Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)

Article View: comp.arch

Article #22163

#22163

From: Dwight Joe
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1990 02:23

16 lines
1240 bytes

My suspicions are confirmed.  The NEXT computer is in trouble.

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.

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.
What difference does it make if you can play Beethoven's
fifth on the NEXT?  

I know.  Steve's going to upgrade the NEXT to a 68040.
Even then, the Sparc chip set is faster.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!shelby!portia!underdog

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!shelby!portia!underdog
From: underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)
Message-ID: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 6 Feb 90 02:23:37 GMT
Sender: Dwight Joe <underdog@portia.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Organization: Gigantor Institute of Applied Science
Lines: 15