Re: Apple IIGS info and stuff

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>
>>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>>>The IIgs is a classic today.  I'll say it so that Mitchell does not have to
>>>(again)....it won't compare to a Pentium or PowerMac.  There, I said it.
>>
>>    Trying to vilify me for being a realist? :) You might as well
>
>I'm not trying to vilify you but rather trying to stave off your inevitable
>comparisons to your wonderful modern Pentium.

    That's not the impression I've got lately. For almost every
question I've answered or any comments I've made, you've followed
up with a counter argue against what I've said. Take for example
my heavily recommending Wolfenstein 3D be run with an accelerator
board installed; that is just plan logic even its programmer will
agree with, yet you, and only you, bitterly complained. Then there
was the thread about the TWGS being superior to the ZipGS, which
is almost comedical. You seem to think the only reason I hang out
on comp.sys.apple2 is to make the IIgs look bad. :)

>I know you love that unit, but you do not have to compare it every single
>time to the IIGS.  ;-)

    I rarely do, unless someone makes a ridiculious claim about
the IIgs being technically superior to a modern PC or Mac. Take for
example when Scott G. claimed his accelerated IIgs was faster than
a 486. Otherwise, when someone asks how they should upgrade their
IIgs or a technical question about it, I generally stay focused on
discussing the GS and nothing else.

    Oh, and I don't love my Pentium as you claim. I have no real
attachment to it, although I do find it useful and get enjoyment
from it. OTOH, I do have great sentimental attachment to my IIgs.

>>throw in it doesn't compare to a 486 or even most 386's. As for a
>
>Well now, in math functions or games with lots of calculations
>(Wolf 3D) perhaps, but not in all areas.  Have you tried running
>GEM on an EGA or even a CGA equipped early 386?  Kind of
>funny to watch it slugging around (pushing NO MORE PIXEL
>DATA THAN THE IIGS) compared to even an unaccelerated GS.

    I've never used GEM, although I have run Windows 3.11 on 386's
which is much more common. In terms of the GUI interface and ease
of use, the IIgs *really* shines compared here. OTOH, if you run
a graphical word processor under Windows 3.11 (say, MS-Word) it
appears to be more usable than AWGS. Scrolling is acceptable, and
it supports more modern features than AWGS, not to mention WYSIWYG.

    Another thing to think about, as terrible an OS as Windows 3.x
is (no sarcasm intended) it still offers the user better support
and capabilities than GS/OS. For example you can play AVI, Quick-
Time and MPEG movies, you can directly play MIDI and WAV files,
or view JPEG and GIF images. You can install TCP/IP and install
Netscape or other graphical browsers that support full color and
resolution. Windows 3.11 also supports the full resolution and
color of plug-in video cards, so I can have a 640x480x256 color
desktop on a 386. The IIgs with Second Sight has no support for
such a thing and remains ignored by GS/OS and the Finder.

>And GEM does less and uses less memory than GS/OS.
>
>I'd venture to say that FOR MOST TASKS (not Wolf 3D), an
>accelerated IIGS unit is a hell lot better than a 16Mhz 386
>unit (the typical 386)....example, try word processing under
>GEM.

    Well I know two friends who managed to get Netscape running
on their 16 MHz 386SX machines. It was painfully slow, but it
still gave them a PPP connection with true graphical browser.
They could also run Eudora, ICQ, MIRC and Forte Agent. Would
they have been better off with the IIgs? Certainly not, since
they'd be limited to a text only connection (sure you'll soon
be able to do PPP with Marinetti in the few months, but there
won't be anything like Netscape for the IIgs). Word processing
would be nicer on the 386 since you'd have WYSIWYG with fonts,
page-preview and other modern features. Plus this could be done
on a crisp-clear 17" display running at 85 Hz making it easier
on your eyes (not that I'd waste such a display on a 386SX-16).

    It's funny you should be comparing 16 MHz 386's to the GS
these days, considering you pick up 133 MHz 486's and low end
Pentium 75's and 90's for under $100. Quite often people will
give them away. I'm not familar with the Mac market, but I'm
sure there are similar examples with Mac II's, Quadra's and
low end PowerMac's.

