Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09+ From: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: Date: 8 Nov 90 23:27:56 GMT References: <1990Nov7.034108.8598@agate.berkeley.edu> <90311.150400CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <1990Nov8.023952.29943@eng.umd.edu>, <1990Nov8.055834.17492@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: <1990Nov8.055834.17492@agate.berkeley.edu> > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 8-Nov-90 Re: Not another NeXT > defect.. Raymond group@garnet.ber (1178) > Why talk about how slow the old NeXTs were? You might else well talk > about the speed of the original 128K Mac. We talk about how slow the old NeXTs were because that's the only thing many of us have to go by. I am in this group; I have seen 68030 NeXTs but none of the 040 versions. It is a little bit exaggerated to say this is like talking about the 128K Mac's speed. After all, the NeXT is several years newer than the 128K Mac. And the 128K Mac actually wasn't all that bad, except for the limited memory and the 400K disk drives. As my contribution to this thread, I'd like to see the first Mac 040 accelerators, and compare *them* to the NeXTs. (Anyone know when we will be seeing these things?) -Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu