Re: ZipGS 12MHz on ROM 01?

[daye@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Critical Mass)]

In article <1994Apr29.180510.189253@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
DANIEL PERLBERGER <dp02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>Oh, I've been reading all of the responses.  And I have learned a few things.
> First of all, you view your precious IIGS as some all-powerful deity.  If

Anyone who views their computer as a God, I pity.  I don't.  Just because I
*like* the 'antiquated piece of shit' does NOT mean I worship it, okay?

> someone even dares say anything against it, then they go ballistic on that
> person.  I was not insulting anyone in particular...I was just commenting on
> a piece of machinery..lighten up!  And, I didn't just write the comment to
> get everyone upset.  I like a heated debate..that is why I have taken the
> time and responded in full to all the people that wrote e-mail messages to me
> (and there has been quite a few).  You people take this computer a little too
> seriously.  Now to shortly discuss some of the points I read on the group.
> First of all, I did not own a IIe (thank God...or would you say thank IIGS?)
> and I am not in II withdrawal.  I owned a
> IIGS when it first came out around '86 and at first I kinda liked it.  That
> was before I learned anything about computers...I really really started to
> hate the thing.  It was so so so slow.  But even if it was the fastest
> machine on Earth, I would have still hated it because I could not find

Um, once again you defy logic.  Were the GS the fastest machine on Earth,
there sure as hell would be a great deal of software available for it.

> software anywhere I looked..I mean anywhere..some stores might have 2 or 3
> titles ..but that was it...And now, when I go to the biggest and brightest
> software stores, there is not ONE title available for the IIGS.  That is a
> definate fact.  But anyways, when I first used a 386sx 16, I was in awe at
> how fast it was in comparison to my IIGS.  Anyone with any kind of sense will
> not even attempt to compare a IIGS with any less than a 286.  A 12 MHZ IIGS

I beg to differ.  At both radio stations I work at we have 286's hooked up
to the AP wire and they *barely* manage to chug along, and all they really
have to do is recall information from a hard drive.  Hell, even a 386*sx*/16
compared to a 12MHz GS would be slow.

> is very far from being a 40MHZ 386...I don't know what dream world you live
> on, but I live on the one where the IIGS craaaaaawls.  I don't care if you
> put a 30 MHZ board in your IIGS, it could not perform in the same efficiency
> of say a 33MHZ 386DX.  This is simply because of the architechture of the two

Um, you keep changing processors on us...what will it be next, an Intel 
p6 that runs at 500MHz and sucks enough power to drain a small suburb?

> computers.  But before I begin discussing this...let me first say that even a
> 386 is now obsolete in most people's minds..so a IIGS is beyond even the word
> "obsolete".  But anyways, a IIGS is nothing more than an upgraded Apple IIe
> in design...Yes, it is technically a 16-bit computer; however, it is a very
> early and simplified version of the 16-bit computer.  386's (DX's) are full

How is it a simplified version of a 16-bit computer?  In native mode, it uses
a 16-bit accumulator, 16-bit registers, and a 16-bit stack.  Which among those
suggests a less than 16-bit architechture?

> 32-bit computers.  Therefore to state that the IIGS with a 12MHZ speed and it
> being 16-bit is as fast as a 32-bit 40MHZ 386 is absurd.  Anyone I mention
> this to starts laughting.  I mentioned to a few people about some comments I
> received that a IIGS is as good as a 486..and they burst out in laughter...To
> be fair, maybe a low-end 286 is about equal to an accelerated IIGS.  But that

See my previous comments about work experience with what turn out to be
high-end 286's.

> is not even the main reason why the IIGS really sucks.  IT is the software
> support (or rather the software non-support).  I don't care what fictional,
> no-name companies are named to me...I still know that if I want any kind of

I'm sure Jawaid will be bubbling with laughter when you tell him that his
company is fictional.  I'm also sure that 500 or so owners of Jawaid's programs
will be very upset to find out they shelled out money to a fictional company
for a program that can't possible exist.

