> Too bad Apple doesn't make a Mac the size of the TX3.
> Could take one and run Basilisk II on it...
Wasn't there a G3-based system called the Yellow Brick that was a miniature
PPC server? I seem to remember Yellow Dog trumpeting it a year or so ago.
--
- personal pa
At 19:59 -0800 on 12/11/02, Gregg Eshelman wrote:
>--- Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's really too bad, because one reason I like
>> machines like the Mac
>> IIci is because they are so small. I wish they still
>> made computers this
>> small, and I mean in a more practical form than t
--- Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's really too bad, because one reason I like
> machines like the Mac
> IIci is because they are so small. I wish they still
> made computers this
> small, and I mean in a more practical form than the
> Cube.
>
> Even the smallest PC Cubes are larger (an
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:54AM +0100, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
> > >It's really too bad, because one reason I like machines like the Mac
> >>IIci is because they are so small. I wish they still made computers this
> > >small, and I mean in a more practical form than the Cube.
> >
>
> Mayb
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:02:25PM -0500, the pickle wrote:
> Which, unfortunately, doesn't exist, because, well, nobody makes NuBus
> cards any more...best you'll do is probably a Thunder IV or Horizon 24
> by RasterOps, and even those can't really compete with something like
> an HPV card in the
> >It's really too bad, because one reason I like machines like the Mac
>>IIci is because they are so small. I wish they still made computers this
> >small, and I mean in a more practical form than the Cube.
>
Maybe what you really want is a portable computer, a so called laptop
or powerbook or
At 17:27 -0500 on 12/11/02, Shannon wrote:
>My Mac IIci has a Radius Thunder Precision Color X24 graphics card. A
>220MHz CPU would likely spend a lot of time waiting for nubus to send
>data to that card, and for the card to handle it. I'd definitely have
>to get a faster video card to see huge i
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:55:56PM -0600, Robyn Lyons wrote:
> You could say the same thing about the new machines, but they just
> brought out an 800MHz G4 upgrade for PCI power macs. Take a 33MHz 68k
A PCI machine has far more I/O bandwidth than a 68k Mac, and it's also
true of them that there
Darren wrote:
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> >Our Nanny wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Don't you wish there were people around that would do that for the 68k
> >>Mac? We could have a Quadra out-performing a mid-range 604e if we did
> >>it right :(
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, no kidding.
> >
> >Put anothe
Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>Our Nanny wrote:
>
>
>>Don't you wish there were people around that would do that for the 68k
>>Mac? We could have a Quadra out-performing a mid-range 604e if we did
>>it right :(
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, no kidding.
>
>Put another way, wouldn't it be nice if comput
--- Charles Shannon Hendrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oh, I meant to say in the other message, one problem
> I have with this
> is that I don't believe the motherboard and bus of
> the Amigas or
> an Apple system can feed a 220MHz CPU enough to keep
> it fully used.
> I'm sure it will be faster
Motorola Coldfire, AMD has been doing x86 based stuff
like that too in their Elan line. Those incorporate
practically the whole PC in one package.
Would be cool to have a drop in replacement CPU that
runs a bunch faster, at least for Macs with a
socketed CPU. But would it work to drop a 120Mhz 030
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:20:59PM -0500, Terry Mathews wrote:
> A lot of similar upgrades in the Mac world would have the CPU and RAM on
> their own circuit board and that contraption would plug into the CPU socket.
> Tricky stuff, but would allow faster RAM access, which is the only thing an
> Am
You could say the same thing about the new machines, but they just
brought out an 800MHz G4 upgrade for PCI power macs. Take a 33MHz 68k
mac, and stick in a 220MHz, how much different is that than putting an
800MHz chip into a machine that made to do a 200MHz 604, or even a
120MHz 601! It would
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 01:20 PM, Terry Mathews wrote:
> A lot of similar upgrades in the Mac world would have the CPU and RAM
> on
> their own circuit board and that contraption would plug into the CPU
> socket.
> Tricky stuff, but would allow faster RAM access, which is the only
>
A lot of similar upgrades in the Mac world would have the CPU and RAM on
their own circuit board and that contraption would plug into the CPU socket.
Tricky stuff, but would allow faster RAM access, which is the only thing an
Amiga would be lacking AFAIK.
Terry
> Oh, I meant to say in the other m
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:33:50PM +, Mark Benson wrote:
> I've just spoken to a guy who is on a team designing and building a
> 220MHz Motorola Coldfire (cut down 68k thingy that runs FASSSTT)
> upgrade card for the Commodore Amiga.
Supposedly, Motorola clocks '040s up to 1GHz for some ebed
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:33:50PM +, Mark Benson wrote:
> Don't you wish there were people around that would do that for the 68k
> Mac? We could have a Quadra out-performing a mid-range 604e if we did
> it right :(
Oh, I meant to say in the other message, one problem I have with this
is t
> I've just spoken to a guy who is on a team designing and building a
> 220MHz Motorola Coldfire (cut down 68k thingy that runs FASSSTT)
> upgrade card for the Commodore Amiga.
Don't forget the AmigaOne, also.
I love the PowerPC, but an '060-based Classic Mac would have been *sweet*.
--
-
I've just spoken to a guy who is on a team designing and building a
220MHz Motorola Coldfire (cut down 68k thingy that runs FASSSTT)
upgrade card for the Commodore Amiga.
Don't you wish there were people around that would do that for the 68k
Mac? We could have a Quadra out-performing a mid-rang
20 matches
Mail list logo
