From: LPL (71420666_at_email.msn.com)
Date: Sat Apr 04 1998 - 12:31:32 EST
I had a 560 with a 133 and 40 megs of RAM. Stolen recently. It was faster
than my new 560X with 32 megs and a 233MMX. Now that I've added 64 megs
more RAM to the 560X ($239 at CDW) it is fast and acceptable. Unreal!
There's something wrong.
LPLarsen
-----Original Message-----
From: richard <rpritz_at_interport.net>
To: Randal Whittle <rwhittle_at_usa.net>
Cc: thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
Date: 04 April 1998 17:49
Subject: Re: 560x v. 600
>On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 07:49:26 -0800, Randal Whittle <rwhittle_at_usa.net>
wrote:
>
>>At 07:16 AM 4/4/98 , richard wrote:
>>>The 600 is only about 15% faster than the 560 (PCMag benchmarks). While
>>it has
>>
>> 15% is peanuts. If it were 50% faster, you'd start into the realm of
>>significance. You wouldn't even notice 15%...
>
>Not to be defensive, but that's what I meant by "only".
>
>I'm hoping that the speed difference between the 560 and 560x is readily
>apparent.
>
>>>a larger, higher resolution screen, it weighs about a pound more and the
>>battery
>>
>> You missed something here--the 600 weighs 6 1/2 lbs, while the 560 is 4.1
>>lbs. That's not merely a pound, that's almost 2 1/2 pounds. Definitely
>>not insignificant (at least ot me!). That's a *huge* difference.
>
>
>PCMag lists the 600 as 5.6 lbs system weight and 6.5 lbs travel weight
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:59 EST