> software imaginable, I can get it in a snap with my PC.  With my IIGS, I
> never could get anything...it was very frustrating.  And, any software that
> might be produced for the IIGS is not going to be even close to the quality
> of the software that is developed for today's computers.  You can disagree
> with this all you want, but this is a fact.  When a large, well-known ,
> respectable company (not Vitesse or some private developers,etc.) develops
> software on a standard platform like Intel's x86 design, it is going to be

Oh, yes, great one.  I suppose Windows-NT is a perfect example of the quality
that PC developers have (Ever see a program crash because you clicked the mouse
on a button?).  Need I mention Symantec C++ on the Macintosh, which takes
C++ code that runs fine on a UNIX platform and causes bus errors when compiled
on the Mac?  

> the highest quality possible.  The IIGS, while running its cut down versions
> of software, possibly could be bearable in speed.  But I guaratee you if you
> tried to run any of the PC software developed today (that is if it was
> compatible) , the IIGS would probably have a massive coronary and die a messy
> death.  But I do agree with one person's comment that I saw on here.  Someone

I seriously doubt ANY PC software would work on a GS.  I also doubt PC software
would run on a Mac, nor Mac software on a PC.  Oh, sure, you can run 'softpc',
but then you'll think even an Apple //+ ran with lightning speed.

> said that they have their IIGS at home and they use other systems like PC's,
> etc. at work for speed-intesive purposes.  Then he said, "why do I need such a
> PC at home when I have my IIGS?"  You don't!!! That is my point.  If the IIGS
> is going to be used for little, light tasks like simplified word-processing,
> database functions, games, etc., then by all means use the IIGS.  But like

Yeah, nevermind more intense tasks such as multitasking, compiling, ray tracing,
14 channel built in sound (try that with a PC's built in speaker)...

> this guy is doing, when you need a real job done, go to a real computer.  I
> say, any computer that can be upgraded from a IIe is not a real, powerful
> computer.  And just in case you didn't know, Apple used to offer to IIe
> owners an upgrade kit from IIe to IIGS (full upgrade).  Any real cojputers

Um, get your facts straight.  When you upgrade from a //e, the only parts of
the //e you keep are the keyboard and the case.  The entire motherboard is
replaced.  The only thing of the //e remaining on the GS is a single chip.
The rest is completely GS.

> like Pcs could never be upgraded from a little shitty 8bit Apple II computer,
> but your magical, wonderful god-like computer definately can.  Yeah, this
> computer ranks up there with 32-bit Pc's..uh uh..ok..sure...

Ever seen a 386 upgraded to a 486 (via the 486DLC)?  Now there's a real
upgrade for ya...

> Well, that's about it...I just didn't want to leave you folks hanging.  But
> the most important thing, it is only a computer.  It is not the end of the
> world if someone comes to your group and actually talks down to your
> allmighty god.  Hate to tell you this folks, but there is life after the IIGS.
> (a much better, quicker, more productive life actually)

Yeah, I love spending hours upgrading hardware just to play the latest games,
which take up enormous amounts of hard drive space.  Or, for about 8 times as
much money, I can use a despicable GUI interface and run programs that require
outrageous amounts of RAM for the simple tasks they perform (such as word
processing, data base, spreadsheet, you know, the kind of thing the GS is
cut out for...)

>
>                                            Dan
>
>
> P.S.  The more you use foul language and simple insults to answer my posts,
> the more you are making yourselves look bad.  This is just an opinion
> (even though 99% of the computer world would agree with me!)  But, thanks for

99% of the computer world?  So *that* is the name of the planet you're on.
That certainly explains a lot of the crap you decide to call 'fact'.

> the intelligent responses I did get in e-mail.  It was interesting discussing
> the topic.


-- 
|Evan Day                | "Plans made in the nursery can change the
|daye@CSOS.ORST.EDU      |  course of history.  Remember that."
|"Redneckers, they get us|                         - M. L. Gore               
| pissed" - Black Francis| They've got the guns but we've got the numbers.