the NeXT computer should be due for release in early 2009, although this is yet to be confirmed by Apple from the time that the project started and the amount of time that has been spent on the project the product is now more than overdue.
This is nonsense. Diskless workstations did exist, but they used a fileserver for their mass storage (and booting), not floppy disks. I can't think of any UNIX workstations contemporaneous with the NeXT Computer which used floppies as their primary mass storage medium - that would have been impractical. Letdorf ( talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
Does anyone think that the NeXT (UK) and the NeXT articles should be merged? ( 86.134.36.96 ( talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
At the request of Wackymacs, I've done some copy editing on the article. A lot of this was just simple grammar and formatting corrections which I haven't listed here. Three persistent errors to watch out for:
Like many a Wikipedia article, this degrades a little over the course of the text. Here's a list of broader problems which I think need to be addressed in the article but will leave other editors to consider implementing.
Hope this has been helpful, happy to clarify any comments here or explain other changes. Gusworld ( talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was not moved. While WP:MOSTM recommends using standard English capitalization rules regardless of the trademark owner's preference, there seems to be consensus that the current name is the most recognizable one for English speakers, and as such it meets the naming conventions. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
NeXT → ? — I am not familiar enough to know what it should be moved to, but the current name of the article violates WP:MOSTM, so the article needs to be moved (to something that has the "Next" capitalization). TJ Spyke 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.hostinfo
command (note that the only place config.guess uses lowercase is the
configuration name or canonical host name triplet that the config.guess script itself generates for the configure script). The MOS and other guidelines also do not override common sense, see
WP:RAP --
Tothwolf (
talk)
15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)MOSTM must be one of the most widely and sensibly ignored guides on Wikipedia, and the timesink caused by people coming to articles to try to enforce it in good faith is an excellent case for junking it. Let editors decide this case by case and do not direct people to follow one way because of a particular guideline or policy which is not widely supported, and has a ridiculously convoluted set of "legitimate" exceptions symptomatic of a problem.
I am not familiar with the subject either, but could someone say how many of these news hits are about this subject? In particular, how many of the standardized ones are about this subject? It seems that, at the very least, CNET News standardizes this trademark. Croctotheface ( talk) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone referred the discussion to WP:Naming conventions for additional comments about trademarks. That policy has this to say about case-specific trademarks: "if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." NeXT seems to be an excellent example of just such a term. Tim Pierce ( talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious what happens when someone suggests a page move but doesn't suggest a destination name. If consensus resulted in "Support" for the move do we then have a second debate to then try to establish a consensus on an accepted destination name? This debate is ridiculous. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the Spoken Wikipedia recording of this article. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. Thanks. -- Mangst ( talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One issue I noticed in reading the page is that it does come across as being a bit biased. I realize NeXT may have its fans out there, but unless something has changed with Wikipedia's standards and views on this, it should be presented in as neutral and unbiased a way and viewpoint as possible. For example, I see references that it was supposedly very influential and yet no mention made of how exactly it impacted or influenced computing and when it does attempt to mention object-oriented programming (which existed long before NeXT came into being, from what I understand) and GUIs (which also existed with other systems out there prior to 1988), it seems a little confusing as to what it's trying to say. Did it cause object-oriented programming to become popular? The use of GUIs? Or some combination of both (possibly using object-oriented programming in GUIs)? Also, if any of that is the case, just how and what did it influence? Also where are the references or citations for any of that? Or did it just influence off-shoots of its own product? In which case, I don't know if I might call that a major influence or even as profound upon the computer industry as the article seems to imply, in the sense that it refers to something more within the company as opposed to the industry as a whole. I only cite that as one example of the bias being shown in this article. I think it might be more effective--and especially informative--if there was more neutral language used. As it is now, it almost sounds like it was written by a fan. Tuxenstein ( talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See below. |
Addition of Books or Further Reading Section and inclusion of specific listing.
The book is "Anatomy of an Apple - The lessons Steve taught us." Author is Ben Klaiber. ISBN is 9781483506975.
While the majority of the book is about the turnaround of Apple with Steve Jobs' return, multiple chapters delve deeply into NeXT. It covers a tremendous amount of history and details of the NeXT period as well as often neglected elements of the company.
