Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: A3000UX - Born to run UNIX SVR4 Message-ID: <1991Feb11.115100.1771@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 11 Feb 91 11:51:00 GMT References: <1991Feb9.063711.17280@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1529@pdxgate.UUCP> <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 29 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. > 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. `-_-' .