Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gblock From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: <11113@uwm.edu> Date: 18 Apr 91 02:34:22 GMT References: Sender: news@uwm.edu Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Distribution: comp Lines: 72 Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article , by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): > In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > Next time you need true WYSIWYG tell me that DP has no uses. Try printing > on an Amiga or Mac and tell me it is WYSIWYG. I do. But how many of my everyday applications need wysiwig? Yes, my WP does. Yes, even maybe I could push it with spreadsheets. Okay, I'll even give you databases, and then DTP. What now? > >>down the whole system. There are things that you NEED to do with a >>windowing system that would not need DP, and if you could turn it off, >>you'd speed up the windowing system just enough so that it wouldn't >>feel like spongy cheese. > > Try any windowing system on a 17" monitor. Drawing 1 million pixels is > takes up CPU time even on a SUN. Yes, but would it be faster doing it WITHOUT DP? That's the question. I don't care HOW much slower it is, something that slow doesn't need ANYTHING to make it slower. And then it should be an option. I like DP, don't get me wrong. But I want to be able to SELECT it. > Have you ever worked on a Mac with a large screen, definitely slower than > a NeXT. Screen updates are slow as molasses in winter. Yes, I have, and not really. I was working with their Radius big-screen on a Mac IIcx at the time. And it was actually more responsive than NeXTStep. I didn't like the SIZE of the monitor, though. Larger than I needed... MUUUUUUCH larger... > >>And look how much smaller QuickDraw is compared to DP. And I never >>said I liked the speed of QuickDraw, either. But it's faster than DP. >>If it was DP, I doubt it would run much at all on the 68000 plus. >>QuickDraw on a 68000 is faster than DP on a 68040. Says something, >>don't it? > > Try Quickdraw on a SE or any Mac for that matter, but with a 17" monitor > with resolution > 1120x832 and see what the response is.Slooooooow. Right, I forgot about that. Of course, then just give them more equal processors. It beats your precious, costly baby in speed on their IIcx. I think it beat it on the II (68020, 16mhz) with the same monitor as I was mentioning before, but the only time I really played with it was when the II first came out... > > What you people fail to realize is that unless you are comparing systems > with the same on screen resolution you are comparing apples and oranges. > I bet an Amiga slows down when it has to update a screen with 1 million > pixels. Then again, you really can't be sure... You've never seen it, as most haven't. Anyone try it on a hedley, or anything with a large monitor? > > Face the facts, on large screens, windowing sucks up CPU cycles no matter > what platform. Also Unix has overhead that slows the CPU. So compare an > Amiga or Mac running Unix and a windowing system and see what happens, > slower still. > Yes, but when windowing is NECESSARY, why suck up more than you need to? How is it that other systems have wysiwig without running a global meltdown-like DP over the whole system like Mort hangs over a cat? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba