Re: CDR's & MP3 for GS???

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...

>A 2x CD-ROM feels much faster than a 1x CD-ROM
>when both are used on the IIGS, so I'm not sure
>what you mean.  You don't really need a faster
>CD-ROM for such a Hyper/Card/Studio based game,
>but I'm sure that 4x CD-ROMs would be faster than
>2x CD-ROMs on a IIGS.  Why would they not be?

    I'm talking about bottlenecks with transfer rates on the
IIgs. Anything above a 4X speed drive is going to make little
or no difference for loading speed. This was the concensus a
few years ago (GS+ Magazine even made a mention of it).

    I personally feel anything beyond a 2X drive is overkill
at present, considering there are only data CD's (minus the
System 6 Golden Master and YourWordBox).

>Ok, I have a question: how about CD-RW?  How do
>these work?  Do they function similar to hard drives?
>Now before you say "what would be the use of a
>CD-RW on the IIGS since CD-ROM drives can't
>read them, Supertimer's just glorifying the IIGS,"
>I'm asking a valid, if academic question.  I'd like an
>answer without an editorial, ok?

    CD-RW do _not_ function anything like a hardrive.

>I don't boycott Intel just for the heck of it.  IBM/Cyrix
>and AMD are innovative companies and Intel is using
>monopoly power to try to shut them out.  I don't
>like that, so I try to stay away from Intel.  However,
>that's not the only reason: Intel is expensive and some
>of their processors require a motherboard replacement.
>Why bother?  IBM/Cyrix and AMD are making killer
>chips.

    Before you brush off Intel, have you seen the Celeron 300a?
It is a slot-1 Pentium II compatible chip that can be easily
overclocked to 450 MHz, and in many cases out performs Intels
more expensive PII-450. Cost is a mere US$100. I don't see IBM
or AMD offering anything that powerful and cheap, which makes
my point: Use whatever is the best opinion at the moment, with-
out thought to the company behind it.

>You know, you can dig up shit about the 6x86's FPU
>spewed by lying Intel supporters all you like.  I can
>SEE that the 6x86 is faster running MY programs
>than a Pentium.  In the end, that's all that counts and
>certainly more proof than some gossip.  Why don't
>you find a IBM/Cyrix computer and play around with
>it before passing judgement?  Some of the Compaq
>Presarios use them.

    Your getting rather obsessive about that, aren't you.
Everything about computers is a contest with you, "mine
is better than yours -- I have the best". They're tools,
machines--not a religion.

>I think it is safe to say that I'd go back to Apple before
>turning to Intel.

    That says it all, doesn't it? :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca