Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gblock From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: A3000UX - Born to run UNIX SVR4 Message-ID: <9475@uwm.edu> Date: 12 Feb 91 01:33:41 GMT References: <1991Feb11.115100.1771@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@uwm.edu Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Lines: 58 Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article <1991Feb11.115100.1771@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> AmigaDOS =1%/3 alot closer to 0. But your only talking about the Workspace >> manager, what about the Unix overhead and the filesystem, what about >> Display Postscript? > > What does AmigaDOS have to do with UNIX on the Amiga? If you're running AmigaDOS > then the Amiga is the clear price/performance leader across the board. The > nearest competing machines are so far back they aren't even in SCUD range. > >> SCSI serial controllers? I smell a kludge. > > No, SCSI is plenty fast enough for an I/O bus. The only thing not fast enough > for SCSI is RAM and Video. > >> Come on, this is a kludge! SCSI isn't that fast. What about using >> the NeXT as a fileserver? 4-5 megabytes per second xfer rate isn't >> going to cut it. > > Over a 10 megabit/second net (that comes out to ~ 1 MB/sec)? I think that's > quite fast enough. You're kidding, right? Right now we have HARD DRIVES that can go faster than that. And that's now. That's only using the 16-bit version of the bus. The 3000 you compare it to is quite different. That's bus is a 32 bit. If WE on our amigas can get over that on a SCSI harddrive, what happens when the 32-bit scsi hard drives come out? If our HD's can already pose your scsi a joke, what happens? You can't upgrade then, can you? You're screwed, is what you'd be. You'd be stuck with a slower system. And okay, you could use it as a fileserver... I always thought that the idea behind a fileserver was to use the FASTEST computers as the distributor, and the SLOWER ones as the receiving nodes.... You're saying that your'e going to turn a $4000 computer, NeXT or otherwise, into a BIG HD????!!! That's all!!! What a waste. You'll be wasting all the processing power that's there just so you can have a remote hard drive!!!! I could almost laugh at that logic. Unless, of course, you plan on buying MANY NeXT's as the years go by... and all of THEM happen to be just as UNEXPANDABLE. You'd be upgrading every year and a half or so, just to keep up with technology... I should know... :) A big network of outdated, close-ended computers.... Linked over a slow network that can be beaten in speed by a decent harddrive... Eek.. Sounds sad, doesn't it... > >> How about an FDDI network (fiber). SCSI would be useless, it couldn't >> keep up. > > Sure. If you're looking at an FDDI network you're not going to waste it on a > CISC processor. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > . As CISC's get faster and faster, they require faster networks. Risc's are going up in speed too... So soon, the RISC's will need a faster network, and they will create a new, faster network. Meanwhile, the faster CISC's will just take the RISC progression up one... THey will go to FDDI, leaving behind the other networks to deadlocked macs, and of course, last but not least, YOUR NEXT MACHINE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ gblock@ccvax.iastate.edu | Amigas, amigas everywhere, but not a one can think. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------