Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale!cs.yale.edu!pharr-matthew
From: pharr-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Pharr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
Message-ID: <30178@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 18 Apr 91 16:48:10 GMT
References: <2361@pdxgate.UUCP> <11053@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: koala.zoo.cs.yale.edu
Originator: pharr@koala.CS.Yale.Edu

In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>
>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?

Says nothing. Having seen both quickdraw on a 68000 and DP on a 68040, I
can say that there is no question whatsoever that DP is way faster. True,
it would be awful on a 68000, but with a 68040, there's no problem.

As for this thread on the speed of DP, it seems to me that if everyone could
calm down and see that although DP is not made for heavy duty animation,
it is still a good system, and--IF THERE ARE THIS MANY NeXT PEOPLE OUT THERE
WHO LIKE IT, THEN-JUST MAYBE-IT CAN'T BE AS AWFUL AS ALL THE AMIGA FOLKS ARE
SAYING...

matt