Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gblock From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: A3000UX at UniForum? Message-ID: <9568@uwm.edu> Date: 14 Feb 91 22:04:52 GMT References: <3485@dali> Sender: news@uwm.edu Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Lines: 78 Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article <3485@dali>, by icsu8053@ming.cs.montana.edu (Craig) writes: > Consumer Reports, IMHO one of the fairest rating organizations around, > often compares a new car of a particular model to its older incarnations. > Many times this new incarnation will include an larger engine and/or more > fuel injectors. Why? There are also many different types of performance. > Sure, the 6-cyl Fiero accelerates faster but it probably also eats more > gas and may have less cargo space due to the increased enjine size. There > are many facets of comparison. A fair comparison will simply describe them > and the major consequences. ie, "The 4-cyl Fiero lacks the torque and > horsepower its 6-cyl counterpart which is a great advantage on the highway. > For city driving, however, the higher gas milage and shorter braking > distance of the 4-cyl Fiero, as well as it's lower price, make it an > ecenomical choice for the commuter." > You've almost exactly described the point from the other viewpoint. The NeXT machine theoretically goes faster (accelerates faster) but also eats more gas(overhead), and has less cargo space (slots) due to the increased engine size( the cost of a 68040 over a 68030, maybe?). The 4-cyl Amiga 3000UX lacks the torque and horsepower of it's 6-cyl COMPETITOR (the NeXT) which is a great advantage on the highway (the NETWORKS). For city driving (personal use), however, the higher gas mileage (less overhead eating processor time) and shorter braking distance of the 4-cyl Amiga 3000UX, as well as it's lower price (and if it's not true now, I'm sure it will be... :) make it an economical (read BETTER) choice for the commuter (user)... :) OF course, I also have a problem with this, because we all know that the 3000UX is better than the NeXT, right??? :) Besides, the X-Windows under the 3000UX is faster than that of the NeXT, believe it or not... > > Sometimes you need baggage if you're going for a long trip. The NeXT > and the 3000UX (I assume) allow you to run without the user interface. > > Please try to remember that we are talking about the 3000UX which is > intended for running Unix. To compare a NeXT running Mach and PostScript > to a 3000 running AmigaDOS and Intuition decreases the basis of comparison > since these would not really be targeted for the same market: Unix > workstations/PCs. Unix/Mach is much more powerful than AmigaDOS. > Any future comparisons should be made with the Next w/Unix/Mach and > Display PostScript and the 3000UX running AT/(7`:&T Unix and its windowing > system (OpenLook?). Otherwise, the comparison means little. Okay. I'm willing to bet that the 3000UX benchmarks will beat that of Mach. for one simple reason. Mach was created so that unix could be optimized NOT for any processor optimizations, but so that it would be easy to implement and integrate Display PostScript into the system. Hooks were put in, calls to postscript routines optimized, but PostScript itself wasn't. They did little to optimize it for any one processor, or for that matter, anything. It's like comparing an IBM to a macintosh. The IBM is like the Display PostScript. Clunky, obtuse, using internal kludges so that it would be smooth looking. It is drawn out in places where it could (and should) have been more recursive. Whereas QuickDraw(TM/C Apple Computers) is like X-Windows (in general....) X-Windows is general, but is generally much more efficient than display postscript and NextWindows, or whate'er the thing is called. See, X-Windows is just that- X-Windows. That's the whole interface. But NeXTWindow is Display PostScript -AND- a windowing system. So let's say that the windowing system is roughly equivelant to that of X-windows. Where does that put Display postscript? What is the comparison on the amiga? Simple. THere is none. If the NextWindow system is more or less equivelant to X-Windows, Display Postscript would, as far as I can tell, compete with the Amiga's kernel (which maybe pieces of which control graphics, or something). Both X-Windows and NextWindows (I keep using that, I don't know if it's correct)... are the graphic interface. But the stuff from X-windows goes to no other process to get re-processed. NextWindows sends its (output? window code? postscript graphics?? Whatever, it sends it... ) stuff out to Display PostScript on TOP of that... Of course, I the master of speculation... :) Am not positive on this... and if Dave Haynie or anyone else from C= could delight in telling me how they handled the graphical interface (if they used bits and pieces of intuition, or if X-Windows does what intuition used to do in a completely different manner... I hope you get what I'm trying to say...) and tell us how it compares speed-wise to other GUI's on other systems, I'd be on cloud nine... But, of course, I babble.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Amigas, Amigas everywhere, but not a one can think. | Where's an AI when you need one??? :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------