Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!uflorida!stat!sun13!prism!dali!ken
From: ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Apple's New Direction
Message-ID: <13417@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 7 Sep 90 02:20:47 GMT
References: <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <537@demott.COM> <1990Sep6.200736.6012@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Reply-To: ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Organization: The House Of Fun
Lines: 25

In article <1990Sep6.200736.6012@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <537@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>>
>>    Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when
>>everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy
>>performance compared to almost any other system. 
>
>This is a guy trying to compare raw MHz numbers of completely different 
>processors?  Come on, leave that to the RISC pushers.  BTW, it was 16MHz,
>not 15.

Well, if you want to get picky, it was (is) 15.6672MHz (something to
do with video clocking frequencies, no?).  1MHz is not a hell of a 
big difference.

In any case, when the Mac II and IIx hit the street, the faster 68020's
were production parts.  They *could* have used it, but didn't.  I think 
that was the point...


--

	ken seefried iii		ken@dali.gatech.edu

	"Vee haf veyz off making you talk...release da veasles..."