Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu!hpoppe
From: hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <6301@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 90 23:21:02 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com> <3919@hub.UUCP>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Lines: 26

In article <3919@hub.UUCP# 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
#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.

The processor in the Mac Portable is a Motorola MC68HC000 running
at 16 MHz. The HC stands for "High speed CMOS". The 68000 (in the Plus
and SE) is not CMOS. CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor)
is a low power semiconductor technology. Generally speaking, HC devices
are more expensive than competing technologies (LSTTL, NMOS), although
the gap is narrowing.

--
Herb Poppe      NCAR                         INTERNET: hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu
(303) 497-1296  P.O. Box 3000                   CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET
		Boulder, CO  80307               UUCP: hpoppe@ncar.UUCP