Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
Message-ID: <-08Gl8kp1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 91 23:17:25 GMT
References: <2323@pdxgate.UUCP> <11007@uwm.edu> <2361@pdxgate.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu's message of 14 Apr 91 22:38:08 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <2361@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) writes:

     Try comparing Quickdraw (not interpreted) on a 25mhz Mac IIfx agains DPS on
   an '030 NeXT.  The Amiga is faster than either one of thses because it has
   special graphics hardware.  The Mac is not much faster than a NeXT.  For a
   ~10% speed decrease, you get a graphics environment that's powerful, easy to
   program, and consistent across devices.

Ahem, the IIfx is a 40MHz machine.  And does the IIfx display graphics
faster than the NeXT?  It's been mentioned more than once on the net
that the 10MHz NuBus on the Mac is a bottleneck for graphics.  I'm not
an engineer so I can't elaborate.  Does anyone else have more
information?  The 040 Macs to be release in the fall will have a 20MHz
NuBus, though.

-Mike