Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: NeXT software size Message-ID: <1991May13.003815.330@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX References: <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991May8.172853.290@sugar.hackercorp.com> <21452@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 00:38:15 GMT In article <21452@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > I was claiming here that the NeXT is more different from a traditional > workstation than from a high end PC. That's only hardware architecture I'm > speaking of, I'm not commenting at all on the software. I understand what you were claiming. I just happen to disagree. Is that OK? > >Actually, the Amiga 3000 really isn't that much different from workstations, > >other than the size of the display. > Guess you aren't using the same display I have... Guess not. > Memory in both the A3000 and the NeXT is better than first > generation 32-bit Motorola-based personal computers (Mac II for > example), but not as good or costly as what you'll usually find in a > workstation. Well, that's mainly because of the lack of external cache. The memory hierarchy is too flat. On the upside, there have been "real" workstations with the same problem. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .