Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!mcdchg!laidbak!ism.isc.com!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!brtmac
From: brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: SPARCstation 2 --> workstation wars
Message-ID: <1990Oct19.181008.24196@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 90 18:10:08 GMT
References: <9010180146.AA09967@mcs-server.gac.edu> <28337@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <7669@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Sender: news@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (The News Guru)
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 42

In <7669@dog.ee.lbl.gov> skankman@ux1.lbl.gov (David Schurig) writes:

>In article <28337@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes:

>>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.

I've never used, touched, or even personally seen a NeXT so I can't say
how it might compare with a Mac, but I have used Macs and I use SPARCstation's
extensively and I can tell you that a SPARCstation completely and utterly
blows a Mac away.  Trying to compare an 8 Mhz 68000 Mac to a 20 Mhz SPARC
is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard, and even a IIci, which
is the fastest Mac I've ever used, seems incredibly slow compared to my
SPARC.  Also, NeXT computers have virtual memory, something that a Mac
user has probably never heard of.  So it's applications are larger, only
the part of the program that is actually executing needs to be in memory,
unlike a Mac where the entire application has to be loaded before it will
run.  The amount of disk space you devote to swap space is the only limit.
Physical memory (RAM) doesn't control how many programs may be resident and
running at once, only how quickly they can run.  The Mac will never be able
to compare to machines like Sun workstations and NeXT's until they come out
with an OS that supports true multitasking, virtual memory and paging.

--
Every day you scream at me to turn the music low.
But if you keep on screaming, you'll make me deaf, ya know. -- Judas Priest

Brett McCoy	brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu	NetNews Dictator