3 Feb
2002
3 Feb
'02
6:51 p.m.
My absolutely standard IIcx runs A/UX and as the main
difference between a
IIcx and a IIci is the number of Nubus slots, it'll just work
Actually, they both have 3 NuBus slots (only the ci has built in video,
so you don't loose a slot right off the bat to a video card). The main
difference between a IIx and a IIcx is the number of slots (the cx was a
baby x basically, but handles 4x the ram)
There are a number of differences between the ci and the cx. The ci was
more or less a replacement "next generation" for the cx. The ci is 32 bit
clean (cx is not), has built in video, a cache slot, and is a bit faster
(25 vs 16MHz).
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
3 Feb
3 Feb
8:23 p.m.
At 12:51 AM 4/02/2002 -0500, Chris wrote:
That's what happens when you post at the end of a long day. Chris is
perfectly right, I'd confused a IIx with a IIci. Must be old age.....
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
My absolutely
standard IIcx runs A/UX and as the main difference between a
IIcx and a IIci is the number of Nubus slots, it'll just work
Actually, they both have 3 NuBus slots (only the ci has built in video,
so you don't loose a slot right off the bat to a video card). The main
difference between a IIx and a IIcx is the number of slots (the cx was a
baby x basically, but handles 4x the ram)
There are a number of differences between the ci and the cx. The ci was
more or less a replacement "next generation" for the cx. The ci is 32 bit
clean (cx is not), has built in video, a cache slot, and is a bit faster
(25 vs 16MHz).
8181
days inactive
8182
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Huw.Davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
mythtech＠Mac.com