beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (James Beauchamp) (03/17/91)
The idea that you can actually make music on the NeXT or in conjunction with the NeXT (e.g., downloading samples from supercomputers) without using MIDI or the DSP hasn't dawned on a lot of people. We have ported most of our Unix software synthesis and analysis programs from other Unix platforms and are using the ordinary ASCII and Tekronix interfaces on networked terminals without any problems. The NeXT makes a nice sound I/O station among other things. However, I just received the latest issue of NeXTWorld and was dismayed that in an article comparing the Mac IIfx, the Sparcstation2, and the NeXT that they didn't bother to mention that 16-bit "CD quality" sound output (real time from disk under Unix no less) is standard on the NeXT. All it says in their Table 1 is "Dual RCA line-outs" are available. The implication is that NeXT sound is no better than the Mac or Sparc built-ins. In fact, the other two machines only have 8-bit output without expensive additional third party components and software. What gives? Why don't people realize this fantastic capability of the NeXT that other computers don't have (without a lot of trouble)? I am also wondering about the benchmarks in Table 2. I heard that floating point performance of the 040 was going to soar compared to the 030. The float benchmark they give only shows a 46% improvement, a long way from the x10 improvement I heard about last year. In the text of the article they make no comment about this insipid result. In their table 3 they seem to be off on their RAM prices. 16 MB for $400? AT $50 per MB (their stated assumption) that would be more like $800. NeXT wants between $2000-3000 for their 16 MB upgrade. Jim Beauchamp j-beauchamp@uiuc.edu
ice@wang.com (Fredrik Nyman) (03/19/91)
beaucham@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (James Beauchamp) writes: >I am also wondering about the benchmarks in Table 2. I heard that floating >point performance of the 040 was going to soar compared to the 030. The >float benchmark they give only shows a 46% improvement, a long way from the >x10 improvement I heard about last year. In the text of the article they >make no comment about this insipid result. All instructions on the 68882 FPU didn't fit in the 68040. Those that didn't make it on chip are emulated in software and are a *LOT* slower than the on-chip fp instructions. -- Fredrik Nyman <ice@wang.COM> [NeXT: ice@red-zinger.wang.COM] Global Adaptation Center BITNET: <ice@drycas>, <ice@searn> Wang Laboratories, Inc., M/S 019-490, One Industrial Ave., Lowell MA 01851, USA