Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications

Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications

• To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
• Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:52:05 -0900
• Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• In-Reply-To: <19981104011552.18170.qmail@hotmail.com>
• Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

>Sorry I had to... why do you "have" to stick with NT? And why would you
>choose linux over NT? BTW: as grant was talking about how pics are
>slower, well CISC is 2x faster than RISC!

I realy don't get where you got the idea that a "Complicated Instruction
Set Computer" is faster than a "Reduced Instruction Set Computer", but
anyway...I won't go into it.

I will say that a 300MHz Motorola gets 671 BOGOs, and the PII 450 gets 280
BOGOs.

That means the motorola gets to execute instructions about 2x faster than
the intel.  The instruction length is another story...

I'm running a 400MHz oc'd Motorola and it was so fast at 523MHz that it
would crash because of the bus speed.

• Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
• From: "ns [despuqué]" <worldsnow@hotmail.com>

• Prev: Re: AW: TI-H: schems
• Next: Re: Re: rere? TI-H: Radio/In...)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread