Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:484 comp.sys.mac:13147
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!cpocd2!howard
From: howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Smalltalk for the Mac SE?
Message-ID: <1138@cpocd2.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 88 18:42:04 GMT
References: <2834@fluke.COM> <281@afit-ab.arpa> <3103@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman)
Organization: Intel Corp. ASIC Systems Organization, Chandler AZ
Lines: 20

In article <3103@cup.portal.com> Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes:
>It's worth mentioning why ST/V is so popular.  Two reasons:  it's $100,
>or one *tenth* of ST/80 for the same hardware; and the program is
>realistic about what you can do with an AT, and went for usability
>over compatibility.  If the rumor is true, low-end Mac users are
>probably best off waiting for this product, both to save money and
>to have a product that won't bring their hardware to its knees.

This statement sounds curious to me, since I had heard that ParcPlace Smalltalk
(which is Smalltalk-80?) ran as fast on a Mac as the original Xerox PARC
Smalltalk (76 or 80?) ran on a Dorado (which is a firebreathing ECL dragon
of a personal computer).  Having used Smalltalk-76 on a Dorado, that sounds
plenty fast to me!

Looking at the price of the ParcPlace product (gulp!), I have no reservations
about your money comment, but is the speed one really justified?

-- 
	Howard A. Landman
	{oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
	howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET