Re: Most overhyped Apple II product???

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>    'LC's video display was, overall, better than GS; sound capabilities 
>were somewhat inferior; and, if you accept inCider's benchmarks, 'LC was 
>a bit faster than a GS with a 7.4MHz TransWard accelerator.

I'll give the Mac LC superior video.  The sound was _much_ inferior
to the GS.  I have problems with the TransWarp comparisons, however,
because they were reviewing a 10MHz/64K cache Zip GS in the same
issue!

>    Things reached a kind of peak in the summer of 1991 with inCider's 
>infamous "LC vs. GS: Side by Side, Head to Head" feature. (This time, a 
>more direct comparison of relatively basic machines had the GS costing a 
>mere $100 more.)  As those who read the article will recall, it was a 
>torturous exercise in doing comparisons without saying very much or 
>offending anyone.

I remember it and it was a stupid comparison.  The only reason the GS
system ended up costing more is because they put in the most expensive
internal hard disk drive they could find (the Vulcan) even though they
also put an Apple HS SCSI card in the system.  An SCSI card and a
proprietary non-SCSI hard disk: why?  Also, why the expensive and
slower TransWarp GS when for several hundred dollars less they could
use a faster and less expensive Zip GS.  The funny thing is that in
the Zip GS review in the same issue, they were exclaiming how a fast
Zip GS with a large cache was cheaper than and faster than a stock
TransWarp GS (7MHz with 8K cache).

If you swap the Vulcan for a cheaper, faster, and larger capacity
SCSI hard disk and the expensive TWGS for a Zip GS 9/64, for example,
the GS system would be cheaper and faster.

In fact, several months ago, I ran the same benchmarks that they did
and found that a 9MHz GS beat the Mac LC in almost every test
(see my Mac LC vs. Apple IIGS rematch posted several months ago on
DejaNews).

-Scott G.