Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Well the rumor I heard....
Message-ID: <8118@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 6 Oct 89 20:53:44 GMT
References: <1603@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 33

in article <1603@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>, jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) says:

> I find the speed of a Mac II maddening, to the point of affecting my work.
> The Mac IIcx we had on loan from Apple was comfortable.  

The Max IIx/Max IIcx will go maybe 15% faster overall, on a good day, over
the Mac II.  While they changed the CPU from a 68020/68851 to a 68030 (could
at best double the system speed), they change the actual system very little,
and the memory system none at all.

>I believe a Mac IIci would even be nice.

The Mac IIci appears to be a good 68030 design, in fact, it should be far
better at being a decently performing 68030 computer than the II, IIx, or
IIcx are at being moderate 68020 computers (I have a IIcx in my lab, so
I have a little practical experience with these beasties to back up my
design critique).

> I consider a 2000 to be roughly equivalent to a Mac II, and I believe that
> additional power would scale accordingly.  

I'd expect a 2000 to be considerably slower at CPU performance, considerably
faster at hard disk performance, and somewhere in the same league at video
performance (though you often have Mac IIs pushing many more pixels, which
may make the Mac II appear slower, but if you need those extra pixels, you'll
be SOL on an A2000).

> Jim Wright
> jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
                    Too much of everything is just enough