Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[dke@adnc.com (David Every)]

In article <553ih7$1o6i@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ericb@pobox.com (Eric
Bennett) wrote:

| In article <28OCT199613435699@vax2.concordia.ca>
| spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) writes:
| 
| > 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 MHz
| > 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 - while
there were some that were 30+? on the 8088... the 8088 had 16 bits
internally, but only 8 bit bus... etc....

I would say overall the 8088 felt about 2 times as fast MAX for most
things. Considering it was 4 1/2 times faster in mhz it lets you know that
MHz is not performance.
--
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.