Examples: Covers in depth the legal limitations imposed by Apple on NeXT, which contributed heavily to their dearth of sales. Covers specific pricing/performance of models and comparisons with competition at the time. Explains and analyzes the competitive positioning of the hardware-software combination, the software alone, the software as extension of other competing OS's, the NeXT OS as open sourced product.
Anatomy of an Apple also extensively discusses anticompetitive tactics used by Microsoft at the time and how they affected NeXT. The discussion explores and details how these competitive experiences molded the strategies that Apple would use upon Steve Jobs' return there.
Excerpts related to the NeXT period are posted online at http://www.anatomyofanapple.com/2013/09/LetstalkaboutNeXT.html. Bryan Roberts7982 ( talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Bryan Roberts7982 ( talk)
(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)
Also Wolfenstein 3D was developed with a NeXT computer(from Masters of Doom).-- 141.24.16.97 ( talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NeXT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another late 2000s promotion that, for some reason, was "Today's featured article" as late as August 2020 (last year!). I don't see the hype. Excuse me, I was thinking of a different article.
This article has many blatant problems that need to be fixed. These are just examples 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Quite possibly the most egregious bias I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and trust me this site is polluted with bias --
To label NeXT Computer as a "Defunct" company in the company info summary section is like calling the Sun "lazy". NeXT Computer was a company that was "Acquired" by Apple, and the technology that NeXT developed, which Apple acquired, can largely be credited for Apple's subsequent success. So in fact, the "near defunct" company Apple "acquired" the non-defunct company NeXT, and Apple saved itself in the process.
I dare not edit the page and change "Defunct" to "Acquired", because certainly some self-important "Editor" will come along and change it right back 30 seconds later.
For this one, as for all biased entries on this polluted site, it's going to take a quorum of reasonable people to come together and make sure the switch from "Defunct" to "Acquired" permanently sticks. I hope the community makes the proper choice. 174.247.193.23 ( talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Realmaxxver ( talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver ( talk) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Realmaxxver:; fixed.
Background
Fixed except the first one.
Original NeXT Team
1987–1993: NeXT Computer
Corrected.
Done.
"There is WP:DUPLINK at "The luncheon speaker was Steve Jobs.[23]" Fixed.
Fixed.
Done.
1996–1997: Acquisition by Apple
Fixed
The images are OK, but here are some comments for improvement:
Replaced. "The Nextcube and Nextstation images need a source" What do you mean, didn't they already have one in their file description?
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I would oppose this being declared a good article as long as there's no mention of Display PostScript... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all over the place when describing the acquisition deal terms. Corporate deals are often structured with cash and equity making up the total deal value. This article is bafflingly wrong when it states the whole $429m was cash; the equity (stock) was included in that figure. Jobs also did receive cash, unlike what was explicitly stated here. There were 2 citations for the sentence, but neither backed any of this up.
Furthermore, the deal's precise value, listed on this page and others ( Apple, Steve Jobs among others) has shifted over the years ($427, $429, $420), with no proper sourcing, and has likely turned into feedback loop where lazy journalists copy Wikipedia's figure, which then gets sourced to these journalists. We must therefore look exclusively at contemporaneous reports.
$377.5m in cash, plus one and a half million shares of stock, which were worth, according to Amelio, $37m, leading to a total of $415m.
$400 million ($350 million plus the assumption of approximately $50 million of debt)
the comprehensive purchase price [...] is expected to be approximately $430 million(page 7)
total purchase price was $425 million, as adjusted, [...] The purchase price, including the fair value of the net tangible liabilities assumed, was $427 million, as adjusted,, page 6 (net tangible liabilities = debt; that's 2mil, but most of NeXT's debt was paid off with cash, not taken on)
the total purchase price [...] was $427 million, including cash, debt, shares and options; doesn't mention $425m (pages 9 and 44)
427 million, doesn't mention $425m (page 14)
DFlhb ( talk) 00:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC) added links, looked at more financial statements, removed conclusion; see new conclusion below
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
NeXT article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | NeXT is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | NeXT has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice article! But it seems to end abruptly; please tell us more!! What's it doing now? What happened to Steve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 May 2002 (UTC)
We need to create a paragraph about WebObjects. It's an important NeXT product that still exists. -- tooki 17:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the comparison to 8088/8086/286s is appropriate time-wise. By the time the NeXT was released, 386s were definitely in use, and I think even the 486 was not too far off. Also, when my college received our NeXT cubes, we already had some Mac II computers, with color. I think we even had Macc IIci and IIsi models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
This sentence needs to be re-worded: "Basically the drive itself, while faster than a floppy, was simply not fast enough to run a Unix based OS as its primary medium." It sounds like the OS is the primary medium of the MO drive, where it is in fact the MO drive that is the primary medium for the OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
Sneakernet could probably be an article link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)
I have gone through and performed a pretty serious copyedit... I also added a large number of {{fact}}s. It's important to remember that this article is about NeXT, not Apple, so I removed a lot of statements about OS X that weren't directly related to NeXT's software contributions. Themillofkeytone 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the article, I've determined it to meet the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, comprehensive, and of a good neutral tone. The last copyedit by User:Themillofkeytone seems to have done the trick.
