home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.dseg.ti.com!news
- From: bogus@go.away (Mike Neus)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
- Subject: Re: CMD Upgrade..
- Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:39:08 GMT
- Organization: Texas Instruments
- Message-ID: <4ia05c$cap@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com>
- References: <4hsf64$3nu@news.interpath.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: m_neus.dseg.ti.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
-
- In article <4hsf64$3nu@news.interpath.net>, white@mercury.interpath.net
- says...
- >
- > I thought this might be something interesting to consider so Im going to
- >post it here. Anyhow im upgrading my 386 16 - to a Pentium 75, this is
- >almost exactly the same speed difference as a C64 to the CMD 20MHZ
- >accelerator. Now consider that my c64 runs everything, so your talking
- >about from a P75 to a 786! Or around thereabouts.. or a P750! So your
- >definitley talking about a fast system!
-
- While I won't debate the CPU upgade will make the 64 scream, the FACT is CPU
- horsepower wise, a 20MHz 65816 is only a bit better than a 386SX/25. I'm as
- much a Commodore fenatic as anyone else here and do want a 20MHz C64 run
- faster than my AT clone. I must ask though, why do you think it will be as
- fast as a 786 which nobody even knows how fast it is since they don't exist?
- Also, please explain how you made the link from a P75 to a Commodore 64.
-
- --
- \|||/
- {o o}
- ------------------------------------------OOo---(_)--oOO-------------------
- Due to the ever increasing tide of junk mail that now roams what was once
- great communication medium free of advertising, my E-Mail address will no
- longer be disclosed. If you have something to say, do so publicly as a
- response to this UseNet message. You can thank the blood sucking leaches
- of various organizations who have ruined this once great frontier. I
- encourage you to do the same and put an end to this nonesense.
- -Mike Neus
-
-