Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:56453 comp.windows.ms:13482
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!tomr
From: tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. Windows? (sorry)
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.154854.19649@dbase.A-T.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 91 15:48:54 GMT
References: <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp>
Reply-To: tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts)
Organization: Ashton-Tate
Lines: 23

In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes:
>
>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
>> So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in
>> execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the
>> reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference?
>
>Two things -- processor effeciency and levels of routines.

[ rest of post deleted ]

>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is
>faster than segmented memory.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps,
the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor.  I would tend
to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the
segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit
addresses.

Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3....

Tom Rombouts  Torrance 'Tater  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com