home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30 / NN_1992_30.iso / spool / comp / sys / mac / hardware / 23836 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-11  |  1.3 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!apple!goofy!mumbo.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!apple.com!noah
  2. From: noah@apple.com (Noah Price)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
  4. Subject: Re: Crippled IIvx ?? Not really.
  5. Message-ID: <noah-111292111116@noah.apple.com>
  6. Date: 11 Dec 92 19:15:10 GMT
  7. References: <D2150056.kpbhen@erics.infoserv.com>
  8. Sender: news@gallant.apple.com
  9. Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.hardware
  10. Organization: (not the opinions of) Apple Computer, Inc.
  11. Lines: 18
  12.  
  13. In article <D2150056.kpbhen@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv.com (Eric
  14. S. Smith) wrote:
  15. > So what's the difference between the IIvx and
  16. > the IIci relative to this question, and couldn't the IIvx have been
  17. > designed to run at 25 MHz? My guess still is that the reason it wasn't
  18. > was that such a design would have made the machine more expensive and
  19. > therefore not price-competitive with more powerful Macs.
  20.  
  21. Well, I wasn't involved in its design, but I imagine you're basically
  22. correct.  Slower parts are often less expensive, so the CPU/cache/FPU were
  23. run faster for a performance edge while taking advantage of less expensive
  24. peripheral parts.
  25.  
  26. noah
  27.  
  28. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  29. noah@apple.com                                 Macintosh Hardware Design
  30. ...!{sun,decwrl}!apple!noah   (not the opinions of) Apple Computer, Inc.
  31.