Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!agate!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic From: logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Portable Mac vs STACY Message-ID: <583@wet.UUCP> Date: 24 Sep 89 02:14:05 GMT References: <2122@kodak.UUCP> <22440@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) Distribution: na Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco Lines: 29 In article <22440@cup.portal.com> Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) writes: >I'll tell you the real nifty part - the Mac 'portable' weighs in at a >hefty 16 pounds! Its also phically a lot larger than the STacy. And >to really make life interesting, a picture of the STacy and mention of >GCR is made in the latest issue of MacUser magazine! Nice free ad or >what? Now all they need is to pump those babies out to a waiting Mac >world. > >Peter Szymonik >Xorg@cup.portal.com From every review that I've read, the STacy weights in at 15 lbs. Not much of a difference, I would say. Also, the Macintosh Portable runs at 16 Mhz and the active-matrix screen is *nice*. Super fast with no blurring at all and an 180 degree viewing angle. A single charge will keep the machine running from 6-12 hours and has an inactive mode in which the processor is kicked down to 1 Mhz to keep battery drain to a minimum. Of course, the thing lists for ~$6500. Still, I'd bet everything that Apple will not be able to keep up with demand for the first few months. -- Henry Kwan - FWB, Inc. | "Experience varies directly claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov | with equipment ruined." cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu | {claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad,lamc}!wet!logic | -- Tech Support