Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Low End NeXTs (was Re: Desktop publishing)
Message-ID: <1991Apr4.125122.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 91 17:51:22 GMT
References: <4753@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <34936@athertn.Atherton.COM> <27fa3350.6bc2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <1991Apr03.232400.1560@kithrup.COM>
Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Lines: 44

In article <1991Apr03.232400.1560@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric 
Fagan) writes:
> I would suggest that this thread continue in comp.arch, which is more suited
> to it.
> 
	Probably a good idea but it's probably also a good idea for the more
	vocal members of the NeXT community (posters to this newsgroup) to work	
	out what they'd like to see from NeXT just in case it has an influence.

	I believe that NeXT has generally positioned themselves for moving to
	new CPU architectures.  I would like to see them improve themselves in
	this regard by adopting the Open Software Foundation versions of UNIX.
	In particular, I would like to see them develop a real-time
	implementation of OSF/1 or OSF/2 (they probably don't have to be in a
	hurry...their work in the forefront of adopting the Mach kernel gives
	them some time--but not much).  And they are in great shape as a result
	of their choice of PostScript and Display PostScript.  It's hard to
	say how their bet on object-oriented programming will play out (are
	they too dependent on Objective-C?  C++?  can/will NeXTstep be made to
	interface with whatever object-oriented language predominates in the
	future?) but I think it will be a major win for them.  They may have
	to move on to a more advanced signal processing chip but, for the most
	part, moving to new platforms should be relatively easy for them.  And
	it's a "don't care" issue for the users (so long as the platform's
	black:^) and developers since the environment goes along intact.

	As to the RISC vs. CISC discussion itself, I can only say that I
	believe that Sean Eric Fagan has summed up the case for RISC nicely.
	He observes that "Few compilers use any of the nifty instructions that
	a CISC has."  I believe I read recently that RISC was based on the
	observation that, in fact, only about 30% of the instructions in CISC
	computers were used by compilers.  The rest of the instructions, for
	all practical purposes, were just excess baggage.

	So the 68040 is fast...but it is already obsolete.  But it's "good
	enough" for now and has the advantage of upward compatibility with a
	lot of existing software.  It's a great transition choice.

c.f.waltrip

Internet:  <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.  BTW, I AM an Adobe shareholder (very small8^()
and that MAY contribute to my enthusiam for NeXT's choices in that regard.