Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucrmath!rhyde From: rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: A low blow from Apple Message-ID: <8831@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Date: 23 Sep 90 18:43:08 GMT References: <9009230839.AA00660@apple.com> Organization: University of California, Riverside Lines: 19 >>> Apple decided not to make the GS any faster than 2.8Mhz because they >>> were afraid that it would compete with the Mac. BS! Apple "limited" the GS to 2.8Mhz because the fastest ROMS they could buy at the time limited it to this speed. The 65c816 interfaces to memory in a completely different manner than the 68000. A clock cycle = 1 Memory Cycle. On the 68000, 4 clock cycles=1 memory cycle. Therefore, a 2.8 Mhz GS access memory at about the same speed as a 12 Mhz 68000. There is a *LARGE* penalty for introducing wait states on the 65c816, unlike the 680x0 family. This is why introducing wait states (like Apple did on the Mac) isn't viable. Finally, the maximum processor speed was 4 Mhz when they intro'd the GS. Introducing wait states at that point would have slowed the processor down to the equivalent of 2 mhz. Apple's 2.8 Mhz speed was the best they could do at the time. Today, they could probably do 7 Mhz *IF THEY COULD GET A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE PROCESSORS*. Such a source does not exist yet. The only alternative would be for Apple to develop their own processor. Given the costs of this, I can't imagine Apple going too much farther with the Apple II by building their own processor. *** Randy Hyde O-)