Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!polya!shap
From: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac memory speed confusion
Keywords: Memory speed, Cache memory, Wait states, Virtual Memory, Help
Message-ID: <8719@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 24 Apr 89 03:09:24 GMT
References: <7400@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1572@ccnysci.UUCP> <21218@santra.UUCP> <1691@ccnysci.UUCP>
Sender: Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 28

In article <1691@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>
> The 030 isn't just soldered- it's surface-mounted, just like
>everything else...
>
>The justification is simple:
>1) It cuts down on failure rates due to bad contacts (official reason)
>2) It makes cheap third-party processor speed enhancements like caches
>   impossible (real reason)

There are lots of legitemate reasons to gripe at Apple.  We don't need
to fabricate "dark side" theories.  The reduction in failure rates,
increase in board part density, reduction in cost of manufacturing,
and improvement in noise immunity are all sufficient justification for
surface mounting parts.  Those of you who are used to being able to
field-upgrade processors will have to change your expectations.
Expect roughly all future machines to be build around surface-mount
technology.

The cache argument has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Apple has no
interest in shortchanging their own machine, and it is pretty clear
that *they* aren't in the cache business, so it isn't an issue of
competition.

Lets talk about important things, like why my >$1500 upgrade doesn't
include a goddamn DMA chip and reasonable SCSI performance...

Jon