Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!josh
From: josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: New Apple II generation
Message-ID: <1990Dec15.012556.22286@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 90 01:25:56 GMT
References: <6323@crash.cts.com> <2493@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <2493@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU>, alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes:
|> 
|> Clock speed is irrelevant, especially when you consider that the Amiga
|> has a million coprocessors while the Mac does almost everything with
|> just a 68030/68882 combination.
|> 
|> Isn't the desktop supposed to eat up about 40% of available processor
|> power in the Mac?

This really belongs in comp.flame.mac.amiga.  :-)
But since it's here....

In most Macs this is true -- the processor does most of the work.
But it is my understanding that the IIfx is different and has several
coprocessors, more than any other Mac. That's why its clock speed, 40 MHz,
is quite deceiving, since it can blow the pants off anything with Windows in
the PC (yuck) world.
But yes, on my Mac II, ROM calls take about 65 percent of the processor time,
according to MacMeter, a desk accessory.

-- 
 ___  _   __            _  __  ___       _             
  |  / \ |_  |_|   |_| |_| |_|  |  |\/| |_| |\ | |\ |  MIT never likes what I
\_/  \_/ __| | |   | | | | | \  |  |  | | | | \| | \|  write. Why start now?
INTERNET/josh@athena.mit.edu UUCP/mit-eddie!mit-athena!josh BITNET/your problem