Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!think!husc6!husc4!nakada
From: nakada@husc4.harvard.edu (paul nakada)
Newsgroups: net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: C128 vs Apple //e
Message-ID: <293@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 12:36:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.293
Posted: Wed Oct  1 12:36:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 00:55:28 EDT
References: <9800030@uiucuxa> <2084@ecsvax.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: nakada@husc4.UUCP (paul nakada)
Organization: Harvard Science Center
Lines: 30

In article <2084@ecsvax.UUCP> ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher) writes:
>> 
>> hi
>> I'm from a Commodore - 128 kind of scene
>> I ran a program on both the apple //e
>> and a C-128
>>

[ a program and other stuff ]
 
>
>That makes sense because the C128 runs at 2mhz compared to 1 mhz standard for
>the apple //.  Drop in an accelerator however and the Apple runs twice as fast
>as an IBM or the c128.  Where do you plug in an accelerator on a C128 and
>why would you want to run bad software twice as fast?  The benchmark you
>list is not totally hardware dependent.  The quality and type of Basic
>will make a difference too.
>
>Rick

isn't it true that although the // series microprocessor runs at 1mhz, the
computer runs at an apparent speed of 0.5mhz because of the video/computer
division of time..

Somehow, I don't really think the microprocessor spped is quite as important
as the apparent or visible speed... Here, the Apple, usually through 
excellent programming, makes up much ground on the PC series..  
Anyone else out there feel the same?

Paul Nakada