The biggest step for improvement now would be filling all the {{fact}} templates with actual citations. If anyone wanted to help the article out, verifying and citing a few of those little facts would go a long way!
Keep up the good work, folks. Phidauex 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph lists every new Apple machine that was released during the transition from PPC to Intel processors. These details are tangential overkill in an article about NeXT. No one who comes here to learn about the NeXT corporation needs to know the specific date the Apple MacBook was released. Just say when the transition began or ended and be done with it. emw 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
'NeXT's software was originally intended to be used as the foundation for Mac OS X[2], however they opted to base it on a BSD variant instead.'
This is not accurate. NeXTStep was a Mach 2.5-derived kernel with a BSD server which provided most of the UNIX services. During the Rhapsody era, Apple imported a lot of NetBSD code into the BSD component, to replace ageing 4.2BSD parts. With OS X, they imported more FreeBSD code. They also took a load of userland components from NetBSD and FreeBSD, although some (e.g. top) are still the NeXT versions.
If you read the XNU (OS X kernel) source code (or Amit Singh's excellent book on the subject) you will see a large number of source files with copyright notices dating back to 1996 and earlier. Most of these were present in NeXT's operating system and do not originate from any other BSD system.
The new IOKit, based on Embedded C++ replaces the old NeXT driver kit based on Objective-C (for performance reasons), but this is entirely new, and not found in any other OS.
At the kernel level, OS X is an updated OPENSTEP. At the API level (Cocoa) it is an updated OPENSTEP. The window server component was re-written in a large part to take advantage of the features of modern 3D cards, and to address some issues with DPS (e.g. the fact that it is not possible to determine how long a program written in a Turing-complete language will take to execute, making scheduling of drawing difficult).
-- David Chisnall 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So which office had the glass staircase? The first or the second? It is mentioned as being in both. Geneffects 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This article mistakenly refers to the first-generation NeXT workstation as the "NeXTcube"; this name was only officially used for the second-generation '040-based cube. The original NeXT model was simply called the "NeXT Computer" (or "NeXT Computer System") in NeXT's literature - see the brochure. Also, looking at the brochure scans, the company seems to have been called "NeXT, Inc." at the time of the original launch, and later changed to NeXT Computer, Inc. Letdorf 10:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This article, says Steve Jobs resigned from Apple Computer. Yet the Steve Jobs article says he was fired ClEeFy
can some one please place these values as found in all the other company portals. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilhuilgol ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Though a minor point, I have some reason to think (a private e-mail message by Jobs) that it started before 1992. Is this 1992 date based on good sources? If not, then from the message I got in Sep 1991 it seems they were already at work then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gctwnl ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The port began in October 1991. A demo version was displayed at the NeXTWorld Expo in January 1992. Subsequent to that, a full product version was developed and completed by May 1993. Tystnaden ( talk) 11:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that the New York Times article "The Executive Computer; Fresh Momentum for Unix, but Still Hurdles to Clear" [1] is acceptable a source, but I have chosen not to add it because do not know the proper way to do so. -- AdamTheWebMan ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yoinked the following for myriad reasons:
Since the early period after the millennium rumors have been circulating in the back rooms of 1 Infinite loop Cupertino, California that NeXT is to make a comeback. Some employes have reportedly seen large black MacPro cases with a covered up logo in place of the usual Apple Logo, being hurriedly transported in and out of rooms. In February 2007 an employe was added to the apple payroll under the heading "New and Continuing Product Division", the name of this employee is Maxx Kai-Morten who previously worked for the now defunct Quicksilver (UK) software. From the very limited information that has been leaked, the new machine could be based upon the current MacPro and the OS would be based around Mac OS 10.5. As to be expected with NeXT the computer would have an insane spec and be very cutting edge. NeXT was also rumored to make a comeback around the 2003 area but these plans never came to fruition as apple was concentrating all its energy on the iPod. From the time that the product development started the NeXT computer should be due for release in early 2009, although this is yet to be confirmed by Apple from the time that the project started and the amount of time that has been spent on the project the product is now more than overdue.
