Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 20 Apr 91 19:07:53 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu Organization: Penn State Computer Science References: <11145@uwm.edu> <91dGsess1@cs.psu.edu> <47471@ut-emx.uucp> <4c9Go-jt1@cs.psu.edu> <47555@ut-emx.uucp> Distribution: comp Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 20:09:54 GMT Lines: 43 In article <47555@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: Excuse me. You have said that you were programming them. Maybe developer isn't the word... HAVE you programmed them? I have done some programming. I've learned Objective C, Postscript, Interface Builder, and I have become familar with the NeXT classes and methods. The NeXT is a pleasure to program. >The NeXT is comparable to a SPARC 1+ is raw CPU performance. Comparable. Not equal. The 1+ has a few MIPS on the 040. Of course, MIPS means nothing. Perceived speed does, and the percieved speed of the 1+ is at least two times as fast as the NeXT (from my experience). WRONG. The Sparc 1+ is rated 15mips and so is the 68040. What percieved speed speed are you talking about? Moving windows? Compiling programs? >I thought Sun shipped their SparcStations with 16megs of memory. I can only go by what the owner of the machine told me. Also, a quick glimpse into the BYTE review of the SPARC 2 series seems to imply that they shipped 8MB in the first-generation SPARCs. Certianly the two SPARC clones reviewed in the next few pages are only 8MB machines. Ok. You might be right. Games are not what I want. Graphics are some of what I want, though. You keep trying to show how DP/NeXTStep is the be-all, end-all of UIs and that couldn't be farther from true. In fact, I feel it has only limited use. It'd have been nice if there had been a way to use DP when you needed it and not use it when it was just deadweight. I'm simply trying to get the point acrossed that DP isn't deadweight. Amiga users keep clamoring that DP is slow because they are misinformed or they are making wrong assumptions like postscript printers are slow therefore the NeXT display must be slow. >-Mike