Re: Apple II benchmarks

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3939C955.3E0D3DFF@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>>> The V20/V30 was between 5% and 40% faster than an 8088/8086, depending
>>> on what kind of code was being run. It was at the high end when doing
>>> floating point multiply and divide operations.
>>
>> The V20/v30, which were replacements for 8088/8086, didn't do FP
>> instrcutions;  you needed a coprocessor for that... <g>
> 
> Well, they *did* do floating point, only in software  :-)  However, they
> did it much faster than the Intel versions.
 
Now you're discussing software libraries.  Yes, there were different
software libraries available, with different speeds.  Two ways to make
such a library run faster were:  1. Not attempting to mimic the 8087
as precisely as possible, and  2. Reducing the precision from 10 byte
to 8 byte reals, or perhaps even to 6 byte reals.
 
However, if you don't like one software library for some reason, you can
always replace it with another which suits your needs better.
 
 
> I own an IBM PS/2 Model 25, which has an 8 mhz 8086, if you replace it
> with a V30, the machine won't run... I've never heard an explanation for
> it, but there it is.
 
It was probably due to timing stuff at the hardware level.  Likewise
the 65C02 wouldn't run in an Apple II or Apple II+, you needed an
Apple IIe or Apple IIc to be able to use the 65C02.

Since you bring up the IBM PS/2: it's interesting to note that IBM did the
same mistake on the PS/2 that Apple did on the Mac:  both had successful
open computers (IBM PC/XT/AT and Apple II), and then they wanted more
control over the market and attempted to get it by closing up their
computers in their nerw models (the PS/2 and the Mac).  As a result they
lost market share, and both the PS/2 and the Mac became niche computers,
used mostly by dedicated followers of the respective company. 
 

>>> plus the wider data bus of course.
>>>
>>>> I am convinced now that we see history through our
>>>> own experiences.  After all, why is every time
>>>> someone mentions "Apple II"  you think of an
>>>> Apple II+ in CP/M mode while to me I think of a IIGS?
>>>
>>> Was this directed to me? Or to Paul? When someone says Apple II, I
>>> think of 6502/65C02 based personal computers.
>>
>> Including the Commodore PET, the Vic-20 and the Commodore-64?  Or the
>> KIM-1, SYM-1 or AIM-65?  Or the Apple I or Apple ///?  These were all
>> 6502 based....
> 
> What I meant was 8 bit, as opposed to the 8/16 bit 65816. Obviously
> not other 6502 based platforms.
 
These other 6502 platforms were 8-bit platforms too though.  What you
meant was 8-bit Apple platforms, not 8-bit platforms in general, right?
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch