acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) (04/23/91)
i don't have a next machine but i've been quietly sifting through the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance out of a next you need like 16mb of memory. does anyone remember the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a lot. i still think it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory gobbing programs are you people running on this thing. and whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use of the memory it has available. and what about these humongous swap files some people have reported. is this some kind of mistake. this is also quite ridiculous. please keep in mind i come from a world where 128k is a lot of memory. so i criticize this from the viewpoint of _total_ efficiency. maybe everyone should have started out on these measly machines. albert chin
madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (04/23/91)
In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: >i don't have a next machine but i've been quietly sifting through >the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that >has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance >out of a next you need like 16mb of memory. does anyone remember >the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a lot. i still think >it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next >needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory I strongly disagree. I consider it progress that NeXTstep and its applications require a 25 MHz 68040 and 16M of ram to perform decently. In return, you get the best interface around, which is using the computers time and memory to save *me* time and hassle. If my operating system *doesn't* make full use of a few thousand dollars in hardware at any point in time, then I consider that operating system out of date, and that that operating system is making me spend more of my time dealing with it. By the way, my first computer was an Altair with a 256 *byte* board expandable to 1K!! And I thought that was a lot ... Mark Adler madler@pooh.caltech.edu
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (04/23/91)
In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: >to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next >needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory >gobbing programs are you people running on this thing. and >whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use >of the memory it has available. Well, you see, its like this: we've got a REAL operating system, and a REAL GUI. That pretty much explains it. > >please keep in mind i come from a world where 128k is a lot of >memory. Maybe you should stay in that world :-) But seriously: since RAM is $40/MB these days, why do you think its so important to use only $5 worth of RAM? -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/23/91)
In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes:
i don't have a next machine but i've been quietly sifting through
the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that
has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance
out of a next you need like 16mb of memory. does anyone remember
the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a lot. i still think
it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next
needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory
gobbing programs are you people running on this thing. and
whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use
of the memory it has available.
Well, yes, this is sort of a valid argument. I, too, came from the
world of <64k machines (well, originally I did), and I guess it is
a little sad that we no longer can do that. But, some reality
needs to be injected, I think.
In 1978, or therebouts, an Apple ][+ with 64k of ram and any sort
of hard disk (even a measly 5Megger) would run you about $3500.
Maybe more. And that was with a kludged memory system, and
kludged disk system (well, kludged most everything). Didn't mean
you couldn't get good work out of it - some of the best for the
time. Into the early 80's - IBM PC's with 256k were in the same
price range when they first came out.
Anyhow, today? 16M of memory costs me $650. Let's say I make
$25/hour (I'm not pinning that down either way, I'll have you
know :-). It will take me under a four days to pay for that
memory. I think that would be well worth it, considering that
I'll be using the machine for the next couple hundred days.
Same goes for the hard disk - for 2 weeks worth of work, we're
talking something like 1.2Gig. That should tide you over for
quite some time, even with memory-hog programs.
So, when it comes down to it - yes, it's sad that the machines
require so much memory. On the other hand, does it really make
a difference? The only reason Apples and PCs are so cheap
today is because they are old. If you want a NeXT to give to
your kids to play with, come back and check in on us in 10
years. If you want a NeXT to get good work done while having
fun (I do _not_ consider trying to figure out which TSR must
be installed in which order "having fun"), buy in today.
Later,
--
scott hess scott@gac.edu
Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad
<I still speak for nobody>
"Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ."
"I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."jjb@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jim Black) (04/24/91)
i don't have a next machine, but i've been quietly sifting through the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance out of a next you need like - a HARD DISK ??!?!? does anyone remember the days of teletypes when a punch tape was a luxury? i still think it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next needs a hard disk to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of storage gobbing files are you people keeping on this thing. and whatever it is, i can't see how it's making good use of the disk space it has available. and what about these humongous libraries some people have reported? is this some kind of mistake. this is also quite ridiculous. please keep in mind i come from a world where a clue is a rarity. so i criticize this from the viewpoint of total ignorance. maybe everyone should have started out with a building full of vacuum tubes. -- Jim Black (jjb@u.washington.edu)
scott@next-2.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr23.223720.14750@hardy.u.washington.edu> jjb@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jim Black) writes:
i don't have a next machine, but i've been quietly sifting through
the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that
has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance
out of a next you need like - a HARD DISK ??!?!?
