Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:45652 comp.sys.next:4611
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: The NeXT and the Mac
Message-ID: <9235@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 7 Jan 90 07:52:19 GMT
References: <5142@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 24

in article <5142@blake.acs.washington.edu>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) says:
> Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.mac:48428 comp.sys.next:4648

> And anyway, what's all this Amiga junk doing on comp.sys.next anyway?
> The Amiga has even less to do with this newsgroup than the Mac does.

You're confused.  Architecturally, the Amiga and the NeXT have much more
in common.  For example, dedicated DMA channels (the NeXT "mainframe on
a chip stuff"), hardware coprocessors (the Amiga's blitter/copper, the
NeXT's 56001).  The Macs are still using the fool CPU to grab data, a
byte at a time yet, from the the hard disk!  But I'll leave the bashing
up to others.  I'm typing this on an Amiga.  Tell me why it isn't comparable
to the NeXT to some extent.  I have a 25MHz 68030 driving this machine, so
does the NeXT.  I have a 1024x1024x2 monochrome display; NeXT's have 
1280x1024x2.  I also get 1 MB/sec performance off the hard disk, though the
filing system.  I can call up a command-line shell any time I don't want to
go through the multitasking WIMP interface.  The NeXT is certainly doing 
it's stuff with newer technology, but it's not all _that_ different.

> Mark Crispin / 6158 Lariat Loop NE / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2098
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
                    Too much of everything is just enough