🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BvnJ4A.pL.2@cs.cmu.edu> nash+@cs.cmu.edu (Richard Nash) writes:
> >In article <dillon.0oq2@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>  
dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US  
> >(Matthew Dillon) writes:
> >> 
> >>     The main problem with 3.0 is in paging from disk, a faster processor
> >>     will not help at all in that area.
> >> 
> >>                                       -Matt
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 
> >>     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
> >
> >If only it were really that simple!
> >
> >Jim
> 
> But it is true! Most of the perceived 'slowness' about next machines have to
> do with disk or network access. Even if the processor was infinitely fast,
> executing in zero time, the machine would look and feel almost as slow as
> it does today.
> 
> Rich
> 
> -- 
> 
> Richard V. Nash
> nash@vi.ri.cmu.edu

I'm afraid you are not in touch with reality, here!  Even the current NeXT  
apologists admit it's slower.  I have 32 meg of ram, and do not normally swap  
to disk.  And a 1.4 gb harddisk, and do not usually access data from the  
network.
The same setup as before, only 30-50% slower in the user interface.

Jim