Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!madler
From: madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: 16mb minimum for next machines
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.051040.9352@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 91 05:10:40 GMT
References: <3381@kluge.fiu.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 23

In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes:
>i don't have a next machine but i've been quietly sifting through
>the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that
>has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance
>out of a next you need like 16mb of memory. does anyone remember
>the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a lot. i still think
>it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next
>needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory

I strongly disagree.  I consider it progress that NeXTstep and its
applications require a 25 MHz 68040 and 16M of ram to perform decently.
In return, you get the best interface around, which is using the
computers time and memory to save *me* time and hassle.  If my
operating system *doesn't* make full use of a few thousand dollars
in hardware at any point in time, then I consider that operating 
system out of date, and that that operating system is making me spend
more of my time dealing with it.

By the way, my first computer was an Altair with a 256 *byte* board
expandable to 1K!!  And I thought that was a lot ...

Mark Adler
madler@pooh.caltech.edu