Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!camex!circus!kent
From: kent@circus.camex.com (Kent Borg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: A IIsi or a IIci?
Message-ID: <1689@camex.COM>
Date: 6 Dec 90 01:23:48 GMT
References: <1034@sppy00.UUCP> <1660@camex.COM> <1990Nov29.100009.27395@ulrik.uio.no>
Sender: news@Camex.COM
Reply-To: kent@camex.com (Kent Borg)
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston, MA
Lines: 31

In article <1990Nov29.100009.27395@ulrik.uio.no> espen@math.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) writes:
>An interesting question is: Which of these machines [IIci or IIsi] 
>will there be a '040 upgrade for, in a couple of months?


How much power does a 68040 suck?  That might make the difference, the
IIsi maybe can't keep a 68040 fed.  

Second question: How much support circuitry does a 68040 need?  Could
it be squeezed on the IIsi adapter while still leaving room for the
Nubus slot?  (*Certainly* won't need a 68881 on that card if there is
a 68040 there!  That helps some.)

Considerations: The IIci is owned by people who wanted more power than
a IIcx.  The IIsi will probably have a bigger installed base before
long.  Which is the better market for Daystar, et al, to tackle?


I hadn't thought of being able soon to add a 68040 to a IIsi.
Interesting idea...nice idea!


P.S.  We really seem to be heading away from having very many open
slots.  Sure, most people don't use them, but some folks are really
hurting in slot-shortages.


--
Kent Borg                            internet: kent@camex.com   AOL: kent borg
                                            H:(617) 776-6899  W:(617) 426-3577
Kent's Invasion Countdown: 44 Days