Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple II / Mac discusson (was:Re:Official"No New Apple II's") Message-ID: <14345@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 6 Nov 90 04:04:14 GMT References: <9011060151.AA08822@apple.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 21 In article <9011060151.AA08822@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >>Which is faster depends very much on the application. >Right, but put that same application on both a GS and a Mac, with only the >absolute necessary changes to make it run on both machines, and it'll be faster >on the mac because the macs hardware is, unfortunately, faster. No, that's what I objected to. A 7 MHz-clocked 68000 (not 68040) performs simple computations at approximately the same rate as a 2.8 MHz-clocked 65816. When things get complicated, the 68000's support of a general register set give it an edge. Also, it is harder to generate efficient code for the 65816 via a compiler, due to the warty architecture, and 68000 C compilers have been fairly highly refined by now by dozens of competing vendors. It's kind of pointless to compare Apples to Bananas, or to claim that Bananas taste better. >Using your same logic, that would be like saying a ][+ is faster than a GS >because AppleWorks 3.0 is faster than Appleworks GS ... Not MY logic! That's the sort of non-comparability I was objecting to.