Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!tm2b+ From: tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: WANTED: objective info. on NeXT vs. Amiga Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 19:00:21 GMT References: <90313.054820DLV101@psuvm.psu.edu> <1990Nov10.045915.4226@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Nov10.080947.22492@agate.berkeley.edu>, <1990Nov12.075546.4915@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: <1990Nov12.075546.4915@nntp-server.caltech.edu> I really hate to get into this discussion, but... 68030 binaries can be run on NeXT Mach after "atom"ing them, to change from the a.out format to the mach format. For about the last year, I've at various times taken Sun2 and 3 binaries, "atom"ed them, and run them, no problem. By the way, I think I prefer the Amiga to the NeXT, and have probably used the NeXT an order of magnitude more than the Amiga (I just bought an old A500 a couple of weeks ago...) If a few months, I'll be faced with buying either a NeXTStation or an A3000 (or maybe A4000, if it's out by then) -- right now, I'm leaning to the A3/4000 choice (Mathematica is the only really strong argument for the NeXT (I'm a physicst), and Maple V may suffice... I'm not yet sure). -- Todd L. Masco | tm2b+@{andrew.cmu.edu,andrew.bitnet} | "Boxes."