Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!hub!6600pete
From: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (GurgleKat [Pete Gontier])
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <3919@hub.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 20:05:48 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>
Sender: news@hub.UUCP
Reply-To: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Lines: 18

From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott):
> There's been some talk of a new low-cost Mac, which most people
> speculate will use a 68000.  In addition, the Mac Portable uses
> the 68000.
> 
> What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030
> at this point?  I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't
> be that much more.

I'm no hardware geek, but I do remember reading something about
why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was
said that the '030 drew more power by itself than ENTIRE 68000-based
MOTHERBOARD, inlcuding a meg of RAM! I was impressed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Gontier   | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa
Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription
Hire this kid  | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills