Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What NeXT *should* do next.
Message-ID: <Eqe#zm3@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 90 03:29:47 GMT
References: <1378@shelby.Stanford.EDU> <9967@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
	<424@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Penn State University Computer Science
Lines: 27
In-Reply-To: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU's message of 24 Mar 90 02:04:16 GMT

In article <424@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes:

   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=-

I thought the jury was already in on this and RISC was the winner!
How much bigger are the executables for RISC?  Memory is cheap and
getting cheaper.  16Mb chips are on the horizon and so are higher
capacity flopticals.  As far as performance goes, the major players in
the workstation market have moved to RISC so it must be the right
answer(they're betting their futures on it).  The MIPS R4000 is
suppose to execute 50mips at 25Mhz.  That's performance!!  And what is
RISC missing that makes it a poor performer in virtual memory
environments?  

-Mike