Re: What do you do with an Apple //?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>The problem here is that the GS version as it is now can run at
>>full speed with a 7MHz Zip.  I don't notice any improvement in
>>speed as it bumps up to 13.75MHz.  We can only speculate what would
>>happen if Wolf GS is rewritten to run with the same smooth frame
>>system.  Personally, I think that if you optimized Wolf GS for a
>>13.75MHz to 15MHz GS (or at least provided a separate system for
>>these high speed GS systems) _and_ drop it "to the metal" (meaning
>>out of GS/OS, much like MegaDemo's Vaultage module), Wolf GS will
>>still keep up with Wolf PC, at least on a running on a '486/25SLC
>>with a 16 grayscale screen.  You have 7+ extra MHz for improvement.
>>The PC version runs from DOS and hits the metal, remember, unlike
>>the GS/OS based GS version.
>
>    Bill Heineman is well-seasoned and top-notch programmer, perhaps
>the code could have been optimized a bit more, but my guess is that
>he probably already made sure to squeeze as much performance from the
>GS as possible. Don't you think he used larger bit maps because it
>was running at unacceptable speeds even on an accelerated IIgs in
>that form? (If Bill or Sheppy are reading this, maybe they could
>comment on whether the GS version could have been optimized more).

I'm not a programmer, so I can't say this for certain, but is it not
true that GS/OS based programs will _always_ have a speed penalty
compared to programs written "on the metal"?  Why else would demos
from Europe all be non-GS programs?  How else would the FTA and
others manage to squeeze pretty good performance out of a even non-
accelerated GS computers?

Bill and Sheppy are good, but they are still playing by the rules
and running under GS/OS.

>>Perhaps.  Technically, the '486 has the advantage in many tasks,
>>I agree.  However, as a synergy between hardware and software, a
>>'486/25 with Windows '95 runs word processors and integrated
>>software significantly slower than a 13.75MHz GS with GS/OS and
>>AppleWorks GS, even though my PC only has a 16 grayscales screen.
>>With the same TrueType fonts and the same printer connected to the
>>two computers, word processing and page layout is simply faster on
>>this particular GS vs. this particular PC and the print quality is
>>the same.  Sure, AppleWorks GS' word processor is not Word.  But
>>the way word processors run on a slow '486 simply makes AWGS faster
>>to use for most word processing tasks than the PC with MS Works.
>>For most word processing tasks, I'm using the same set of features
>>on AWGS as on MS Works anyway.
>
>    You do know that the "486" you keep boasting about is equal to
>the same speed of a 386DX-40 system. If you do benchmark tests, you
>will find that what you have and are comparing to the GS is a mid range
>386. :) Also, I've heard (for some strange reason) setting the screen
>to 4-bit instead of 8-bit is actually slower. Another thing, you
>do know that bus-speeds on laptops are quite often lesser than a
>comparable desktop system. Windows 95 is going to run quite horribly
>on your laptop, I wouldn't attempt to run it on anything less than
>a 486DX2-66 machine.

I don't "boast" about it.  :)  I know it is a slow PC.  I'm not crazy,
you know, but I say this.  I've encountered P166 PC's and PowerPC's
and they are great.  I would _not_ say that the GS is better to use
for word processing than these.  By the way, after getting the chance
to use a PowerPC based MacOS clone, I have to say that the engineering
is superior to that of PC clones.  Umax has an excellent line of MacOS
clones that have blazing fast PowerPC processors, PCI slots that you
can plug in standard cards to, and even a parallel port that accepts
standard PC parallel port peripherals.  And Mitch, you gotta see it
run Virtual PC (an emulated Pentium MMX processor).  Increadible
performance and, after you load Windows 95 into it, the Umax can do
anything PC clones can.  You can even plug in your PCI sound card and
use it with PC software under Virtual PC.  Some models even have both
IDE and SCSI built in.

You don't have to support the fruity logo to use a PowerPC machine.

>    Incidentally, I started using MS-Word on my my PC a few weeks
>ago. Not only does it run faster than AppleWorks GS on my 15 MHz
>Apple IIgs, it was so much easier to make changes and _see_ what
>I was doing. Everything got done some much more smoothly and
>faster than AWGS. Part of the problem is the 640x200 resolution
>does not give true WYSIWYG on screen, fonts look scretched out.
>Another part of the reason I blame on AppleWorks GS, not the IIgs,
>since that program has not been updated in close to 9 years now
>and is terribly bug-ridden and unstable.

Well, of course on a _fast_ (compared to a 486/25) system like
yours, PC software is going to look good.  No one is debating that.
And it is hardly fair to compair Word to AWGS.  Word is not Works.
However, as a guage of performance between systems, I find AWGS
with a 13.75MHz GS running faster and better than MSWORKS on a
25MHz 486.  AppleWorks GS hardly ever crashes on me, btw.

>    Understand that I'm trying to see things realistically here
>and stating them as so, _not_ bashing and brushing off the use-
>fulness of the IIgs (I don't think there is anyone who is less
>qualified for that job in the world, I still to this day get
>into long arguements and debates when someone puts down the GS
>blindly and makes false statements about it :)

That's what I'm trying to do too.  You have to try using MSWORKS
with Win 95 on a 25MHz '486 with a grayscale screen and you'll
see that it is perfectly realistic that you'll prefer using AWGS
with a 13.75MHz GS (know that on my system, AWGS hardly ever
crashes).

However, realistically I'd probably be spending more time on my
other computer if it was a PowerPC based Umax instead of a 486
running at 25MHz.

-Scott G.