>But wait a minute, strike that since you have had bad experience
>with AWGS (contrast this to Steve, Joe, and myself who have
>had good experience with the program).  ;-)

    I've given my warnings about the program and my experiences
with it. If you wish to brush them off as fluke and disbelieve
what I've said that is fine with me.

>No wonder you have a different view of productivity programs on
>the IIGS.... your AWGS experience has clouded your judgement!

    Actually I've used GraphicWriter III to do a few page layout
projects and found myself annoyed with how clumsy it can be in a
640x200 resolution. I've also done many graphics using Platinum
Paint and DreamGrafix, both of which are very buggy and limited
my creativity due to the 16 color per line limit of the GS.

>>couple of the early PowerMac's, I thought it compared quite well
>>equipped with an accelerator (the Finder seemed sluggish on the
>>6100/60 PPMac's I used back in 1995, compared with my GS Finder).
>
>You sure do have a bias against Macs.  I mean, I use Windows
>PCs too, but first you say that an accelerated IIGS is slower
>than a 386 (I KNOW this is NOT true when comparing GS/OS
>running on an accelerated IIGS compared to GEM on a 16Mhz
>386) and now you turn around and say the PowerMac Finder is
>slower....in effect saying that a PowerMac runs Finder slower
>than a 16Mhz 386!

    Your putting words in my mouth (and you conveniently cut
the line where I said "Not that the 65C816 is more powerful
than any 601 PowerPC chip obviously, but I found that kind
of amusing back then"). The Finder on the very first 60 MHz
PowerMac machines *did* appear slower than the Finder on my
15 MHz Apple IIgs, but I never said the GS was a faster
machine. Incidentally, my accelerated GS makes my 25 MHz 386
appear slow when you compare the two GUI's, but I know the
386 _and_ the original PowerMac are countless times faster
than the GS.

>>    This probably has no logic in it, maybe because its all based on
>>sentiment, though my Pentium (as well as any Mac's I've used) lack
>>any of the magic the GS has. There's just something about the IIgs
>>which makes it seem special, though I can't quite put my finger on
>>it. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way from people
>>I've spoken with. Maybe it was the jump from an 8-bit Apple II to
>>the IIgs? Hard to say, but it still remains my favorite computer.
>
>Finally, a sane statement.  ;-)

    More likely some lingering product loyality left. :)

>>>Here are the vital facts about the IIGS....
>>
>>>5. CPU:
>>>     Western Design Center (not to be confused with Western
>>>     Digital, the hard drive maker) 65C816 running at 2.8Mhz.
>>
>>    To nit pick here, when used in the IIgs the processor ran
>>at around 2.6 MHz due to RAM refreshes. The only circumstance
>>where it ran at a full 2.8 MHz was when accessing ROM firmware.
>>(It makes a noticable difference on the ROM 3, where Quickdraw
>>toolsets are fetched from ROM rather than RAM).
>
>What a nitpick! ;-)  Dude, the manual says 2.8Mhz, so I say
>2.8Mhz.  By your logic, then, the manual is not to be trusted,

    Yes, but it is an important nitpick because there is a
noticable difference with that 0.2 MHz speed loss. In any
case, the IIgs does effectively run at 2.6 MHz, are you now
disputing that?

    As for not trusting the manual, I just looked it up and
this is what is printed for its operating speed:

"The Apple IIgs normally runs its 65C816 microprocessor at a
clock rate of 2.8 MHz. For programs in RAM, the effective
speed is about 2.5 MHz because the hardware allocates a few
clock cycles for refreshing the RAM and cannot execute RAM
instructions during the refresh cycles. Programs in ROM are
not affected by RAM refresh, so they run at the full 2.8 MHz."

    They mention 2.5 MHz, though I know it's something like
2.56 (?) MHz which gets rounded up. This came from a techincal
reference, I doubt the user manual gets into this and just
tells you everything in simplified form to avoid confusion
with first time computer owners.

>so your correction to my ROM specification below (you say
>the manual does not say it supports 8MB ROM expansion) is
>also wrong (and it IS in FACT wrong....RamKeeper and a
>similar Cirtech card supported 8MB of ROM expansion).

