Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!knrgroup
From: knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!!
Message-ID: <1990Nov8.055834.17492@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 90 05:58:34 GMT
References: <1990Nov7.034108.8598@agate.berkeley.edu> <90311.150400CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <1990Nov8.023952.29943@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 23

>In article <90311.150400CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes:
>>(Okay, let's start a new direction for this thread....)

>>The GUI was simply the most unresponsive I've ever used (and I've used

>Ever used DecWindows on a diskless Vaxstation 2000 over a clogged network with
>the disk server being a Microvax II with a flaky disk?  Yes, that's slower
>than a NeXT, but not by much :-).

>>I sincerely hope that they've fixed this on the new NeXT's.  Anyone know

Yes, the new NeXTs are not only fast...they are veeerrrry fast.  They are
four to 10 times faster than the old NeXTs depending on what you are doing.
Why talk about how slow the old NeXTs were?  You might else well talk about
the speed of the original 128K Mac.  The topic is totally irrelevant if you
are in the market for a NeXT or Mac today.  

>business, if it couldn't keep up with ME, on MY time, then I'd go and
>get a machine that *could* keep up, like a Mac.

The new NeXTs put a Mac IIfx to shame in terms of speed (twice as fast in 
terms of normal processing, perhaps as much as ten times as fast for 
floating point processing).  A NeXT will keep up with you and more.