This is nonsense. Diskless workstations did exist, but they used a fileserver for their mass storage (and booting), not floppy disks. I can't think of any UNIX workstations contemporaneous with the NeXT Computer which used floppies as their primary mass storage medium - that would have been impractical. Letdorf ( talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
Does anyone think that the NeXT (UK) and the NeXT articles should be merged? ( 86.134.36.96 ( talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
At the request of Wackymacs, I've done some copy editing on the article. A lot of this was just simple grammar and formatting corrections which I haven't listed here. Three persistent errors to watch out for:
Like many a Wikipedia article, this degrades a little over the course of the text. Here's a list of broader problems which I think need to be addressed in the article but will leave other editors to consider implementing.
Hope this has been helpful, happy to clarify any comments here or explain other changes. Gusworld ( talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was not moved. While WP:MOSTM recommends using standard English capitalization rules regardless of the trademark owner's preference, there seems to be consensus that the current name is the most recognizable one for English speakers, and as such it meets the naming conventions. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
NeXT → ? — I am not familiar enough to know what it should be moved to, but the current name of the article violates WP:MOSTM, so the article needs to be moved (to something that has the "Next" capitalization). TJ Spyke 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.hostinfo
command (note that the only place config.guess uses lowercase is the
configuration name or canonical host name triplet that the config.guess script itself generates for the configure script). The MOS and other guidelines also do not override common sense, see
WP:RAP --
Tothwolf (
talk)
15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)MOSTM must be one of the most widely and sensibly ignored guides on Wikipedia, and the timesink caused by people coming to articles to try to enforce it in good faith is an excellent case for junking it. Let editors decide this case by case and do not direct people to follow one way because of a particular guideline or policy which is not widely supported, and has a ridiculously convoluted set of "legitimate" exceptions symptomatic of a problem.
I am not familiar with the subject either, but could someone say how many of these news hits are about this subject? In particular, how many of the standardized ones are about this subject? It seems that, at the very least, CNET News standardizes this trademark. Croctotheface ( talk) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone referred the discussion to WP:Naming conventions for additional comments about trademarks. That policy has this to say about case-specific trademarks: "if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." NeXT seems to be an excellent example of just such a term. Tim Pierce ( talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious what happens when someone suggests a page move but doesn't suggest a destination name. If consensus resulted in "Support" for the move do we then have a second debate to then try to establish a consensus on an accepted destination name? This debate is ridiculous. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the Spoken Wikipedia recording of this article. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. Thanks. -- Mangst ( talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One issue I noticed in reading the page is that it does come across as being a bit biased. I realize NeXT may have its fans out there, but unless something has changed with Wikipedia's standards and views on this, it should be presented in as neutral and unbiased a way and viewpoint as possible. For example, I see references that it was supposedly very influential and yet no mention made of how exactly it impacted or influenced computing and when it does attempt to mention object-oriented programming (which existed long before NeXT came into being, from what I understand) and GUIs (which also existed with other systems out there prior to 1988), it seems a little confusing as to what it's trying to say. Did it cause object-oriented programming to become popular? The use of GUIs? Or some combination of both (possibly using object-oriented programming in GUIs)? Also, if any of that is the case, just how and what did it influence? Also where are the references or citations for any of that? Or did it just influence off-shoots of its own product? In which case, I don't know if I might call that a major influence or even as profound upon the computer industry as the article seems to imply, in the sense that it refers to something more within the company as opposed to the industry as a whole. I only cite that as one example of the bias being shown in this article. I think it might be more effective--and especially informative--if there was more neutral language used. As it is now, it almost sounds like it was written by a fan. Tuxenstein ( talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See below. |
Addition of Books or Further Reading Section and inclusion of specific listing.