Can you possibly be serious? Or did you escape from the funny farm?
If you want a computer that doesn't need much memory, and doesn't
have a hard disk, I'd be happy to sell you my Apple ][ machine
w/128k and 2 disk drives for ~$500. I've never managed to do real
work on it - then again, I bought it as a game machine, anyhow.
If you're interested in real work, on the other hand, get a clue.
Personally, I generate enough data to fill hard disks weekly, and
it's a constant task to keep myself within the realm of free space.
It's not a matter of the machine needing lots of space - it's just
that most problems that you can solve with under 100k of hard
disk space have already been solved, and simply are no longer
interesting to real people.
I don't mean to sound non-understanding, but think about it.
Look at how much hard disk space and memory the machine you're
posting from has, and then get back to us.
Later,
--
scott hess scott@gac.edu
Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad
<I still speak for nobody>
"Simply press Control-right-Shift while click-dragging the mouse . . ."
"I smoke the nose Lucifer . . . Banana, banana."fjs@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Fernando J. Selman) (04/25/91)
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: >In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: >>to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next >>needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory >>gobbing programs are you people running on this thing. and >>whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use >>of the memory it has available. >Well, you see, its like this: we've got a REAL operating system, >and a REAL GUI. That pretty much explains it. >-- >Barry Merriman What is laging behind, software or hardware? F J S
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr23.051040.9352@nntp-server.caltech.edu> madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes: >If my >operating system *doesn't* make full use of a few thousand dollars >in hardware at any point in time, then I consider that operating >system out of date, and that that operating system is making me spend >more of my time dealing with it. You would rather your OS make full use of all of your memory and disk than your application(s)? Strange. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.171946.20859@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <1991Apr23.051040.9352@nntp-server.caltech.edu> madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes: >>If my >>operating system *doesn't* make full use of a few thousand dollars >>in hardware at any point in time, then I consider that operating >>system out of date, and that that operating system is making me spend >>more of my time dealing with it. > >You would rather your OS make full use of all of your memory and disk than >your application(s)? Obviously I am using applications when I'm using the OS. Also, the OS heavily influences how the applications are written, which is more than evident on the NeXT. In short, the OS and applications are in cooperation (or should be) in helping me do what I want to do. I want them *both* to make full use of the hardware I can afford. NeXTstep seems to be well balanced in that regard, on a 16M 68040 machine that is. NeXT should consider making 16M the base amount (24M for color). It only cost me $340 for the other 8M. It would probably cost them less than that even. The benefit would be a much much better impression of the machine by customers and reviewers. The speed gain from 8M to 16M is that impressive. Mark Adler madler@pooh.caltech.edu
fox@allegra.att.com (David Fox) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr23.223720.14750@hardy.u.washington.edu> jjb@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jim Black) writes:
does anyone remember the days of teletypes when a punch tape was a luxury?
Remember? Are you saying you're not still using them? What kind
of bourgeois system are you using now?
