Xref: utzoo misc.wanted:15930 comp.sys.mac.wanted:4212 misc.forsale.computers:12410
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: misc.wanted,comp.sys.mac.wanted,misc.forsale.computers
Subject: Re: WANTED: Mac SE or Mac II, IIx, IIcx, LC, SI
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.155212.11467@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 Jun 91 15:52:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: neon.1991Jun27.155212.11467
References: <25495@frame.UUCP>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 17

In article <25495@frame.UUCP>, jmp@jaco.Frame.COM (Jeff Papineau) writes:
|> I need a second Mac, and will consider paying a reasonable price for
|> any of the following Macs:
|> 
|> SE	No SE30's please, that machine is a dog (slow SCSI).
? This is the first time I've heard this - rather the opposite (if
you are upgrading an SE, the SE/30 upgrade is better than most
accelerators because SCSI is faster). I used to own an SE/30, and
I wouldn't take an SE instead unless money was really tight. It
certainly seemed at least as fast as an equivalent IIx/IIcx,
if not faster because it didn't have to talk NuBus to draw the
screen.

Can you substantiate this claim? (Just interested.)
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu