Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!sjl
From: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Hyperdrive 2000 info from GCC
Message-ID: <2723@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Feb-86 12:53:23 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.2723
Posted: Sun Feb  2 12:53:23 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 06:19:24 EST
References: <412@sol1.UUCP> <290@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> <263@tolerant.UUCP>
Reply-To: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Advanced Systems Planning
Lines: 17
Summary: Various pieces of Apple code are sensitive to processor speed

In article <263@tolerant.UUCP> berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry) writes:

> 
> 	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.

I have it on good (but second hand) authority that the Appletalk drivers
contain processor speed sensitive timing loops.  I would also not be surprised
if the code to drive the old (ie. single sided) drives contained timing loops.
-- 
Stephen J. Langdon                  ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl

[ The article above is not an official statement from any organization
  in the known universe. ]