Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[dke@adnc.com (David Every)]

In article <19961101005442325492@dempson.actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

| David Every <dke@adnc.com> wrote:
| 
| > | > By the same token, it bugs me when PC users
| > | > claim the 8088 PC running at 4.77 MHz, was 4 times faster than a 1.024
| > | > 6502 Apple II+. :P (It's not!)
| > | 
| > | Of course not.  A 4.77 MHz 8088 is exactly (within significant figure
| > | limits) 4.66 times faster than a 1.024 MHz 6502.
| > 
| > Yes... and for many things it was slower than the 6502. The 6502 was
| > almost RISC in some ways... most instructions were single cycle
| 
| The fastest 6502 instructions take two clock cyles (this includes all
| one-byte inherent mode instructions, such as NOP).  The slowest
| instructions are seven cycles, e.g. LDA ($00,X).  The average for
| "typical" code is about 3 cycles per instruction.

Thanks for the correction... I should have just stuck with "the 6502
excecuted more instructions in fewer cycles than the 8088".... ;-)
--
David K. Every 
MacKiDo Warrior - The Power of the Macintosh Way!
--
�1996 DKE. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute is granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By distributing this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.