Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!calvin!zimmer From: zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Memory Message-ID: <1991Jun15.085335.4605@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Jun 91 08:53:35 GMT Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 76 In article <1720@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >In article <1991Jun14.125927.18256@neon.Stanford.EDU> > zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: >>I would be interested in getting some hard numbers on how much faster a >>16 meg machine is compared to an 8 meg machine. Opinions that I have heard >>range from "worlds of difference" to "doesn't help at all". >> >>I would guess that whether memory helps r doesn't help is largely a function >>of how you have your machine set up and how you use your machine. > >Uh-huh. For example, if you change /etc/ttys to run a getty on >the console, and dispense with all the NextStep stuff, 8MB might >actually be viable. A machine running 2.0/2.1 "doing nothing" >wants 13MB *real memory* in order to keep the "overhead" stuff >resident--more on a Color machine. That doesn't leave much >breathing room for Apps. An 8MB machine is *guaranteed* to >thrash in normal use. All the MIPS in the world don't make a bit >of difference if the processor is waiting for pageins. Faster >disk transfer rates and smaller seek times don't do YOU a heck of >a lot of good if the drive is constantly paging instead of >accessing YOUR data. > >>Please do not take the above comments to mean that I don't believe Scott and >>EPS when they say that more memory helps. I am considering purchasing more >>memory, and want to know if it will make the machine respone that much faster. >>As such, I would like to understand the context in which Scott and EPS are >>making their claims. > >There's a strange schizophrenia about comp.sys.next... >"More MIPS! More MIPS! RISC this, RISC that. Power, power, >speed, speed, speed! Faster, faster, FASTER!!!" along with >"but *I* can live with 8MB, *I* can live with 200MB disk, *I* >can live with 2400 bps modems, it's OK if it takes 4 minutes >to print a page, 10 minutes to log in, it only takes a >hundred floppy disks to back up my files..." > >There's a certain point of diminishing returns, granted, >but it's a lot closer to 32MB than it is to 8MB. > >If I'm running Terminal+Edit+Librarian+IB (not an unusual >combination), there's an obvious difference between 16MB and >20MB. If I'm just running just one of those, there isn't--but >that's not normal! Once you learn that you CAN run more than one >App at a time, and that it's advantageous to do so (especially >considering how well-integrated things are), it's hard to imagine >using the NeXT like a you-know-what computer. > >Q. Who'd want a sports car with a motorcycle-sized fuel tank? >A. "Who cares, if you get laid." > >Sigh... > > -=EPS=- Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my original posting. I have heard conflicting reports whether additional memory makes a significant performance improvement on the NeXT. As such, I asked for specific metrics of improvement, not for comments like it's OK if it takes 4 minutes to print a page, 10 minutes to log in, etc. Such comments really don't help, and only clutter the already overcrowded newsgroup. I would still like to hear from people about the performance of their machines. Please include whether the machine is standalone or networked, amount of memory, the type (size) of HD, and the Apps that you run at the same time. (Thanks) BTW, I do use my NeXT like a you-know-what computer (a DEC 3100). Even with the 8 Meg limit, I'm pretty happy with it. Andrew zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu PS. Its not really that hard to make a machine perform poorly, what is hard is to get the best performance out of a particular configuration.