🚀 go-pugleaf

tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes:

>In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes:
>>
>>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
>>> So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in
>>> execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the
>>> reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference?
>>
>>Two things -- processor effeciency and levels of routines.

>[ rest of post deleted ]

>>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is
>>faster than segmented memory.

>Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps,
>the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor.  I would tend
>to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the
>segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit
>addresses.

Not really. apps for the 680x0 chips can use a 'short' addressing,
which is 32K either side of 00000000 (ie bottom & top 32K of address
space). which is really fast.

>Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3....

Yeah, I think the mac groups need a '.advocacy', like the amiga groups,
for all sorts of mac vs {ibm|amiga|next|unix|other gui}.

>Tom Rombouts  Torrance 'Tater  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
| Luke Mewburn [Zak]                | #disclaimer: I _own_ these opinions, |
| s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au      |      No-one else deserves them  :-)  |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------