Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!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: <11230@uwm.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 91 01:56:40 GMT
References: <1o4G7xmu1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Distribution: comp
Lines: 55
Originator: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1o4G7xmu1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger):
>    1)  Walk through the code, and you'll understand.
> 
> But I don't understand, explain it to me.

It's optimized quite poorly.  Even in its current state, it could be better.

> It must be better.  I've seen a LaserWriter spend a couple of minutes
> imaging a page to print.  Display Postscript on the NeXT doesn't have
> this problem.

Oh, and I now suppose that your MegaPixel display is 300dpi???  Give
me a break.  And you said yourself, it doesn't need to do the whole
display, just the parts that change.  Get real.

> I didn't claim that it took 10% of the CPU time.  I imagine that the
> actual amount of time varies.  If you are watching your program
> compile, I seriously doubt that 10% of the CPU time is being used by
> Display Postscript.  

Worst case or not, I'm sure it would be quite easy to achieve 10%.
And be assured that the Amiga doesn't take up that much time...
I've never seen a display update that was updating 10% of the time you
were using it on an Amiga.

> What a nice saying.  Should I write in 68000 assembler?  Wait!  NeXT
> is going to move to a RISC chip in a year or so.  Oh well, then I'm
> SOL.

No, but you could write in 68040 assembly...  Or are you forced into
Objective C as well as DP???

> Buy more RAM, it's cheap(< $200 for 4MB).  Unix is like having a big
> powerful engine in your car, except that gas is getting cheaper
> everyday.  Don't worry, it's environmentally safe to use a RAM
> guzzling NeXT.
> 

In making those chips, CFC's and other chemicals are used.  Those
chemicals are environmentally bad.  No, don't give me that.  And the
solution to a software problem is NOT to throw more hardware at it.  I
don't care if it's 200 dollars, or 200,000.  If you can't do it in
16MB, and virtual memory, it's not worth it.  Honestly, I don't ever
want to buy more than 5mb.  And I try to restrict myself to companies
that don't use harmful chemicals, even though most times it's near
impossible.  And using ELECTRICITY is generally unsafe for the
environment.  So in essence, that last statement isn't true.

Greg

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.
Why?  He doesn't know I'm doing this.
								-Wubba