Re: Accelerator //e

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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.
> 
>     Now, if you compare it with the Accelerator IIe, it is constantly
> running at a fixed rate of 3.5 MHz--speaker toggling or not. So even
> when there are sound effects playing, it actually runs about a full
> megahertz faster than my 15 MHz GS (not much, but it is noticable).

This is not a caching vs. non-caching distinction.  You can set the
GS accelerators to slow down on purpose in order to not distort the
sound.  They don't slow down for the speaker because they are
caching accelerators.

> 
> >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.
> 
>     A ZipGS or TransWarp GS really smooths out the performance of
> a IIgs, even to the point where it appears a fast machine when
> moving windows, scrolling and whatnot, but the machine really
> pales in comparison to even something like a 386 (at least it's
> possible to do a graphical web browser on a 386SX-16, but the
> GS is bogged down trying to decode JPEG data and probably why
> SIS turned out ot be just a fancy version of Lynx).

I actually have an 8086 XT and a 286 AT clone among my collection
of computers that I use.  They are still good for running very
old versions of Wordperfect and the 286 runs GEM, an old GUI.
The 65816 in the GS is most comparable to a 286.  While the 286
has a wider data bus, the 816 has other advantages that balance
things out.  They both have a similar way of addressing a similar
sized memory space.  The 65816 is nowhere as slow as an 8086 in
any task -- that includes unpacking compressed files, where the
GS is weak, and that is with a "turbo" version of the 8086.  In
terms of graphics performance, a CGA or Hercules video 286 works
GEM about as fast as an unaccelerated GS works Finder, and
Finder has more features.  I can't see how you can draw the
opposite conclusion, unless you have an 8087 or 287 math chip?

It is pointless to compare the Apple II or 65816 to modern PC
or Macintosh.  You do not have to qualify every statement with
"it can't hold a flame to a Pentium."  Everyone knows this, so
why complain about it?  The whole attraction of hacker computing
is trying to do things that others say are not possible.  A C64
user buys a 20Mhz accelerator not to outperform a Pentium, but
to have to most awesome C64 possible.  You don't tell someone
who spent years building a personal airplane by hand (like John
Denver) that "your aircraft can't break the sound barrier like
a Concorde can."  You would have completely missed the point
if you do.

Sometimes I feel there is a desire for old Apple II users that
have moved on to "repent" for their past belief that the II was
the greatest computer on earth.  Folks, there is no need.  We
all have other computers now and we all know the II is old, but
that's no reason to qualify each and every statement with a tired
old complaint like "you know it can't hold a flame to a Pentium."
You don't need to repent.  Do us a service and save the bandwith.
Let's start seeing what the II CAN do rather than what it can't.