Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!bacchus!thomas!hunter From: hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: A3000UX - Born to run UNIX SVR4 Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 91 04:20:13 GMT References: <581.27a97594@vger.nsu.edu> <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Sender: news@bacchus.esa.oz.au Lines: 25 In <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >>compact.... The Amiga 3000UX greatly outperforms the equivalent >>NeXT and Macintosh with A/UX... it is an obvious choice as a low-end >>workstation." >What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >Good thing this is in a quote. Are you saying that the amiga 3000 (030) is equivalent to a 68040 NeXT... If you do not mean this, you must mean a 3000 (030) is NOT equivalent to a NeXT (030) What makes there machines equivalent? Some CPU stats or same performance stats? Finaly which performes better. 030 3000UX or 030 NeXT? James Gardiner [Hunter] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James Gardiner [Hunter][hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au] Expert Solutions Australia UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au ARPA: hunter%bacchus.esa.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET