51510

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!world!jbailey
From: [e-mail] (jim bailey)
Subject: Re: Quadra 900/950 differences
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 18:31:21 GMT
Lines: 43

[e-mail] (Jim Jagielski) writes:

>[e-mail] (jim bailey) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Robert David Klapper) writes:

>>>	I also believe that the 950 fixed a bug in the CPU which screwed up
>>>some floating point calculations.
>>>-- 
>>>Robert D. Klapper
>>>Washington University in St. Louis
>>>[e-mail]
>>>Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:  There's always one more bug.

>>Does someone have any definite information on this.  This is the
>>first I've heard of it.  How does the CPU get fixed by a hardware
>>upgrade?  This doesn't make much sense to me.

>Let's see now... The differences between the 950 and 900 are
>basically:

>	1. Runs at 33MHz, not 25MHz
>	2. Has 25MHz I/O bus, not 16MHz
>	3. Upgraded Graphics controller
>	4. #3 results in Q950 requiring 80ns VRAM, not 100ns
>	5. ROM fixes:
>	    a. rounding errors in floating point calculations
>	       at 15th digit

So patch the ROMs with the latest OS version.  I don't see
how this is a problem.

>	    b. Ethernet problems with more than 16 buffers

>So, no doubt, the person was refering to 5a, hardly "screwing
>up" though :)

>-- 
>    Jim Jagielski               |  "And he's gonna stiff me. So I say,
>    [e-mail]   |   'Hey! Lama! How about something,
>    NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4       |   you know, for the effort!'"
>    Greenbelt, MD 20771         |