Re: ROM 01 Superiority

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Ken writes ...
> 
> >I have heard it claimed that there are
> >a very few programs, I think games, that would not work properly on a
> >Rom 3, but have had no personal experience.
> 
>    I'm going to nit-pick for a minute in a plug for the (IMO slightly
> superior) ROM 01.  I have both a ROM 01 and a ROM 03 IIgs.  My best
> hardware is on my "favorite" computer, the ROM 1, despite the fact the
> ROM 3 is equipped with extra memory.  (I've also heard people say the
> ROM 3 has better sound, but I can't tell the difference.)
>

     The idea is that the ROM 3 has heavier power/ground traces for the Slot
cards and this reduces noise. As more cards are added, noise voltage along
the power traces increases. Usually, the noise is more noticeable in ROM-01
'IIgs sound' output because the skimpier power traces result in higher noise
voltages.

     A fix is to add power jumpers on the motherboard from the power supply
socket +5V and +12V solder points to Slots 3 and 7. The lower resistance from
cards to the power supply = lower noise voltage. (For more info, see
http://home.swbell.net/rubywand/Csa2POWER.html .)


 
>    FIrst off, I wish I could remember the title of the program(s) that
> won't run on ROM 3.  I will try to look them up tomorrow, but I think
> they were a few FTA demos or games, if I am correct.

     Maybe the number of incompatible games has been under-reported. The FAQs
Games page ( http://home.swbell.net/rubywand/Csa2GAMES.html#005 ) has a
listing of non-ROM3-compatible games. Be sure to post any others you know
about.


     A pro-ROM-01 factor which often gets ignored is 'standardization'. The
ROM 3 was released in 1989, near the end of the 'Computer Wars' when most new
computer shoppers were becoming convinced that a PC was the ony way to go.

     Meanwhile, many of the Apple II users who remained had decided that if
the promised ROM 3 were anything short of a major upgrade, they were 'out of
here' and off to PC-ville. (Hardly anyone, except some magazine editors,
talked about going to a Mac.)  The ROM 3 proved to be a very minor upgrade;
and, users deserted in droves.

     In purely hardware terms, the ROM 3 is a better computer; however,
relatively few were produced and sold. Consequently, the ROM-01 remained the
'reference IIgs'-- i.e. the IIgs new software and hardware _had_ to work on.
Dealing with some extra compatibility problems is the price one must expect
to pay for being a ROM 3 user.

  
> 
>    Secondly, is a GS/OS disk space issue.  For a long time, my IIgs
> computers did not have a hard drive.  Because of this,  I have
> converted many small GS/OS programs to self-boot on a single floppy
> disk.  You know, you take system software and you name one of the
> programs "STARTUP" and put it in the right place so it boots
> automatically when the disk is in the drive.  (I did this because
> there is a lot od disk swapping involved with loading finder disk and
> then inserting and running from a floppy.)
> 
> When you run system software, there are two files on the system disk
> (System setup folder) called TS2 and TS3.  A ROM 1 needs the TS2 file
> (37 k).  A Rom 3 needs the TS3 file (40+k).
 ....

     Weird! Never noticed that the ROM-01 patch file is _smaller_ than the
ROM 3 patch file for System 6.0.1-- probably because I got used to the ROM-01
patch being much larger than the ROM 3 patch (41k vs. 15k) in System 5.0.4.
Seems odd that things should switch around for a later version of GS System.

     I guess in 1989 Apple was aiming for having GS System totally in-ROM.
The nearly simultaneous release of Sys 5.0.4 and the ROM 3 was a chance to
come very close and have a nice selling point for the new ROM 3 machines. By
Sys 6, Apple had to face the reality that the installed base would remain
chiefly ROM-01.



Rubywand