home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!seanmcd
- From: seanmcd@ac.dal.ca
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Subject: Re: Is the PB 160 a 32-bit machine?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.214206.10102@ac.dal.ca>
- Date: 11 Jan 93 21:42:06 -0400
- References: <1993Jan11.184212.24557@cc.umontreal.ca>
- Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1993Jan11.184212.24557@cc.umontreal.ca>, casgrain@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Casgrain Philippe) writes:
- > In the booklet 'Apple Facts 10.92', it is stated (p. 31) that the
- > PowerBook 160 has "greater performance" than the PB 145 (in the 'Other
- > Macintosh models to consider' section).
- >
- > My question is: how is that possible? They both share the same
- > processor and clock speed!
- > Is it because the PB 160 is a 32-bit machine whereas the PB 145 is
- > 16-bit?
- >
- > Advance thanks,
- >
- > Philippe Casgrain,
- > Universite de Montreal
-
- Both the pb 160 and pb 145 are 32-bit machines, where that means that they have
- a 32-bit wide data bus. I suspect that their performace is very close; a recent
- MacUser (december?) had a chart of all current mac's performance. Unfortunately
- I left it at home over Christmas and don't have access to it now!
-
- What they probably meant by 'greater performance' was either: a trivial but
- measurable difference in speed for some reason; or simply that there were
- more options to make you perform better, like a greyscale screen, video out,
- etc. I suspect the latter.
-
- Sean
- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
- Sean McDowell "I am the first immoralist:
- Dalhousie University Law School that makes me the annihilator
- seanmcd@ac.dal.ca par excellence" - Nietzsche
-