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.