Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tolerant.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliveb!tolerant!berry
From: berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Hyperdrive 2000 info from GCC
Message-ID: <263@tolerant.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 19:04:14 EST
Article-I.D.: tolerant.263
Posted: Thu Jan 30 19:04:14 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 20:47:20 EST
References: <412@sol1.UUCP> <290@ius2.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Tolerant Systems, Inc.  San Jose, CA
Lines: 25

> In article <412@sol1.UUCP> s255@sol1.UUCP (alcmist) writes:
> >The Hyperdrive 2000... includes a ... 68881 floating-point coprocessor and a
> >12 Mhz 68000.  (I hope I got that right)...  The person... did not have any
> >information on whether the faster 68000 would break software or not.
> 
> If it breaks software, then they might as well use a 16 Mhz 68020 and break
> even more software :-)  Seriously, one could still use the 68000 for software
> compatibility, ROM calls, and other I/O tasks (like disk cache control), and
> the 'meat' of the applications could be run on the 68020.
> -- 
> 					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

	I would think that the 16Mhz 68020 would actually break less software
than the 12Mhz 68000, since it has a superset of the 68K instruction set and
the double speed clock should be significantly easier to drop down to 8Mhz
when absolutely necessary.  The only that should be timing dependent anyway
is copy protection code that does it's own searching for file marks.
-- 

	David W. Berry
	dwb@well.UUCP
	Delphi: dwb
	{ucbvax,pyramid,idsvax,bene,oliveb}!tolerant!berry

	I'm only here for the beer.