i'm not sure why, but i just don't believe this guy,
i would have thought the 68060 would have pounded the 040,
especially running at 75mhz
Turbo 060
Submitted by ikrantzler on March 5, 2004 - 7:38am.
I worked at DayStar for a while and wanted to set the record straight regarding the Turbo 060.
At the time, it wasn't clear how well the PowerPC 601 was going to do performance-wise versus the 68060 when running emulated code. So DayStar did both products in parallel: the '060 version of the Turbo 040, and the PowerPro which was a PowerPC 601-based upgrade.
As it turned out, the '060 was no faster than the '040 at comparable clock speeds, so we killed the product. It had nothing to do with Apple "letting us" do it. The Turbo '040 didn't need a license for the ROMs, and neither did the '060.
It is true that Apple really wanted a smooth transition to PowerPC, but they had no control over what we did. The reality was, the product wasn't compelling, so we killed it.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
http://www.applefritter.com/node/399
i would have thought the 68060 would have pounded the 040,
especially running at 75mhz
Turbo 060
Submitted by ikrantzler on March 5, 2004 - 7:38am.
I worked at DayStar for a while and wanted to set the record straight regarding the Turbo 060.
At the time, it wasn't clear how well the PowerPC 601 was going to do performance-wise versus the 68060 when running emulated code. So DayStar did both products in parallel: the '060 version of the Turbo 040, and the PowerPro which was a PowerPC 601-based upgrade.
As it turned out, the '060 was no faster than the '040 at comparable clock speeds, so we killed the product. It had nothing to do with Apple "letting us" do it. The Turbo '040 didn't need a license for the ROMs, and neither did the '060.
It is true that Apple really wanted a smooth transition to PowerPC, but they had no control over what we did. The reality was, the product wasn't compelling, so we killed it.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
http://www.applefritter.com/node/399