Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
Message-ID: <672G.izu1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 91 08:49:40 GMT
References: <1o4G7xmu1@cs.psu.edu> <11230@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 58
In-Reply-To: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu's message of 21 Apr 91 01:56:40 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <11230@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:


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

So NeXT will improve the performance of Display Postsript in future
revisions of the OS.  The did when they went from 1.0 to 2.0.

   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.

The megapixel display is a nice crisp 92dpi display, and there are
times when you image an entire 8"1/2 by 11".  It only takes a split
second.  Can there be that much of a difference when going from 92dpi
to 300dpi?

   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???

You're not forced to program in Objective C, but you must use it if
you want to use the Interface Builder because it has support for
run-time binding(think that's the term).  You can always use C or C++
and resort to the old fashion way of actually writing code.
 
   > 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.

I believe(IMHO) that throwing hardware into a machine is the solution
to the "software crisis".  I'm looking forward to the day when most
programmers can throw away their C compilers and program in Smalltalk
or some other high-level language.

-Mike