Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!ziploc!eps
From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Memory
Message-ID: <1726@toaster.SFSU.EDU>
Date: 15 Jun 91 11:14:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: toaster.1726
References: <1991Jun15.085335.4605@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: San Francisco State University
Lines: 24

In article <1991Jun15.085335.4605@neon.Stanford.EDU>
	zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes:
>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

What's important is what the end-user sees.  Quoting statistics
is pretty useless, since they can be made to prove whatever point
you want.

If you want comparable measurements, tell us WHAT you want
measured and HOW you want it measured.  You haven't done that.

If you're seriously interested in how RAM affects performance
->for what YOU want to use the machine for<-, find yourself a
32MB machine with the same peripherals, and follow the procedure
given in NextAnswers' misc.575.  And yes, you have to do it
YOURSELF.

Otherwise, you're going to get what you ask for, but not the
answers you really want.

					-=EPS=-