🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec17.064813.16650@nueces.cactus.org> chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) writes:
>There are a few misunderstandings...
>
>6600pete@hub.UUCP writes:
>
>>From article <22438@ut-emx.UUCP>, by chari@ut-emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey):
>>> Text scrolling is faster than IIcis I have used for sure.
>
>>Whoops. Try the NeXT being 4-bit mono and the IIci you might have used being
>>in 8-bit color. Whenever I'm doing heavy text on a color Mac, I turn all the
>>colors off. Performance skyrockets. That's what the Monitors cdev was designed
>>for.
>
>Well. It is grayscale, not mono for one thing. And, for another, I WAS
>talking about the mac in 1-bit mode.
>
>>> And disk access. Don't even try to argue that one.
>
>>You're kidding, right? The optical drive is hideously slow. The 100MB SCSI
>>Winchester is OK, but that's not standard, is it now?
>
>I wasn't talking about an optical. I was talkign about a *330* meg
>SCSI and anyway, the optical is (perceptibly) faster than most Mac
>drives that cost $1500.00 and give you 256 megs of storage on a $50.00
>removable disk. Oops. I guess there aren't any. Oh well.
>
>
>-- 
>Chris Whatley
>Work: chari@pelican.ma.utexas.edu (NeXT Mail)		(512/471-7711 ext 123)
>Play: chari@nueces.cactus.org (NeXT Mail)		(512/499-0475)
>Also: chari@emx.utexas.edu

I said that I wouldn't say any more about this, but if more of this
inaccurate dribble goes on, then I have no choice.  We all know that
the NeXT machine is 4-bit mono, not grayscale, but you *did not*
imply that you were refering to the Mac's performance either in 1-bit
or 4-bit mono earlier, and to say so now destroys your original argument.
Make sure you are explicit about this.  Even then, I think your argument is
grossly inaccurate, and I have used both the cube and the IIci.

My counterpart who works for NeXT in Atlanta will even say that the
optical drive is slow; he has to me.  The optical drive was a gutsy
technological advance that I think was a little bit ahead of its time.
Competing technologies today are much faster and are approachine 30ms
access times, which I consider a watermark of working in a tolerable
unix enviroment.  the Canon optical does not come close to these
specifications.  Also, most of todays technologies will get you 600
meg on a disk, not 256.  The Canon was state of the art when it
was ready in 1987.  The NeXT machine, unfortunetely, was not.
And if you think you can't get a removable manegto-optical drive
for the Mac, then you haven't been shopping lately.

And as far as the 330 meg Winchester drive goes, this drive is no
different than any similar unit that is available for the Mac, PC,
or any Vax/Unix platform, simply because all these companies buy
their drives from the same manufacterers, primarily Imprimis, Micropolis,
Priam, and others.

Again, i say, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE!!!  Some
of these comments made here are downright wrong!  And silly!

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
|Disclaimer:  I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. |
|                                                                         |
|Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing              |
|ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc.         |
|Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100  |
|Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338            |
|GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358         |
|USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing                         |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^