🚀 go-pugleaf

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
  [skipping along]
> 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.

I have no reason to doubt what you are reporting, but I can't help but think  
that there must be something significantly different about your machine.  I  
would not characterize release 3.0 as 50% slower on any system I've seen it  
run on.  

I wish we could pin this performance issue down, and know what the  
difference is between people who are getting significant performance  
penalties and those who aren't seeing much of a change in performance.  Some  
even seem to think that the performance is slightly better (though certainly  
no one with an 8-meg greyscale station has said that...).  Maybe that's just  
wishful thinking on their part, but it's hard to imagine that a system which  
was (in fact) 50% slower would "seem" faster to anyone.

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA