Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <10277@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 16 Feb 90 09:48:09 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com> <3919@hub.UUCP> <10223@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Feb14.185659.797@intercon.com>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 31

In article <10223@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes:
>> The reason Apple didn't use their current baseline chip, the 68030, in
>> the Portable, is simply that there is no CMOS version of the 030 yet.

In article <1990Feb14.185659.797@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com
(Amanda Walker) writes:
>Bzzzt!  Thank you for playing :-) :-)...

Do I get a choice of the boxed set or the Nintendo play-at-home version?

>Actually, the problem is that the 030 is already in CMOS, and *still* draws
>2.5 watts, thanks to all of those transistors.  An NMOS version of the 030
>would require the kind of mondo heat sink you see on new Intel chips :-),
>and would still probably make a nice little space heater.

Thanks for the correction.  Now, I just hope someone tells Steven Levy,
who wrote in the March 1990 MacWorld that "the mighty 68030 chip isn't
available in a CMOS version" (page 54).  He attributes this to Apple
but never indicates that it is incorrect; and I know I've also seen it
elsewhere in the trade press.  (Surprise, surprise.  I recently asked a
staffer of MacWeek on one of the Fido Mac echoes what their magazine
did to screen articles for technical errors before publication.
Needless to say, I never got an answer.  "Press release distribution
service, may I help you?")
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

FROM THE FOOL FILE:
"Women's wages are 56% of men's -- but that's not necessarily evidence
 of discrimination in employment."
  -- Clayton Cramer in news.groups and soc.women