Re: Accelerator //e

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

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.  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.

> 
>     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).

Slowing down for the speakers is a feature of the Zip GS.  You can
turn it off.

> 
> >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).

(2) When you are talking about a C64, it doesn't hit the bus a lot.
    We are talking about a computer with historically slow floppy
    drives.  C64 programs tend to be memory intensive, not disk
    intensive, so you will see almost raw 20Mhz power.  The Commies
    have separate chips for sound and graphics.

(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)

> 
>     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).

(1) There is nothing wrong with Lynx.  It is a fast and efficient
    web browser.  Look, a web browser isn't just limited to
    something that can show pretty pictures.  The Internet
    predates Mozaic.

(2) The Commodore 128 has TCP/IP and a graphical web browser, if
    I remember.  I think it preloads pages and stores translated
    graphics on disk.

(3) SIS is not Lynx.  Lynx is a true web browser that uses a
    TCP/IP link.  SIS is a telnet interface.  The GS might have
    trouble with the graphics, but that can be fixed using the
    C128 method.  GIFs are not a problem, as Brutal Deluxe have
    shown.  The real problem is that telnet can't download the
    graphics properly (7 bit transfers).

-Scott G.