From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com |
Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Call for platforms |
Date: | 2001-03-27 00:53:44 |
Message-ID: | 2549.985654424@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> "PPC750"? What's that? "PPC G3" might be more likely to mean something
>> to onlookers ...
> Actually "G3" means nothing outside of Apple afaict. The 750 series is a
> follow-on to the 60x series, and there is a 7xxx series also. From my
> pov, using an accepted label, rather than a marketing (re)label, better
> indicates *what* this actually can run on. I'm not sure that I have it
> labeled correctly yet, but "G3" is not a step in the right direction.
I found an apparently current "PowerPC CPU Summary" at
http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/technology/tech_tutorial.jsp?catId=M943030621280
If accurate, the chip in this PowerBook is *not* a 750, since that tops
out at 400 MHz. Apple offered this model in 400 and 500 MHz speeds,
which makes it either a 7400 or 7410 chip ...
> Should I put "Mac G3" in the comment section?
Yes, if you won't put it where it should be ;-). I'm still of the
opinion that "G3" will mean something to a vastly larger population
than "750" or "7400" would. The latter are "marketing relabels" too
you know; Motorola's internal designation would probably be something
else entirely.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mathijs Brands | 2001-03-27 01:04:50 | Regression test on FBSD 3.3 & 4.2, IRIX 6.5 (was Re: Re: Call for platforms) |
Previous Message | Michelle Murrain | 2001-03-27 00:41:22 | Re: Starting Postmaster |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-27 01:00:54 | Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug? |
Previous Message | Joe Shevland | 2001-03-27 00:37:35 | Possible large object bug? |