The book is "Anatomy of an Apple - The lessons Steve taught us." Author is Ben Klaiber. ISBN is 9781483506975.
While the majority of the book is about the turnaround of Apple with Steve Jobs' return, multiple chapters delve deeply into NeXT. It covers a tremendous amount of history and details of the NeXT period as well as often neglected elements of the company.
Examples: Covers in depth the legal limitations imposed by Apple on NeXT, which contributed heavily to their dearth of sales. Covers specific pricing/performance of models and comparisons with competition at the time. Explains and analyzes the competitive positioning of the hardware-software combination, the software alone, the software as extension of other competing OS's, the NeXT OS as open sourced product.
Anatomy of an Apple also extensively discusses anticompetitive tactics used by Microsoft at the time and how they affected NeXT. The discussion explores and details how these competitive experiences molded the strategies that Apple would use upon Steve Jobs' return there.
Excerpts related to the NeXT period are posted online at http://www.anatomyofanapple.com/2013/09/LetstalkaboutNeXT.html. Bryan Roberts7982 ( talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Bryan Roberts7982 ( talk)
(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)
Also Wolfenstein 3D was developed with a NeXT computer(from Masters of Doom).-- 141.24.16.97 ( talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NeXT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another late 2000s promotion that, for some reason, was "Today's featured article" as late as August 2020 (last year!). I don't see the hype. Excuse me, I was thinking of a different article.
This article has many blatant problems that need to be fixed. These are just examples 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Quite possibly the most egregious bias I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and trust me this site is polluted with bias --
To label NeXT Computer as a "Defunct" company in the company info summary section is like calling the Sun "lazy". NeXT Computer was a company that was "Acquired" by Apple, and the technology that NeXT developed, which Apple acquired, can largely be credited for Apple's subsequent success. So in fact, the "near defunct" company Apple "acquired" the non-defunct company NeXT, and Apple saved itself in the process.
I dare not edit the page and change "Defunct" to "Acquired", because certainly some self-important "Editor" will come along and change it right back 30 seconds later.
For this one, as for all biased entries on this polluted site, it's going to take a quorum of reasonable people to come together and make sure the switch from "Defunct" to "Acquired" permanently sticks. I hope the community makes the proper choice. 174.247.193.23 ( talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Realmaxxver ( talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver ( talk) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Realmaxxver:; fixed.
Background
Fixed except the first one.
Original NeXT Team
1987–1993: NeXT Computer
Corrected.
Done.
"There is WP:DUPLINK at "The luncheon speaker was Steve Jobs.[23]" Fixed.
Fixed.
Done.
1996–1997: Acquisition by Apple
Fixed
The images are OK, but here are some comments for improvement:
Replaced. "The Nextcube and Nextstation images need a source" What do you mean, didn't they already have one in their file description?
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I would oppose this being declared a good article as long as there's no mention of Display PostScript... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all over the place when describing the acquisition deal terms. Corporate deals are often structured with cash and equity making up the total deal value. This article is bafflingly wrong when it states the whole $429m was cash; the equity (stock) was included in that figure. Jobs also did receive cash, unlike what was explicitly stated here. There were 2 citations for the sentence, but neither backed any of this up.
Furthermore, the deal's precise value, listed on this page and others ( Apple, Steve Jobs among others) has shifted over the years ($427, $429, $420), with no proper sourcing, and has likely turned into feedback loop where lazy journalists copy Wikipedia's figure, which then gets sourced to these journalists. We must therefore look exclusively at contemporaneous reports.
$377.5m in cash, plus one and a half million shares of stock, which were worth, according to Amelio, $37m, leading to a total of $415m.
$400 million ($350 million plus the assumption of approximately $50 million of debt)
the comprehensive purchase price [...] is expected to be approximately $430 million(page 7)
total purchase price was $425 million, as adjusted, [...] The purchase price, including the fair value of the net tangible liabilities assumed, was $427 million, as adjusted,, page 6 (net tangible liabilities = debt; that's 2mil, but most of NeXT's debt was paid off with cash, not taken on)
the total purchase price [...] was $427 million, including cash, debt, shares and options; doesn't mention $425m (pages 9 and 44)
427 million, doesn't mention $425m (page 14)
DFlhb ( talk) 00:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC) added links, looked at more financial statements, removed conclusion; see new conclusion below