Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!concertina!fiddler
From: fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <132073@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Feb 90 20:34:21 GMT
References: <0ZpnPge00WB2ILZFJz@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 19

In article <0ZpnPge00WB2ILZFJz@andrew.cmu.edu>, rc2o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Lee Chung) writes:
> 
>      The power consumption is totally bogus.  The current battery pack can
> run for 6 hours.  At most the 68030 would draw twice as much.  I would

A 68030 probably draws twice (or more) of the current of a plain vanilla
68000.  A plain 68000 also draws a good bit more than the CMOS version 68K
in the Portable.  This ignores all the other packages on the board.

> certainly prefer a 3hour Mac II than a 6 hour SE.  What about back up
> batteries.  You could just put in as many as you want just have an external
> charger.

The thing's heavy enough as it is!

------------
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..."   Plato, _Phaedrus_