Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications

Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications

• To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
• Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:32:58 -0900
• Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• In-Reply-To: <19981105201919.18120.qmail@hotmail.com>
• Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

Ummm...  :)  No.

In any application, a shorter instruction cycle is better...

Explain yourself.

Grant


>yea, thats cuz it is REDUCED instruction... LIKE I said, it ALL depends
>on the application...
>
>>
>>RISC CPUs based on instruction cycle are faster...
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Re: Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/Infrared/Laser Communications
• From: "Nick S [despuqué]" <worldsnow@hotmail.com>

• Prev: Re: Toll Booth and junk (was Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/In...)
• Next: Re: Toll Booth and junk (was Re(fcc): TI-H: Radio/In...)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread