New answers tagged

13

I’m refurbishing my middle school computer, a Macintosh Performa 635CD Cool. Eventually one the best 68k machine of all. Will it hurt the chip? If applied correctly not. Any increased cooling is welcome. Keep in mind that any heat spreader is at first an additional insulation, so its relative dissapation has to be higher than that. It it is always a ...


10

No, it won't hurt it. It's ceramic and you can stick a heatsink on it and it'll work. It might discolour it a little. The advice you've received is correct. Thermal paste is usually electrically conductive, and it can cause short circuits and potentially cause damage that way, if it leaks over the edge. Given that you don't need a heatsink in the first ...


6

If you'll forgive the imposition, I've been on a benchmark hunt. These tend to skew later because they assume some sort of convergence of application support. Of course, in sticking with a CPU benchmark I'm assuming that the interesting case is application software that does a lot of processing. On the early days of the 68000 versus the 286, I found both ...


4

The users' perception of "processing performance" on Macs vs. Windows PCs is likely influenced by 3 unmentioned differentiators: The relative performance of all versions of MacOS (macOS) vs. all the contemporary versions of Windows OS. The particular applications that the users are actually running. The extent to which the rest of the system has been ...


4

Are we comparing oranges to oranges? A difference in the amount of RAM could explain the performance difference. I recall years ago learning a story that would help explain this. Macs typically had more memory than their PC counterparts in many colleges(/universities). Many colleges figured out that PCs were cheaper than Macs. And so they gravitated ...


14

This could be due to Mac OS having performance optiminizations to run on Mac hardware? Artificial benchmarks aside, in real-world applications Macs were generally faster than Windows because the OS was indeed 'optimized' to run on Mac hardware - or more correctly, the hardware was optimized to run a Graphic User Interface. In comparison, Windows had to ...


7

Although the "computer speed" is totally subjective and all those ***stones are just synthetic tests, let's take this question seriously, but from a different point of view. There are differences between the Intel x86 and the Motorola 68x family. Motorola has a slightly better performance and can do a few more memory operations than an Intel on the same ...


25

Why Mac systems were always faster than Windows in processing performance? Mind to give any proof to this claim? According to various Benchmarks, the PCs usually outperform Macs of the same time. For example a classic Macintosh (68k @ 7.8 MHz; *1) delivered about 0.40-0.52 Dhrystone MIPS (*2), while a PC/AT (80286 @ 6 MHz) scored 0.40 to 0.71 DMIPS - that'...


3

The PRAM battery for a Titanium Powerbook G4 is rechargeable, it might not need replacing (though will certainly go flat on the shelf). The cells are rechargeable lithium/vanadium pentoxide 3V coin cells, similar to Panasonic VL2020, in a plastic (tape?) wrap, with pigtail connection. Hold down command-option-P-R at startup to reinitialize PRAM contents; ...


8

15.667 Mhz is about 2% less than 16 Mhz. So for purposes of "multiple of max. MC68000 frequency", it is close enough. The Mac wasn't competing based on being the fastest machine, so 2% was just not a big deal. And most of the competition was either older 8-bit or Intel family, not MC68000. In fact, the 8088 in the original IBM PC was clocked at 4.77 Mhz, ...


Top 50 recent answers are included