Re: Apple and the Holy War

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>Performance isn't just user response.  To put things in perspective,
>I've had a program which originally was written in 1982-83, and which
>have been ported a few times.  It performs one useful function: it
>computes rise/set times for the Sun and Moon daily, and the six
>planets out to Uranus once a week, for one full calendar year at any
>place of your choice.  I first started this project on Apple DOS
>+ Applesoft, but never finished it there: the first running verison
>ran on CP/M.  Since htere never was any Applesoft verison of this
>probram, I can only guess the run time under Applesoft:
> 
>   4-5 hours    1 MHz 6502, Apple II+, Apple DOS, Applesoft Basic  (a guess)
>   1.5 hours    2 MHz Z80, Apple II CP/M, Fortran-80
>    30 minutes  6 MHz Z80, Apple II CP/M, Fortran-80
>    10 minutes  4.77 MHz 8088+8087, C
>   1.5 minutes  16 MHz 80386+80387, C
>    12 seconds  66 MHz 486DX, C
>     3 seconds  90 MHz Pentium, C
>     1 second   300 MHz Pentium-II, C
> 
>After this, please try to convince me that the Apple II+ is more
>powerful than a PC....  <g>

This is a bad comparison because Applesoft is an interpreted
language.  Recompile the program under Orca C on a stock
2.8Mhz IIGS and I predict that you will see a time of around
15 minutes which should be similar to an 8Mhz to 12Mhz 286
computer without 8087/80287 math coprocessor chips.

I did a series of tests in the past decompressing zip files,
jpg files, and running GUIs on a 640x200 resolution screen.
The IIGS crushed the 4.77Mhz 8086 XT and the 10Mhz
Turbo XT too.  It ran the GUI faster than an 8Mhz AT and
unzipping files and converting JPGs were about the same
(and way faster than on the Turbo XT).

In my tests, the XT and AT were not equipped with math
coprocessor chips.  They were not standard equipment
back in those days.

The CP/M stuff is misleading too because the Z80 was
slower at a given clock speed than the 65C02.  A 1Mhz
65C02 should be able to match a 4Mhz Z80 quite well
if not best it.

If you want to throw in the math coprocessor chips, then
the IIGS would need an FPU card (such as the Number
Cruncher) which patches into the SANE toolset, thereby
speeding up standard programs including ones generated
in Orca C.  These cards used Motorolla FPU chips, so
I predict if your program uses floating point calculations
that the IIGS' advantage would grow in relation to the
'287 FPU the AT would be using.