🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1go1j6INN2dq@gap.caltech.edu> madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
>
>>> But which chip they choose is very important and not an easy decision!
>
>Is it all that important?  Especially considering the ease with which
>applications are being ported to NeXTstep 486?  And considering their
>insanely-great production line that can be reprogrammed in no time?
>There's no problem with coming out with a different processor every
>year.  Your distributed executables might start to get a little large,
>but there would be some utility to keep only the part for your machine
>so it wouldn't clog up your hard disk.

On a technical level, it isn't important.  All of the major RISC
architectures (R4000, PA, Alpha, SPARC) are good, and NeXT can make
NeXTSTEP scream on any of them.  Also, users and even programmers
shouldn't care what processor is in the box (except for byte-order in
the case of programmers).

BUT, for some reason users do care.  That's why choosing a processor
should be a marketing decision.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5