Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 20 Apr 91 19:07:53 GMT
Message-ID: <hpdG+zeu1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
References: <d!bGv+2s1@cs.psu.edu> <11145@uwm.edu> <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu>
	<47471@ut-emx.uucp> <4c9Go-jt1@cs.psu.edu> <47555@ut-emx.uucp>
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 20:09:54 GMT
Lines: 43


In article <47555@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:

   Excuse me.  You have said that you were programming them.  Maybe developer
   isn't the word...  HAVE you programmed them?

I have done some programming.  I've learned Objective C, Postscript,
Interface Builder, and I have become familar with the NeXT classes and
methods.  The NeXT is a pleasure to program. 

   >The NeXT is comparable to a SPARC 1+ is raw CPU performance.

   Comparable.  Not equal.  The 1+ has a few MIPS on the 040.  Of course, MIPS
   means nothing.  Perceived speed does, and the percieved speed of the 1+ is at
   least two times as fast as the NeXT (from my experience).

WRONG.  The Sparc 1+ is rated 15mips and so is the 68040.  What
percieved speed speed are you talking about?  Moving windows?
Compiling programs?

   >I thought Sun shipped their SparcStations with 16megs of memory.

   I can only go by what the owner of the machine told me.  Also, a quick glimpse
   into the BYTE review of the SPARC 2 series seems to imply that they shipped
   8MB in the first-generation SPARCs.  Certianly the two SPARC clones reviewed
   in the next few pages are only 8MB machines.

Ok. You might be right.

   Games are not what I want.  Graphics are some of what I want, though. 

   You keep trying to show how DP/NeXTStep is the be-all, end-all of UIs and that
   couldn't be farther from true.  In fact, I feel it has only limited use.  It'd
   have been nice if there had been a way to use DP when you needed it and not
   use it when it was just deadweight.

I'm simply trying to get the point acrossed that DP isn't deadweight.
Amiga users keep clamoring that DP is slow because they are
misinformed or they are making wrong assumptions like postscript
printers are slow therefore the NeXT display must be slow.


   >-Mike
