Re: Accelerator //e

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

In article pubpc@library.ucla.edu writes...

>> >Mitchell Spector wrote:
>>     Actually I was able to boot from the 5.25 drive, although that
>> proved a bit difficult as Apple-Control-Reset and Control-Reset
>> wouldn't work (I managed to use TaiFunBoot to boot slot 6). While
>> I was able to accelerate the 8-bit game at a full 15 MHz, the GS
>> was put in an unusable state changing those settings.
>
>I just leave the settings this way.  It makes using the GS more
>enjoyable.  :)

    It only affects 8-bit programs running in emulation mode
though, doesn't it? (these days, with the sole exception of
ProTERM, I only use native GS software). It does accelerate
the GS's error bell though, if you find that adds spice. :)

>>     Are you sure about that? I recall several people mentioning
>> they were able to decompress ZIP archives faster through the
>> PC Transporter running MS-DOS unzippers, than with PMPUnZip.
>> The NEC V30, incidentally, is more similar to the 8086 than
>> the 80186.
>
>Yes, I am sure about this.  It may surpise you to learn that I
>used to use my PCT primarily to decompress ZIP and LHA archives.
>I stopped doing it when I found programs for the GS to do the
>same task because they did it faster on a Zipped GS.  I don't
>have a math coprocessor installed in the PCT, btw.

    The people that reported it being faster must have had an 8087
math co-processor installed in that case then. I was just recalling
what was said, right here in this newsgroup, several years ago.

>>     Do you have QPV for DOS? It's a shareware JPEG viewer you
>> can find on most FTP sites, try comparing it with jpeGS or
>> JPEGView on the IIgs and see if the overall perceived speed
>> is faster. ;) My point was in terms of math the GS is going
>> to act like a snail. In its own rights, it is quite speedy
>> with an accelerator, but your trying to compare it with
>> more modern machines which is kind of taking things out of
>> perspective, no?
>
>True, but try using your graphical word processor or page
>layout software and see which one is faster.  Why are you
>so offended when I say _my_ accelerated GS is faster than
>_my_ 486SLC for tasks like word processing?  I am just
>reporting what I see.  That's no offense to your Pentium.

    I'm not offended, I just found it an inaccuracy to state
your IIgs is faster than a 486 (and I still do). We went
over why what you have is not a true 486, and much more
similar to the 386 class processor. How well or not so well
software is optimized and written is a completely different
issue all together. As for my Pentium, you can say what you
like about it, I have no attachment or pride in it, its just
a useful tool and a very fun toy to me. :)

>Btw, I researched the 486SLC some more and found that this
>chip, designed by Cyrix, although it is based on a 386 can
>perform _much_ faster than a regular i386.  According to
>one source, a Cyrix 486SLC-25 can keep up with a 486DX-66
>in some tasks.  :)  No need to flame me, I'll post the web
>site when I can find where I wrote it down.

    I would highly question it being equivalent to a 486DX2-66
in any tasks, based on what I know of the chipset. Though why
would I flame you if you show me information to disprove that?
If I'm in error, I would welcome you correcting me (the whole
point of discussion groups, IMHO, is to share information and
learn from others. Making mistakes is part of that learning,
at least if your corrected and are opened minded).

>>     I think Supertimer made a very good point in response to
>> this very message thread. At least I think so, since I like
>> the GS in its own rights and for the fun of pushing it beyond
>> what it was originally designed to do (in both software and
>> hardware). Not trying to compare it directly against 486's
>> and Pentiums; if I were to do that there would be little
>> reason for me to hold my interest in it. I accept and can
>> acknowledge all its limitations, but it doesn't mean I hold
>> any less interest in the machine.
>
>He has a point.  I agree with Supertimer on one point,
>however: don't you think that you are now, as a converted
>PC user, looking for these GS limitations with a microscope?

    I've been an Apple IIgs user for over 10 years, believe
me, all its limitations became apparent to me long before I
even considered the _idea_ of owning an IBM. Perhaps I do
look at it more critically when I compare it side by side
with my PC, but as I said, I try and do that as it would
be pointless.

    If anything, I feel more like you look at everything I
now post under a microscope. I get the odd feeling you think
I've turned anti-GS ever since I've added a PC--or that I'm
out to flame you for still using yours. Let me assure you
that I have no intension to do neither of the two.

>I mean, you are beginning to see limitations that _don't
>exist_.  Remember how you went on and on about the "limited"
>sound caused by the low pass filter on the GS before I
>pointed you to the Nyquist Theorem and the fact that well
>designed audio equipment all have low pass filters in the
>26kHz range (CD-players, for example).

    That never came through on my newserver (actually a number
of articles haven't been making it through these past couple of
months :/) but I just found it now in Dejanews. I haven't read
it yet but will, as I'm interested to see what this Nyquist
Theorem is about.

    Speaking of Dejanews, if you do a filtered search for
articles posted by me on comp.sys.apple2 using the key words
"low pass filter", you'll see I was originally on your side
of the debate. If I remember right, Henrik kept pointing out
that the low pass filter was a negative factor to the GS's
sound output (I claimed it wasn't, just as you are now).

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca