Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!kth!draken!tut!santra!kampi!jmunkki
From: jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac memory speed confusion
Keywords: Memory speed, Cache memory, Wait states, Virtual Memory, Help
Message-ID: <21218@santra.UUCP>
Date: 13 Apr 89 19:16:51 GMT
References: <7400@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1572@ccnysci.UUCP>
Sender: news@santra.UUCP
Reply-To: jmunkki@kampi.UUCP (Juri Munkki)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 24

In article <1572@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>Whoever said the Mac II runs no waits? I _wish_ it did. Apple was inexcusable
>cheap and lazy not to put a cache in. Not putting it in the IIcx, IIx, and
>SE/30 is just sickening. Precisely because that $300 cache board (which would
>cost Apple all of maybe $40 to manufacture on the motherboard) really does
>make a 20-30% speed difference.

I read that the IIcx has the CPU soldered to the motherboard. I hope
this isn't true, since it would make adding a cache a lot harder and
probably will cost you a new 68030. Can someone check this out?  I
would also like to hear the reasoning behind this decision, if they did
it.

Has anyone made a survey of video boards? Are there any affordable
boards with an accelerator or faster RAM? When the Mac II was
introduced, I intended to wait for DMA hard disk controllers and
34010-based video cards.  The SCSI interface turned out to be fast
enough, but it seems silly that the access time to the video RAM is
300 ns (from the point of view of the processor).

_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
|     Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi  jmunkki@fingate.bitnet        I Want   Ne   |
|     Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre        My Own   XT   |
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^