Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: NeXT software size
Message-ID: <1991May13.003815.330@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991May8.172853.290@sugar.hackercorp.com> <21452@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 00:38:15 GMT

In article <21452@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
> I was claiming here that the NeXT is more different from a traditional 
> workstation than from a high end PC.  That's only hardware architecture I'm
> speaking of, I'm not commenting at all on the software.

I understand what you were claiming. I just happen to disagree. Is that OK?

> >Actually, the Amiga 3000 really isn't that much different from workstations,
> >other than the size of the display.

> Guess you aren't using the same display I have...

Guess not.

> Memory in both the A3000 and the NeXT is better than first
> generation 32-bit Motorola-based personal computers (Mac II for
> example), but not as good or costly as what you'll usually find in a
> workstation.  

Well, that's mainly because of the lack of external cache. The memory hierarchy
is too flat. On the upside, there have been "real" workstations with the same
problem.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
