Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bloom-beacon!cambridge.apple.com!alms
From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Macintosh Portable and IIci Intro
Message-ID: 
Date: 28 Sep 89 16:10:10 GMT
References: <34888@apple.Apple.COM> <12031@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
	<34992@apple.Apple.COM> <2492@ualtamts.BITNET>
Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: userRED3@ualtamts.BITNET's message of 27 Sep 89 15:32:54 GMT

In article <2492@ualtamts.BITNET> userRED3@ualtamts.BITNET (Steve Wart) writes:

   In article <34992@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
   >
   >The benchmarks I've seen show that our Mac IIci (25MHz and cache) are 50%
   >faster than the 25MHz Compaq 386 box running similar programs.
   >

   I don't mean to be cynical, but could you back this up? I hope this isn't
   some stupid Excel-based benchmark.

yes, it was "some stupid Excel-based benchmark".  I think it was actually
a few applications, but Excel was one of them. The benchmarks were
run by an independent group (I forget the name).  In the Apple
announcement, they don't say that the computers are flat-out faster,
but that they are faster for certain uses, specifically graphics-intensive
applications.  This is probably as much a result of the differences
between the Mac OS and Windows as it is a difference between the
hardware.

   -andrew

my opinions are my own of course.  I'm not paid to read (and respond to)
news.