Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: Date: 19 Apr 91 12:09:43 GMT References: <11113@uwm.edu> Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. SHephard) Distribution: na Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 117 In article <11113@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article , by kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard): >> In article <11053@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>>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. > If you don't want graphics on a Mac you are stuck. If you don't want X or NeWS on a Sun you get command line Unix. The NeXT is no different. DP is the display model. If you don't have DP you get nothing. It is an entire client/server model. If you turn it off where is your window manager. Oh I get it you want something other than DP. >> 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... > I worked on a IIcx and a SE-30 both with large monitors using software called Design Works, which is a logic design entry and simulation program. It is very screen intensive. When running that program with simulation off, the Mac screen updates were very slooooow. My NeXT even when it was an '030 was never, ever that slow, even with multiple programs running. The Mac display model when using a large screen even on an IIfx is slower than my NeXT. >> >>>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? Postscript does run on a 68000. Next time yopu use a postscript printer it could be a 68000 doing the processing. Remember postscript is a uniform, device independent display model. >> >> 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... I've used the Mac with a large screen and it was slow, too slow. Oh, costly. You call a NeXT costly. I have the educational price list for Apple right here. A IIci with 80meg HD and 4mb memory is $4300 plus I still need a keyboard and monitor. Compare to a Mac with -good- performance a NeXT is cheap. By the time you add either a 17in mono or color monitor to a IIci, I could have bought a NeXTstation 200 in mono or color to compare. Don't even try to compare a IIfx to a NeXT. The IIfx is II f***n' expensive. The educational prices for the A3000ux aren't all that great either. > >> >> 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? > Don't use the windowing system. You can always run command line Unix. All you have to do is boot the machine and don't start the window server. But then all you get is command line Unix and no windowing system. BTW - If you want wysiwyg on a Mac you go into preview mode and talk about meltdown. I was using Adobe Illustrator on a Mac and wanted to see exactly what it would look like when my document printed. On a IIci it took 30 sec. and this was no complex drawing. It still turned out not to be what was displayed on the screen, but it was close enough. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. >Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. > -Wubba -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */