Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!noao!arizona!ric
From: ric@cs.arizona.edu (Ric Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: SPARCstation 2 --> workstation wars
Summary: more on speed of next
Message-ID: <165@cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 90 19:11:39 GMT
References: <9010180146.AA09967@mcs-server.gac.edu> <28337@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <7669@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 65

In article <7669@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, skankman@ux1.lbl.gov (David Schurig) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>Now, now, let's be realistic. As anyone who works with both NeXTs and Macs
>>knows, a "comparable machine" is not one with the same CPU, RAM, and HD.
>>A 25Mhz '030 cube with a 300MB HD and 8MB RAM launches and runs apps only
>>slightly faster than an 8Mhz '000 Mac SE (and far slower than a 16Mhz
>>'020 Mac II), and 4MB RAM + 100MB HD on a Mac will hold
>>as many simultaneously running apps and store as much as on the cube.
>
> What the devil!!!!!!!!
> Why is this the case? I have not used a NeXT yet, but I assumed from the
> numbers that an 040 NeXT would blow away a IIfx ( at less than half the
> cost. )  I was all set to buy a NeXTStation.  An 040 NeXT is going to be
> slower than the IIci I am using now?  Is Unix such a burden for the blinding,
> 15MIPS 040, or is it that NeXT applications are so inefficient. What is the
> deal?  I am going to require psychotherapy if the new NeXTs are comparable
> to an SE.
> Dav

I also have a IIci, and a 16MB NeXT (68030 cube) with the NeXT
300MB hard drive.  For getting things started, the Mac (with
an internal Quantum ProDrive-80S) really does blow the NeXT
away.  Most of this seems to be the relative disk performance,
rather than the CPU, per se.

I find the NeXT to be "slow" when starting an application, and
doing disk activity, but quite acceptable for cpu tasks.  I
don't think speed is a factor in a NeXT/Mac choice.  The systems
do different things, and the environment and application
requirements (e.g., does one need a word processor or a
spreadsheet or whatever, that is only on the Mac) should
drive the selection of hardware.

Compared to a Sun Sparcstation, The NeXT (again the 68030 original
cube) is a real performance dog.  But, the NeXT has the NeXT Step
interface, and the Sun doesn't.  That might be important in
some appications.

So, I guess for a Unix box, I personally would lean toward
the Sun Sparcstation - disk access (Quantum Prodrive-105S
as shipped by Sun) is good, and cpu speed is also good.

For non-Unix box, I'd take the Mac over the NeXT (which is
why I have a IIcx), since it "feels" faster, and, more importantly,
has the tools I use every day (word processor, etc.), and (via
an ethernet card and NCSA telnet) lets me run a multiple window
environment to keep up the the Vax/Sun/Sequent systems I have
system-management responsibilities on.

Application software to do your job should always be considered
ahead of raw speed.   If you are going to write applications to 
do something special for yourself, then disk access, and overall
performance, are much more important than raw cpu speed, since
compiles (which one does a lot of during the debugging phase)
are more likely to be disk intensive than CPU bound.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Ric

Ric Anderson                    Bitnet: Ric@Arizrvax
Member of the Technical Staff   Internet: ric@cs.arizona.edu
University of Arizona           UUCP: uunet!arizona!ric
Department of Computer Science  AT&T: (602) 621-4048
Gould-Simpson Room 721
Tucson, Arizona 85721