Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ziploc!eps
From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What NeXT *should* do next.
Message-ID: <424@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
Date: 24 Mar 90 02:04:16 GMT
References: <1378@shelby.Stanford.EDU> <9967@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: San Francisco State University
Lines: 13

Hey kids!  RISC architecture may be faster on simple benchmarks,
but let's get realistic: it's a *memory hog*.  Your performance
is going to suck without a lot more RAM than you're probably
willing to pay for, faster backing store than you can afford,
plus you're going to need more disk space for all your
executables, even with everything linked against shared
libraries.  RISCs are great for *dedicated* processors (like
file servers and network switches).  They're a poor design choice
for general-purpose multiprogramming workstations like the NeXT,
and just plain unhappy in virtual memory environments.  It's a
solution for a different problem, not a panacea.

					-=EPS=-