Re: Apple II benchmarks

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:

>
> > The V20/V30 was between 5% and 40% faster than an 8088/8086, depending on what
> > kind of code was being run. It was at the high end when doing floating point
> > multiply and divide operations.
>
> The V20/v30, which were replacements for 8088/8086, didn't do FP instrcutions;
> you needed a coprocessor for that... <g>

Well, they *did* do floating point, only in software  :-)  However, they did it much
faster than the Intel versions. I own an IBM PS/2 Model 25, which has an 8 mhz 8086,
if you replace it with a V30, the machine won't run... I've never heard an
explanation for it, but there it is.

>
>
> >> Now in 8-bit emulation mode, the IIGS should be equal to
> >> an 8-bit "Apple II" clock for clock right (since in 8-bit mode
> >> the 16-bit functions of the CPU are turned off)?  But the
> >> IIGS' clock speed is faster just like the PC Transporter's
> >> clock speed is faster than the real 80186.
> >
> > 2.5 times faster compared to about .5 times faster,
>
> 0.5 times faster --  that's 2 times slower, right?
>

Sigh. yeah, I meant 1.5 times (50% faster) but had a brain fart.

>
> > plus the wider data bus of course.
> >
> >> I am convinced now that we see history through our
> >> own experiences.  After all, why is every time
> >> someone mentions "Apple II"  you think of an
> >> Apple II+ in CP/M mode while to me I think of a IIGS?
> >
> > Was this directed to me? Or to Paul? When someone says Apple II, I
> > think of 6502/65C02 based personal computers.
>
> Including the Commodore PET, the Vic-20 and the Commodore-64?  Or the
> KIM-1, SYM-1 or AIM-65?  Or the Apple I or Apple ///?  These were all
> 6502 based....

What I meant was 8 bit, as opposed to the 8/16 bit 65816. Obviously not other 6502
based platforms.

>
>
> When someone says "Apple II", I think of the Apple II, II+, IIe or IIc.
> If someone wants to make me think of the Apple IIgs, they have to say
> "Apple IIgs" or "IIgs".
>
> >> And why is it that every time someone mentions "PC"
> >> I think of a PC Transporter card in a IIGS in Turbo XT
> >> emulation (80186 compatible) and you think of a PC
> >> with a math coprocessor chip?
> >
> > When someone says PC, I think of my Portable PC, or the XT that my wife
> > used at work when I was in grad school. Neither one had a math co, and
> > both were mostly used for word processing.
>
> The acronym "PC" really means "Personal Computer": in that context,
> the Apple II and the Mac were also PC's .....
>

True, and if you can find the box that the Timex/Sinclair 1000 came in it says on it
in big bold letters "Times Personal Computer" I've also seen "personal computer" on
Apple II boxes. IBM had some kind of trademark though here in the US with PC, et al.,
and one of the frustrating things is that when here says "PC" it means IBM or clone,
and when one says "DOS" it means PC or MS DOS, not Apple DOS or Atari DOS, e.g.

>
> Confusing, isn't it?
>

Defining terms helps, but only a little.

Roy