Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ls1i+ From: ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: Date: 11 Nov 90 19:37:16 GMT References: <1990Nov9.195958.15383@midway.uchicago.edu> Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 38 In-Reply-To: <1990Nov9.195958.15383@midway.uchicago.edu> On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >>Nope. A NeXT with an 040 may draw its screen slower than a Mac with an 040. > >Q.E.D. And since the Mac is having to spend less time NOT running Postscript, >it can do other mosre useful things. But there is no Mac 040, there has been no announcement of a Mac 040, and there are no solid rumors of a Mac 040. Where is the logic in comparing something that doesn't exist with something that is going in production next week? From past experience, I would be surprised if we saw a Mac 040 within the next year. By that time, NeXT may have 60 MHz NeXTstations on the market. The fact is, NeXT is YEARS ahead of Apple in technology. No one can deny this. Apple not only has CPU inferiority, but SCSI (5MB/s compared with 2MB/s), DMA (IIfx DMA won't even be supported in 7.0), DSP, video, networking.... I could go on forever about hardware without mentioning the superior software on the NeXT. (When will Apple have a standard dictionary, something everyone complains about On 09-Nov-90 in Re: Not another NeXT defect.. user gft_robert@gsbacd.uchica writes: >I mean, how much memory does Mach and Postscript take up? I'll wager rather >more than the 1.? MB System 7.0 will take (yes, you need a 2 MB Mac to run it, >but that doesn't mean it takes the full 2MB). It's a small point, true, but at >least try to stick to the facts. This is like saying DOS is better that System 6.0.7 because DOS needs less RAM. If you want to use less RAM, then why don't you run Mac OS 4.0? Get a clue! Furthermore, there is no System 7.0. This has to be the most mismanaged project in recent history. It was supposed to be introduced 1.5 years ago and won't be out for another year. I don't like investing my money in a company that only makes promises and doesn't deliver. Let's at least try to stick to reality.