> OK, here I come to save your minds
>
> x86 CPUs and 68k CPUs are both CISC (Complex Instructions Set
> Computing) and the 8500 (PPC CPUs) are RISC (Reduced Instruction Set
> Computing).
>
> is a 486 equal to that of a 8500? Um, no. But Kyle was saying that
> comparison for this reason:
>
> w
OK, here I come to save your minds
x86 CPUs and 68k CPUs are both CISC (Complex Instructions Set
Computing) and the 8500 (PPC CPUs) are RISC (Reduced Instruction Set
Computing).
is a 486 equal to that of a 8500? Um, no. But Kyle was saying that
comparison for this reason:
what was Apple rele
> I was trying to equate a 1995 PC with a 1995 Mac. The 8500 came out in 1995.
Sure; but isn't an 8500 a power pc processor? (I'm not nearly as familiar
with macs as I am with pc's---that's why I subscribed to this list: to
learn.)
I think the 486 and 68040 were roughly equivalent; the pentiu
Travis Martin wrote:
> > I completely agree with Kyle here, sorry Michael.
> >
> >> Why is that not a good analogy? What was on the PC market in 1995? The
> >> conversion to Windoze 95 had just started and most people were using 3.1. The
> >> MOST advanced PC around that time for the consumer
> I completely agree with Kyle here, sorry Michael.
>
>> Why is that not a good analogy? What was on the PC market in 1995? The
>> conversion to Windoze 95 had just started and most people were using 3.1. The
>> MOST advanced PC around that time for the consumer was a Pentium 1 at 133MHz.
>>
I completely agree with Kyle here, sorry Michael.
>Why is that not a good analogy? What was on the PC market in 1995? The
>conversion to Windoze 95 had just started and most people were using 3.1. The
>MOST advanced PC around that time for the consumer was a Pentium 1 at 133MHz.
>I think that w
Michael Bryan Bell wrote:
> > Do you know *anyone* using a 486 running Windoze 3.1 as their main machine
> > still?
>
> Unfortunately, yeah I know quite a few. Most of them are tied to it due to
> vertical market software.
>
> A 486 running 3.1 is not a good analogy compared to an 8500, more li
> Do you know *anyone* using a 486 running Windoze 3.1 as their main machine
> still?
Unfortunately, yeah I know quite a few. Most of them are tied to it due to
vertical market software.
A 486 running 3.1 is not a good analogy compared to an 8500, more like the
quadras and centris's and LC's.
W
>I know people still using 8500's as their main machines with G3 upgrades.
>The 8500 came out in 1995.
I see, yes, my friend is using a 9600 I believe, but he got a G4 upgrade.
>
>Do you know *anyone* using a 486 running Windoze 3.1 as their main machine
>still?
No, most of them got CPU upgrade
On Friday, May 31, 2002, at 10:54 , Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
> I know people still using 8500's as their main machines with G3
> upgrades.
> The 8500 came out in 1995.
Heh, my father uses an 8500/288MB/1GB with a Sonnet 400Mhz G3 card for
his business needs (email and updating his website.)
>
> Do
Aron Nelson wrote:
> >That and the fact that PC's lose their value far faster than Mac's.
>
> How much is my TiBook 550Mhz which I bought 3 months ago worth now,
> compared to new then :-)
>
> Actually on the PC side, I haven't found this to be the case. If you
> buy the lower end - say a Penti
>That and the fact that PC's lose their value far faster than Mac's.
How much is my TiBook 550Mhz which I bought 3 months ago worth now,
compared to new then :-)
Actually on the PC side, I haven't found this to be the case. If you
buy the lower end - say a Pentium 4 @ 1.8Ghz! = $899, it doesn'
12 matches
Mail list logo
