Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!p4.cs.man.ac.uk!gilbertd From: gilbertd@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Dave Gilbert) Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Subject: Re: Apple (was Re: Future Acorn products) Message-ID: Date: 13 Jun 91 11:48:02 GMT References: <8106@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <1991Jun12.014428.288@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <1981@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk Distribution: comp Lines: 24 In <1981@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> rcpieter@wsinfo11.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr) writes: >Last week, in several Dutch newspapers, reports were given on a possible >liason between Apple and IBM: Apple using IBM's RISC technology (from the >RS/6000) and IBM using Apple's software. >I think Apple would go for the RS/6000 instead of the ARM for performace >reasons, but why would they ever have wanted to do anything with ARM Ltd in >the first place? You have forgotten that the ARM chip uses very little in the way of power and space - especialy the static versions they are developing. As far as I remember of a review of the IBM RS/6000 the CPU board consisted of about 3 or 4 custom chips which were large and had very large heat sinks on - not exactly ideal for a portable - but at least they would be in line with apples previous portables - LARGE :-). Dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Dave Gilbert - gilbertd@p4.cs.man.ac.uk - The MTBF of a piece of equipment - - G7FHJ@GB7NWP - is inversly proportional to its - ------------------------------------------- importance -