SPONSORED LINKS
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@interport.net> To: Randal Whittle <rwhittle@usa.net> Cc: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu <thinkpad@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@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 > >