Article View: comp.sys.next.hardware
Article #802Re: 3.0 speed compared to 2.x
From: Harry Vlahos
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 07:17
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 07:17
100 lines
4953 bytes
4953 bytes
In article <1992Oct8.201225.8249@liveware.com> todd@liveware.com writes: > In article <1992Oct6.133611.6559@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim > De Arras) writes: > > 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: > > > >> > > [ reality check needed here ] > > > > > > 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 > > <<Rambling on>> > > I must agree with Jim. We have had no less than 28 megs in our NWS > and cubes and have been testing Beta 1, 2 and have Gold installed. It is > without a question the slowest upgrade since 6.0.7 to 7.0 on the mac > (which by the was was the last straw and made us stop Mac development). > I agree with Eric Scott (EPS) that 3.0 does seem to be a serious problem > and historically a bad release for software (how about Ultrix 3.x ;'). > > Man, 3.0 is so slow in the UI, that people using 32 or even 16 megs > on a 2.x system come and see 3.0 and say they don't want to upgrade. > That my friend is bad news for NeXT. Reputation for having over > priced hardware, bad delivery promises, super hyper active sales > mouths, leaks from the top, and worst of all poor OS performance. > EPS or someone stated they couldn't believe the speed decrement. > All of you believe it! 3.0 is at least 50% slower without swapping. > Man with swapping comes into place the /private/vm/swapfile grows > very fast and to boot the machine slows way down. > > I used to have 15-20 apps running because I don't quit apps very often, > constantly working on various projects it seems. So I push stuff > a bit. But on a 32 meg 400 HD workstation this didn't push > paging much with 2.x. But on the exact same system, 3.0 allows > maybe 8-9 hungry apps without swapping. So in a way, my machine > and my work practices have been changed. My machine has been > 'changed' due to a different reality of functionality. As well > I have been changed by 3.0 due to its added functionality, but > more importantly it has changed me to be somewhat less productive > over time. This adds up over 365 days or at least until > the NeXT slower system comes out ;'< > > Bottom line for me is NeXT must match software releases with increased > hardware capabilities at a minimum. NeXT is NOT doing this > with a 40 Mhz 040 system. A 15%-20% CPU speed increase (even if they > implement swaptimizer hardware/software) will NOT bring my machine back > to the speed and productivity functionality which it has under 2.x. > > Too much to weigh since it is not just a hardware issue. I do > get added functionality with DB and 3D kit as well as other kit > software. But the bottom line is daily productivity. Most NeXT > users won't be using 3Dkit stuff, and likely business are going > to be primarily the DBKit users. > > UI speed (preceived or not) is largely responsible for making me > happy with a machine that costs as much as a NeXT turbo costs or even > a 'nitro'. > > <<Rambling off>> > > Todd Nathan > Liveware Corporation > -- > -- > Todd Nathan Voice: (303) 484-7607 (w) > Liveware Corporation Email: <todd@liveware.com> > Don't you think that this is similar to the situation we were faced with 1.0 and 2.0 ? 1.0 was very slow (even on systems with 16MB and a hard disk). 2.0 fixed the speed problems and everything ran much faster. 3.0 is slow once again, but I bet its because of all the new additions to the OS. Give them a chance to optimize 3.0 and I bet by the time 3.1 (????) comes out, that the speed improves ! I'm willing to wait. I am still productive on my machine. I just have to adjust and close the applications that I am not using, and be patient with other apps. Also, I think that NeXT needs a 3.1 release to fix all the bugs that were uncovered in 3.0, and they need it soon!!! No matter how long of a beta cycle you have, the problems will show up when you have a large mass of users using your software on a daily basis. -HV
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct9.071705.6927@cubism.portal.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cubism.portal.com!vlahosReferences:
<1992Oct8.201225.8249@liveware.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.hardware Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cubism.portal.com!vlahos From: vlahos@cubism.portal.com (Harry Vlahos) Subject: Re: 3.0 speed compared to 2.x Message-ID: <1992Oct9.071705.6927@cubism.portal.com> Keywords: 3.0 speed Sender: vlahos@cubism.portal.com (Harry Vlahos) Organization: -Independent NeXT Developer- References: <1992Oct8.201225.8249@liveware.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:17:05 GMT Lines: 100