Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!Shasta!mrh
From: mrh@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Marc Hannah)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: InfoWorld article on MacII
Message-ID: <1746@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 20:49:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: Shasta.1746
Posted: Mon Jun  8 20:49:50 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jun-87 06:17:09 EDT
References: <76000010@uiucdcsp> <3282@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 23


     I was quite glad to see that the Mac II rated highly in the infoworld
review which was just released. I was unhappy to see that there were two
inaccuracies which I hope someone from Apple will write and comment on. 
    The worst of the two was the claim that the 256K ROM in the Mac II
is the same as that in the Mac SE. This has been a terrible source of confusion
and I hate to see it go uncorrected.
    The second silly thing is the comment that the 68020 'emulates' the
68000 so the Mac II is software compatible with the earlier Macs. This may
just be a technical point but the 68020 doesn't EMULATE the 68000 but rather
is a superset of the 68000. This is a subtle but important point since e
the 80386 can only run 8088 programs in the 'emulation' mode which is evidently
much less efficient than the standard mode. I hate to see people in the IBM
world apply their problems to the Macintosh (someone asked me recently if
the Mac had a limit of 640K of memory). While not as serious as the above
ROM error, it seems like it should be mentioned.
   Again I hope Apple responds to this article since they are incorrect
FACTS about the Mac, not opinions. 

Before I go I just want to join the chorus of those thanking the Apple
people for their contributions here. Thanks!

David Gelphman   daveg%slacvm.bitnet@forsythe.stanford.edu