Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: AmigaOS/UNIX - A Suggestion Message-ID: <7057@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 16 Nov 90 13:22:30 GMT References: <6653@chorus.fr> <6944@sugar.hackercorp.com> <8222@gollum.twg.com> <6998@sugar.hackercorp.com> <8284@gollum.twg.com> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 21 In article <8284@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > I expect that Unix running on Amiga would give me a much faster/nicer > environment than a 386 clone or a NeXT (tho' comparing to NeXT is much > closer in those terms). Hmmm... I suspect it'll be faster than a run-of-the-mill 386, but not a comparably priced machine (with likely a 486 and EISA or MCA bus). And I can't see how it could be afster than the NeXT, given the NeXT has a faster processor and a better base operating system (Mach vs. System V). And remember that extra performance costs extra money, in either case. If you're looking for an entry-level UNIX workstation a clone is the clear price leader. As for the environment... have you *used* a NeXT? It's to other workstations what the Amiga is to other PCs. It's really got a nice integrated environment with graphics and sound, and it's cheaper than equivalent non-NeXT machines. For the clones, I can't see how the software can be significantly different. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .