Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!umd5!matthews
From: matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Want a fast Atari ST...how about a '030 chip?
Message-ID: <5655@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 89 20:00:42 GMT
References: <1989Nov4.195456.16444@lth.se> <23787@cup.portal.com> <23808@cup.portal.com> <848@carroll1.UUCP> <5626@umd5.umd.edu> <862@carroll1.UUCP>
Reply-To: matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 23

In article <862@carroll1.UUCP> dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave 'Post No Nicknames' Newton) writes:
>
>   Don't be yellin' at me, _I_ didn't post that it made it run at IIci speeds,
>in fact, I think that I said it wouldn't run at IIci speed. No way no how.
>And if you're yelling at me for saying it wouldn't run at IIci speed, that's
>pretty silly too, 'cuz as bad as Apple's software is, a 25MHz doin' bad will
>still beat a 16MHz doin' good.
>
>
>-- 
>David L. Newton       | uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton  | The Raging Apostle-- 

You completely missed my point.  I made no mention at all to the '030 for ST  
that supposedly runs at IIci speeds.  I was referring to the comment about the
TT's 030 running at 16Mhz.  Your last sentence is not always true, either.
Look at the current STs, for example.  Take the JATO 16Mhz board.  Gee wiz, it
runs at 16Mhz, so it should be twice as fast as an 8Mhz ST, right?

Wrong.  Other aspects of the hardware limit the speed increase.  Drastically.

A 25MHz "doin' bad" can be worse than an 8Mhz doing average.

Mike