Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!latcs1!jtc
From: jtc@latcs1.oz.au (John Catsoulis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: New Mac Frustrations
Message-ID: <9236@latcs1.oz.au>
Date: 16 Nov 90 02:01:46 GMT
References: <1990Nov9.172342.7363@umiami.ir.miami.edu> <1990Nov14.225709.13353@silvlis.com>
Reply-To: jtc@latcs1.oz.au (John Catsoulis)
Organization: Elec Eng, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Lines: 18

In article <1990Nov14.225709.13353@silvlis.com> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes:
>Yes, it was nice of Apple to expand from an 8 bit bus to a 16 bit bus
>wasn't it?

Since WHEN did a Mac EVER have an 8 bit data bus? It makes very little sense
to give the 020 a 16 bit bus. Ok, so you don't need to add as much memory when
you upgrade (16 bits wide as opposed to 32), but is this really warranted? Your
going to buy as much memory as you want/need anyway, so why restrict it to
being 16 bits wide. Sorry, but I don't like this AT ALL.

On another note, why did they use a '000 in the Classic rather than an 010?
The difference in price is negligable (on the order of a few dollars), yet the
010 can support (without getting into an argument over it) virtual memory and
can therefore support this aspect of sys7. I'd be particularly interested in 
comments from Apple people on this last one.

John.
jtc@ee.latrobe.edu.au