Re: What is the difference between ROM 1 and ROM 3 IIgs computers?

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Lim writes ...
> 
> Rom 1 is more compatible, and Rom 3 is slightly faster (because
> the System Disk needs to patch less code).
>

     ROM-03 can start a smidgen quicker because there is less patch code
to load. This does not make it a 'faster machine'.

 
> What I know is this: there is a Rom 00 machine (the original GS),
> ROM 01 machine (which most people used). When Apple refers to the
> ROM 3, it is actually refering to the 3rd Rom. So ROM 01 (which
> we called the Rom 1) is actually the Rom 2.
> 
> btw, there is actually a ROM 4 machine with internal harddisk, Apple
> did not release it due to certain reasons, which is quite sad.

     Yes; but ... . An examination of the core features (RAM size,
speed, audio sub-system, and video display) makes it clear that the "ROM
4" or "Mark Twain" machines are rather old prototypes to which mods may
have been made up through the early 90's.

     A friend's suggestion that at least some of the machines probably
originate from pre-Woz GS days is entirely believable. Only in 1985 or
1986 would any of the base designs have been truly 'new' and constitute
genuine competition for the Amiga and Atari ST computers released in
1985. In this time frame, Yes, it is too bad Apple did not at least
include a hard disk in the original GS. That one feature would have made
an enormous difference in GS base capabilities and software development.

     By 1989, the "ROM 4" is barely in the running as a viable GS
revision. It is no competition at all for VGA PC's.

     The "Mark Twain" myth surfaced in the mid-90's with stories of how
the "ROM 4" machines were supposed to be serious early 90's 'New GS'
prototypes. This is pure fantasy. Where is support for VGA class video?
Where is the 4MB-8MB of full-speed RAM any sane designer would have
included? Where is the speed to match already existing accelerators?
Releasing these machines in the 90's would have been a disaster because
they were never 90's machines.  


> I never quite understand why Apple did not build a bridge to
> allow Mac runs IIGS program, that would help a lot of GS people like
> us. They even have a extremely fast Apple IIGS emulator called GUS
> that runs on PowerMac but never sees the light of the day...
>
 ....

     An A2 emulator makes good sense if you do not own 'the real thing'
and want to enjoy A2 games and can find disk images on archive sites. A2
emulators are also helpful to Apple II users for checking out disk
images.

     As to why Apple does not release GUS ... Perhaps Bernie is better
and Apple wants to improve GUS. Perhaps Apple sees no value in an A2
emulator which cannot access 5.25" diskettes. Perhaps field tests with
GUS have shown that GUS does not encourage schools and other
institutional users of Apple II software to buy Macs. Perhaps Apple has
concluded that the costs of GUS support exceed its market value. Who
knows? Anyway, there is not much question that a Power Mac is best
suited for running Mac or PC software. 



Rubywand