From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.marketplace,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re:  NEXTSTATION FOR SALE (REDUCED PRICE!)
Distribution: world
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:46:56 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Dec14.010225.17009@utstat.toronto.edu> philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>In article <1gevc6INN7bd@phakt.usc.edu> rawyatt@phakt.usc.edu (Robert Alexander Wyatt) writes:
>>
>>In regard to Fernmeldedirektion Olden's post...
>>
>>Comparing NeXT to an Amiga is not only ridiculously silly...it is INSULTING!!!
>>NeXT is a Work Station with a killer UNIX implementation...not a game
>>computer!!!  Although the Amiga is certainly an able system for *some* things,
>>it cannot compare to NeXT (at least not in my book)...
>
>Not insulting at all. The new Amiga's are rather interesting. Of course the
>NeXT is better for people who develop software, something which few of us
>do. Both platforms suffer from a lack of applications. NeXT has a good thing
>going with its 486 release. Basically people wants apps on inexpensive
>hardware, and they don't want to pay a lot for those programs.

    One of the things I really like about the Amiga is that the entire
    operating system, graphics and all, fits into 512K, and programs using
    graphics tend to not use anywhere near as much memory and have no where
    near as much cpu overhead as programs on the NeXT do.

    About the only thing wrong with the Amiga is lack of firewalls between
    processes.	VM is really a non-issue on the Amiga if you have enough
    memory, unlike the NeXT where it is necessary due to the extreme memory
    overhead of NeXT apps.  Hell, the Amiga's device/IO subsystem is a
    thousand times better then the UNIX scheme (arbitrary number of
    asynchronous operations in progress simultaniously, highly efficient
    call interface, etc...). You can graft custom handlers and filesystems,
    filesystem simulators, custom networks, etc... onto the Amiga very
    easily where on the NeXT it's an undocumented mess.

    It doesn't have an integrated display/printing scheme like the NeXT and
    the graphics aren't quite device independant yet (but they are getting
    there), but neither does it have anywhere near as much overhead in
    those areas whereas the NeXT's overhead is so bad (as bad as X) you can
    barely use it for medium bandwidth interactive applications.

    As far as mach goes, it's a major disability for the NeXTStep software
    due to the massive overhead entailed by the single-threading
    requirement it places on all NeXT software.  The OS itself does not
    extend any kind of vectored prioritized interrupt subsystem for I/O and
    other operations to the user level, like UNIX in general, nor does it
    provide the plethora of specialized devices (such as an arbitrary
    number of highly efficient timers, something the Amiga does very, very
    well) to the user level.

    So, to the original poster, I say it isn't so clear cut after all.

					    -Matt

>The Amiga is very good at games, but it's hardly a game computer. Don't forget
>that AmigaTeX and Maple are every bit as good for the Amiga as for the NeXT.
>What is disturbing is the similarities that exist between the two platforms.
>Both are niche products. The Amiga has as good a chance of surviving as it
>has low cost good entry level colour systems.
>
>Am following this up to comp.sys.next.advocacy .

>[Something re the Quadra...]
>
>The Quadra is too expensive as are the NeXT colour systems.
>Philip McDunnough
>philip@utstat.toronto.edu

--

    Matthew Dillon		dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    1005 Apollo Way		uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Incline Village, NV. 89451	ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA 			Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000