Re: CDR's & MP3 for GS???

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>
>>Well first of all, you don't want to SHK archive it.
>>That would make it just as boring as the Golden
>>Orchard.  You want it to be bootable.  Or at least
>>executable from the Finder.
>
>    You have a point there, but how fast is it booting or
>loading data _directly_ off a 1X or 2X speed drive? This
>is what the vast majority of Apple IIgs users have hooked
>up to their systems (those with drives in the first place).

Those should be fast enough.  The only loading
that's going to happen is between levels and loading
animation sequences.  Remember, PaintWorks
animations are not played as they are loaded.  They
load into memory completely before playing.  Thus,
there is no need for superfast CD-ROM drives.

Yes, the player is going to wait between levels, but
he or she needs a break after solving a level!

>I know faster drives are cheaper these days, but they're
>not necessarily faster when used on a IIgs.

A 2x CD-ROM feels much faster than a 1x CD-ROM
when both are used on the IIGS, so I'm not sure
what you mean.  You don't really need a faster
CD-ROM for such a Hyper/Card/Studio based game,
but I'm sure that 4x CD-ROMs would be faster than
2x CD-ROMs on a IIGS.  Why would they not be?
2x is faster than 1x and hard drives on the IIGS are
faster than Zip drives.  I can't see why you would say
a faster drive would not be faster than a slower drive
IF BOTH ARE USED ON THE SAME IIGS.

>    I heard CD-ROM speed bottlenecks out at around 4X
>(600K transfer rate). Any person I've spoken to who has
>a CD-ROM drive on their IIgs system, has said they move
>the data to their hardrive first before working with it.

Hey that's a given!  The type of stuff they are using
is archive material or small loose programs that run
better from a hard drive.

This is different than the type of CD-ROM game I'm
thinking about.

>>That's just his CD burner.  I'm sure there are different
>>types, just like there are different types of laser
>>printers.  There might be some with internal CPUs
>>that do most of the work.  Who knows.
>
>    Well I've yet to hear anyone step in and claim it is
>possible so far, even in theory. So, does someone want to 
>and talk about the feasibility of CD-R drives on a IIgs,
>assuming there is any?

Ok, I have a question: how about CD-RW?  How do
these work?  Do they function similar to hard drives?
Now before you say "what would be the use of a
CD-RW on the IIGS since CD-ROM drives can't
read them, Supertimer's just glorifying the IIGS,"
I'm asking a valid, if academic question.  I'd like an
answer without an editorial, ok?

>>I see both your brother and you have Intel units. I
>>prefer non-Intel units myself.  Even though I'm an
>>IBM/Cyrix fan, I'd go AMD before stooping to Intel. ;-)
>
>    I use whatever works best, my last system used an AMD 5x86
>processor and this time I'm using an Intel Pentium-150 chip,
>overclocked to 166 MHz. I don't care for boycotting hardware
>or software simply because of the company who makes it. I know
>a lot of people boycotted Nathan Mates' software, though that
>meant not using Swatterdisk or GUPP, which are must have IMO.

I don't boycott Intel just for the heck of it.  IBM/Cyrix
and AMD are innovative companies and Intel is using
monopoly power to try to shut them out.  I don't
like that, so I try to stay away from Intel.  However,
that's not the only reason: Intel is expensive and some
of their processors require a motherboard replacement.
Why bother?  IBM/Cyrix and AMD are making killer
chips.

You know, you can dig up shit about the 6x86's FPU
spewed by lying Intel supporters all you like.  I can
SEE that the 6x86 is faster running MY programs
than a Pentium.  In the end, that's all that counts and
certainly more proof than some gossip.  Why don't
you find a IBM/Cyrix computer and play around with
it before passing judgement?  Some of the Compaq
Presarios use them.

I think it is safe to say that I'd go back to Apple before
turning to Intel.

And I hope Microsoft is forced to drop Explorer from
Windows as a stuck in product.  I'd also like to see
Netscape get integrated into AOL, but that's AOL's
call.  Unless, that is, Microsoft gets away with using
its monopoly power to force AOL to stick with Explorer.

See how dispicable monopolists are?