Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!apple.com!teener
From: teener@apple.com (Michael Teener)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: II -> IIfx mother-of-all-boards upgrade info needed
Message-ID: <13058@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 15 Apr 91 17:21:42 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.230716.23547@cs.ubc.ca>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer
Lines: 26

In article <1991Apr12.230716.23547@cs.ubc.ca> Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca 
(Sundar) writes:
> It seems there was an article in a recent MacWeek on design flaws in the 
> IIfx. If that report is correct, is it worth going on this upgrade trip in 
> the first place ? Thanks in advance for any pointers.

The MacWeek article is really just "manufactured news".  For example, it 
points out that the Mac OS doesn't currently use SCSI DMA, and without it, 
the SCSI runs slightly slower on the IIfx than it does on the IIci.  
Frankly, I don't think anyone will notice the difference.  You *will* 
notice, however, that the entire system seems a *lot* snappier on the fx 
... even disk ops seem better because the fx is better at keeping the 
drive busy.

Just between the several thousand of us, the peak SCSI rate is not really 
that important compared to the actual access time of the disk drive 
itself.  If you want better I/O performance, get a disk with 10ms access 
time, not a system with 10% faster peak transfer rate.

Note that AUX uses SCSI DMA on the fx, so it is not wasted hardware.

---- Michael Teener -- 408-974-3521 ---------------------------------+
---- Internet teener@apple.com, AppleLink TEENER                     |
---- Apple may know my opinions, but *I* am responsible for them     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Transportation by Cheetah N9900U, a loyal beast for the past 8 years.