-davidbb@math.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (04/27/91)
In article <3381@kluge.fiu.edu> acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: > does anyone remember the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a > lot. Yep. I echo Mark Adler's comments. > and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next needs 16mb > to run under is quite pathetic. The "average" memory size, disk space, and cpu speeds for "workstations" have been doubling every two years for the last 15 years, while remaining at the same price; and they show no signs of slowing down. You are of course welcome to use any computing tools that you wish, no matter how slow, limited, or obsolete they may be. However, I'm not going to do so. I've described an exponential curve; deal with it. You can keep up or fall behind. It's that simple. > just what types of memory gobbing programs are you people running on > this thing. Oh, full PostScript language interpreters, for instance. As a consequence, if you can print something, you can include it (and view it) in any other program. Human interface development environments that bring a new level of programmer productivity by allowing unused ("dead") code to be left in a program while new code is patched in around it (the direct results of "inheritance"). The machine is fast enough and cheap enough, and I can write finished, polished applications an order of magnitude faster. So where is the problem? > and whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use > of the memory it has available. Since you promote yourself as someone who couldn't possibly write programs this big, what experience could you possibly have to make such a statement with authority? -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
drin@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Adrian Smith) (04/30/91)
acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: > i don't have a next machine but i've been quietly sifting through > the messages here for when i do get one. however, one thing that > has greatly disturbed me is the fact that to get _good_ performance > out of a next you need like 16mb of memory. does anyone remember > the days of the apple II and 64k when that was a lot. i still think > it is. and to say that a "personal" workstation such as the next > needs 16mb to run under is quite pathetic. just what types of memory > gobbing programs are you people running on this thing. and > whatever application it is, i can't see how it's making good use > of the memory it has available. Welcome to UNIX. It's not just the NeXT (although running apps under NeXTStep does require a lot of RAM - flame me if I'm wrong, anyone), it's UNIX in general. A standard old "Hello World" in C takes 48K with no optimized compile switches on my slab. > > and what about these humongous swap files some people have > reported. is this some kind of mistake. this is also quite > ridiculous. The swap files are *not* a mistake. 16Mb is the standard low-water mark on the NeXT, and 20Mb is very common. > > please keep in mind i come from a world where 128k is a lot of > memory. so i criticize this from the viewpoint of _total_ > efficiency. maybe everyone should have started out on these > measly machines. > I started at 4K on a Tandy TRS-80 Model I, Level I, then graduated to a 64K Apple IIe. I've yet to see either one of them do the things my NeXT will.. :-) As the needs of users increase, the tools needed to implement these needs will become mecessarily more complex, and thus require more comples machines. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: How can I represent anyone? I don't *work* for anyone!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Smith ersys!drin@nro.cs.athabascau.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982
cafe@cbnewse.att.com (richard.dib) (05/06/91)
> Welcome to UNIX. It's not just the NeXT (although running apps under > NeXTStep does require a lot of RAM - flame me if I'm wrong, anyone), it's > UNIX in general. A standard old "Hello World" in C takes 48K with no > optimized compile switches on my slab. > Not all Unix machines! I have a Unix PC with 1 Meg of mem and 20 meg of HDisk and runs UNIX. It is old and slow but is usable! Richard Dib
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.231546.3614@cbnewse.att.com> cafe@cbnewse.att.com (richard.dib) writes: >> Welcome to UNIX. It's not just the NeXT (although running apps under >> NeXTStep does require a lot of RAM - flame me if I'm wrong, anyone), it's >> UNIX in general. A standard old "Hello World" in C takes 48K with no >> optimized compile switches on my slab. >> >Not all Unix machines! I have a Unix PC with 1 Meg of mem and 20 meg of >HDisk and runs UNIX. It is old and slow but is usable! > >Richard Dib > Gee, if we're having a contest, I have a DEC Pro350 running venix (unix) with only 512K of memory and a 10 Meg Hard Disk. It has C, F77, pc (I think) and snobol. Andrew
sksircar@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Subrata Sircar) (05/07/91)
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: >cafe@cbnewse.att.com (richard.dib) writes: >>Not all Unix machines! I have a Unix PC with 1 Meg of mem and 20 meg of >>HDisk and runs UNIX. It is old and slow but is usable! >Gee, if we're having a contest, I have a DEC Pro350 running venix (unix) >with only 512K of memory and a 10 Meg Hard Disk. It has C, F77, pc (I think) >and snobol. Well, as far as that goes... I've still got my Apple II+ with 48K, two floppy drives, and a printer. I've got Microsoft Basic, Pascal, a word processor, Visicalc and oodles of games. It suffices for text entry, but just doesn't cut it against my roommate's Mac IIci, with 8M memory, 80M hard disk, Word 4.0, Hypercard, Matlab, and oodles of games. That's why I'm going to get one of those soon. (I'd get a NeXT, but without Matlab and a good word processor (I exclude Write Now from that category :<) a lot of what I'd use it for just doesn't happen. My immediate needs are thesis writing (for which I'll use the Mac) and number crunching (for which I use an Iris or a Mac) and I don't see that changing real soon. If we could just talk the people at Mathworks into optimizing Matlab for the '040 ...) Subrata Sircar | sksircar@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me. "May their souls rot in easy-listening hell!" - Johnny Melnibone, GRIMJACK #76 "I seem to suffer from irrelevant flashbacks." - Paul, PAUL THE SAMURAI #1