Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie
Message-ID: <#c4G!au$1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 01:24:51 GMT
References: <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> <48625@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 21
In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 7 May 91 23:40:33 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <48625@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:

   If you are comparing the A3000 to the 040 NeXT, you can expect better
   performance.  I haven't met an engineer yet that thought that the NeXT's
   architecture was efficient or fast.  The A3000's CPU slot was designed with
   the 040 in mind (among other things).

Well, let me know how it turns out.

   No.  Can you expect it in a NeXT either?  No.  It still takes a total
   recompile of the software either way.  You can't expect the NeXT OS to be
   ported to the 88K in minutes, either, unless they don't plan to have it
   take any advantage of the CPU's architecture.

Of course it will be some work for NeXT.  However, for the software
developers it will be easy, so 99.99% of the current software will run
within days on the 88K machines.  While your finally hand-coded
assembly code on the Amiga will take quite a bit of effort.

-Mike