Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!iyengar
From: iyengar@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Anand Iyengar)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)
Message-ID: <20056@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 03:47:02 GMT
References: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: iyengar@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Anand Iyengar)
Organization: The Lab Rats
Lines: 43

In article <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU> underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>NEXT can only be saved if Steve Jobs replaces the 680X0
>with RISC processor like the Sparc chip.  In all compute
>intensive applications, the Sparcstation I beats the NEXT
>timewise.  Worse, NEXT costs MORE than a Sparstation I.
	Hardware alone doesn't make the system, nor is it the sole basis for
people's buying decisions.  For most of the computer intensive code that I
run, a DEC 3100 (MIPS) is ~2 times as fast as a sparcstation (and I think that
they're fairly close in price).  That doesn't change the fact that the school
will probably buy sparcstations before 3100's.  Little things like the OS seem
to matter (:-).  

>Too, the extra gadetry (like the DSP chip) on the NEXT is
>unlikely to be used by engineers doing compute-intensive 
>applications.  The DSP might help out in making
>a realistic video game; otherwise, its deadweight.
	One man's gadget is another man's workhorse.  There exist Real (tm)
people who feel that they need such a beast.  

>What difference does it make if you can play Beethoven's fifth on the NEXT?  
	Their system is good for more than just playing music.  Like it or not,
the software, and its integration with the nifty hardware, does count.  
There are a number of things that I just can't do on a sparcstation,
which are easy on the nExt.  And, to be fair, one can play Beethoven on the
sparcstation, too;  it just doesn't sound as good.  

>I know.  Steve's going to upgrade the NEXT to a 68040.
>Even then, the Sparc chip set is faster.
	That depends on how much faster "faster" is.  I'd argue that the nExt
needed to be faster from the start, but not for just number-crunching.  Even
starting up an (graphical) application on the nExt takes too long (insert
magic numbers for acceptable response in an interactive environment here).
I'm not sure that the 68040 will (or won't -- wait until it gets here) make
this better.  Also, nExt is undoubtedly designing a higher performance system,
so I'd expect the next-to-next nExt (after the '040 version) to be faster.  

							Anand. 
--
"The closer you get to your destination, the more you're slip-sliding away..."
{inter | bit}net: iyengar@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
uucp: !$ | uunet
--- Lbh guvax znlor vg'yy ybbx orggre ebg-guvegrrarg? ---
Disclaimer:  I get in enough trouble speaking for me...