zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (02/19/90)
In article <4791@helios.ee.lbl.gov>, antony@lbl-csam.arpa (Antony A. Courtney) writes: > More relevant to the discussion of the NeXT is probably the comparison of the > Lisa to the Mac. The Lisa was slow, overpriced, and uncompetetive. That > wasn't of much importance. The machine was important because it was a machine > which people at apple could do R&D for. The Macintosh embodied the design > concepts of the Lisa, but it was very clear that the fundamental mistakes the > engineers made were not repeated in the Mac. If you look at the NeXT as a > Lisa of sorts, then it is a very good machine. This is straying a bit from comp.arch, but I've wanted to ask this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in production at ??Mhz, has anyone at Apple dusted off the old Lisa OS to see what it could do with a bit more horsepower behind it? I once saw a comment from someone who had bought a Lisa as part of an early Mac development system: "very slow, but *very* powerful".
thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) (02/21/90)
In article <1127@madnix.UUCP> zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) writes:
This is straying a bit from comp.arch, but I've wanted to ask
this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running
at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in
production at ??Mhz, has anyone at Apple dusted off the old Lisa
OS to see what it could do with a bit more horsepower behind it?
I once saw a comment from someone who had bought a Lisa as part
of an early Mac development system: "very slow, but *very*
powerful".
If my memory serves me right I think is was 4.77MHz.
--
Real life: Thomas Tornblom Email: thomas@uplog.se
Snail mail: TeleLOGIC Uppsala AB Phone: +46 18 189406
Box 1218 Fax: +46 18 132039
S - 751 42 Uppsala, Swedenhunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) (02/22/90)
thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) writes: | this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running | at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in |If my memory serves me right I think is was 4.77MHz. No, it was 7.83 MHz, like the Mac. The IBM PC ran at has an intel 8008 that ran at 4.77 MHz. -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {harvard,utah-cs,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!hunter #include <disclaimer.h>
thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) (02/22/90)
I had to check this up. In BYTE Feb -83 they had a test of the Lisa and in that article they say the clock was set to 5 MHz. I knew it was slower than a Mac... -- Real life: Thomas Tornblom Email: thomas@uplog.se Snail mail: TeleLOGIC Uppsala AB Phone: +46 18 189406 Box 1218 Fax: +46 18 132039 S - 751 42 Uppsala, Sweden
kroe@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (KiYun Roe) (02/22/90)
In article <3000@cerberus.oakhill.UUCP> hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) writes: >thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) writes: > >| this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running >| at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in > >|If my memory serves me right I think is was 4.77MHz. > > No, it was 7.83 MHz, like the Mac. The IBM PC ran at > has an intel 8008 that ran at 4.77 MHz. I believe that in fact the Lisa's processor was considerably slower than the Mac's, and I believe it was on the order of 5 or 6 MHz. However, for a long time the Lisa was a better development platform because the disk was faster. ----- -- KiYun Roe kroe@sbcs.sunysb.edu Department of Computer Science SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400 (516) 632-7675
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (02/23/90)
thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) writes: +--------------- | No, it was 7.83 MHz, like the Mac. The IBM PC | has an intel 8008 that ran at 4.77 MHz. +--------------^^^^ (!) Yes, the original IBM PC was a slow monstrosity, but it wasn't *that* bad! (The 8008 was Intel's first 8-bit microprocessor. You meant the 8088.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery (human), allbery@NCoast.ORG (Inet), BALLBERY (MCI Mail) ALLBERY (Delphi), uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery (UUCP), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) BrandonA (A-Online) ("...and a partridge in a pear tree!" ;-)
hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) (02/23/90)
>| this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running >| at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in >|If my memory serves me right I think is was 4.77MHz. > No, it was 7.83 MHz, like the Mac. The IBM PC ran at Beg to differ. The Lisa was "advertised" to have a 5 MHz 68000 in it. I'm not sure what the exact speed was (manufacturers tend to round CPU speeds up, in order to avoid those messy decimal numbers :-)
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (02/26/90)
From article <3000@cerberus.oakhill.UUCP>, by hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales): > thomas@uplog.se (Thomas Tornblom) writes: > > | this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running > | at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in > > No, it was 7.83 MHz, like the Mac. The IBM PC ran at > has an intel 8008 that ran at 4.77 MHz. > has an intel 8008 that ran at 4.77 MHz. The Lisa, and the Mac XL, both ran at 6MHz. This is right out of my tech spec manual for those machines distributed to developers in May, 1982 (yes, I was one of them). If you don't buy that, pull your CPU board on any Lisa. The system clock is 12.375 MHz or something close to that. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
rcbaem@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) (02/26/90)
>In article <1127@madnix.UUCP> zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) writes: > > This is straying a bit from comp.arch, but I've wanted to ask > this ever since the MacII came out. The Lisa used a 68000 running > at something like 8Mhz. Now that 68030-based MacII's are in > production at ??Mhz, has anyone at Apple dusted off the old Lisa > OS to see what it could do with a bit more horsepower behind it? > I once saw a comment from someone who had bought a Lisa as part > of an early Mac development system: "very slow, but *very* > powerful". > Hmm, when I got my Lisa, now used as a file server, it had the Lisa system and a couple of Lisa programs on its Hard Disk. When I recall it right these were LisaTerminal, LisaDraw, LisaWrite, LisaChart, LisaCalc, Calculator and what's more.. Except for its slowness I was VERY impressed by the operating system's capabilities. At times I realise that only now, with MultiFinder and such, the Mac is on the same level the Lisa was years ago. On the Lisa there's no difference between DAs and applications, and I couldn't even tell whether the Trash Can was in fact a separate Application or a feature of the OS. Folders, the Trash, DAs and Applications behaved almost exactly in the same way, and the whole idea of using Templates instead of a New menu item was excellent! In other words, I was impressed! But now my Lisa has degraded to being a file server :) Ernst. >