home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sm86+
- From: sm86+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stefan Monnier)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
- Subject: Re: Falcon Graphics
- Message-ID: <sedk=Um00awVAY5H1H@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: 3 Sep 92 22:32:00 GMT
- Article-I.D.: andrew.sedk=Um00awVAY5H1H
- References: <1992Aug25.124510.2938@aber.ac.uk> <5pyyc3q@rpi.edu>
- <Bu1Dyu.IA0@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
- Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
- Lines: 28
- In-Reply-To: <Bu1Dyu.IA0@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
-
- Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 4-Sep-92 Re: Falcon Graphics I.
- Barnett@gpu.utcs.utor (535)
-
- > In your post, you say that the latest Mac LC (the LCII) is better that the
- > Falcon. Where do you get this from? The LCII is a 16 Mhz '030 : tie. It will
- > support 16-bit graphics but only up to a 13" monitor...for mor color/resolution
- > you need a graphics card. The Falcon's sound just kill the LCII. The LCII is
- > in direct comptetion with the Falcon, not the Classic II, plus the Falcon is
- > cheaper. The only thing that the LCII has is a superior O/S but TOS is
- > getting better.
-
- > Darren King, GBC :: emai : gbcusg@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
-
-
- I fully agree. I just precise: LCII and Classic II have the same processor
- running at the same speed and having the same PROBLEM:
-
- Their data path is only 16bits wide !! (although the 68030
- is able to use 32bits of course)
-
- It makes them about half the speed of a IIcx (or of a Falcon)
- At least for processor performance !
-
- Stefan Monnier
-
- -----------------------------------------------------
- -- On the average, people seem to be acting normal --
- -----------------------------------------------------
-