Re: Accelerator //e

[pubpc@library.ucla.edu]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
in response to my reply:
> >Mitchell Spector wrote:
> >> In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
> >> >Are you saying that a 3.6mhz non-caching accelerator can run
> >> >things faster than a 15mhz caching accelerator like the Zip GS?
> >>
> >>     Yes and no. It has to do with the caching accelerator dropping back
> >> down to 2.6 MHz under certain conditions. For example, if you look at
> >> Atari's Ms.Pac-Man for the 8-bit Apple II, running it on my 15 MHz GS
> >> generally runs it much faster, _except_ when the speaker is toggled
> >> (i.e. eating dots or when the ghosts turn blue). During that time, it
> >> drops to 2.6 MHz--it's always speeding up and slowing down.
> >
> >That's a feature of the Zip GS.  If you turn off Speaker Delay and
> >Control Panel Follow, those old games would no longer slow down
> >like that.
> 
>     I completely forgot about disabling the delay--and your right,
> it no longer slows down when you change the settings. I just tried
> Ms. Pac-Man again and it plays almost at a blurr now. :) There are
> some catches however, it would be an inconvience, to say the least,
> leaving the Zip configured as you mention above (more below).
> 
> >Note: this only works if you run the game from a hard
> >drive or a 3.5" drive since disabling Control Panel Follow makes
> >the 5.25" drives unusable.
> 
>     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.  :)

You can get around the Apple-Control-Reset problem by using the
joystick fire button.

> 
> >> >If this is true, CMD's non-caching accelerators for the Commodore
> >> >64 and 128, with 64K and 128K of memory respectively, must
> >> >really pack a punch at 20mhz.
> >>
> >>     Probably, but your still dealing with the limitations of the
> >> 65C816 processor (even an ancient 386SX does math better, and in
> >> a lot of cases a 286 or 8086) and the bus speed of the C64/C128.
> >
> >(1) When running my Zip GS set to 10Mhz, it runs everything, math
> >    or not, faster than my PC Transporter (equivalent to a 186
> >    10Mhz).
> 
>     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.

> 
> >(3) GS programs are more tightly coded and better optimized.  PC
> >    programs are bloatware.  The overall user perceived speed of
> >    a 13.75MHz Zip GS is better than that of a 486SLC 25MHz.
> >    (no need to bore us with a lecture about what the SLC is or
> >    is not)
> 
>     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.

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.

Also, the 486SLC is hardly a modern machine anymore and I
was only comparing it to my GS.

> 
>     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 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).

-Scott G.