    I'm more likely to believe words printed in an official
technical publication from Apple Computer than some magazine
ad hype from Applied Engineering. Here is what is printed on
page 15 of Addison-Wesley's 'Technical Introduction to the
Apple IIgs':

"Thanks to the 24-bit addressing of the 65C816, the Apple IIgs
has a memory space totaling 16 megabytes. Of this total, up to
8 megabytes of memory are available for RAM expansion, and one
megabyte is available for ROM expansion."

>>>7. RAM:
>>>     The Apple IIGS is expandable to 8MB of RAM
>>>     with the right memory card.
>>
>>    True, however the IIgs will only support DMA to the first
>>4 MB plugged into the expansion slot (this applies to all GS
>>revisions--the ROM 00, 01 and 3).
>
>With certain cards, it will support DMA to all 8MB.
>
>That's besides the point.  The statement is still correct one
>way or the other....the IIGS is expandable to 8MB of RAM.
>Or don't you trust your IIGS manual?  If you don't, then you
>should not trust it at all and your above criticism of ROM
>expansion (wrong) is based on manuals.  ;-)

    Where did I say the Apple IIgs is *not* expandable to 8 MB?
I said it only supports DMA to the first 4 megabytes installed,
not that it is only expandable to 4 MB. If DMA is not an issue
to you, you can easily expand the GS to a full 8 MB without any
worry.

>>>10. Display:
>>
>>>        --640x200 with 4 pure colors: this mode is bland
>>>          and is not often used.
>>
>>    Actually it is the same mode as below, only the same four
>>colors are copied and repeated in each of the 4 mini-palettes
>>so you end up with four pure colors.
>
>No it is not.  You do not dither with this mode.  Read on.

    See what happens when you disbelieve technical references?
You end up being in error. ;-) Your wrong here. It is in the
very SAME MODE, the only difference are the colors selected
in the 4 mini-palettes.

    There is no "dithering" mode that gets activated, it just
happens as a _side effect_ due to how colors are placed in
each of the mini-palettes. The 640 mode works in a confusing
way, it took me a few years to comprehend exactly how it works.
I took a crack at explaining it in my IIgs FAQ with little
diagrams to visualize what is happening (I finished the section
on GS graphic modes long ago, its the other sections that I need
to work on). :)

>As a comparison, you CAN'T get CGA mode on a PC to
>replicate the IIGS 640 mode with 16 dithered colors.  CGA
>is similar to the first 640 mode, but NOT AT ALL to this
>second dithered mode.

    You don't seem to understand. Both modes are the same,
when you have 4 pure colors in the 640 mode, it is still doing
the same thing placing certain colors in the odd columns, and
certain colors in the even columns. It is TRYING to dither them
regardless, but you undo this by repeating each color twice in
the mini-palette section so it is dithered with ITSELF. Red and
red make, well, red. Rather than red and blue making purple.

>>    Using dithering in this mode is kind of retro in that it
>>artificially recreates the color placement restrictions that
>>were present in old 8-bit Apple II. You often end up halfing
>>the resolution and create color fringing too (all in all, it
>>can be an ugly mode).
>
>I don't consider it this way.  You are using black and white
>at the full resolution and that's what's important.  The other
>colors, they just fill in blank areas with dithered colors, and
>that's what's important.

    That is only going to work if you draw circles and boxes and
fill them in. Drawing graphics usually works doing things pixel
by pixel, and when you can't place certain pixels next to each
other, that is a problem. Also, try drawing freely with a pen tool
using purple in the 640 mode, notice how there will be red and
blue fringing all over the place as the dithering becomes "undone"
in many places? Also try overlapping different dithered colors to
see what happens.

>>>        --Fill mode: for faster rendering of graphics, the
>>>          fill mode is a hardware mode in which an outline
>>>          of a graphic can be drawn and the outline filled
>>>          by a solid color without needing to draw in all the
>>>          pixels.
>>
>>    There are limitations. You only have 15 colors available
>>in this mode per-line and there is only one start and one stop
>>pixel to mark the area to be filled. For this reason, you cannot
>>have fill mode objects overlap each other, which is what is
>>a key element in writing games with sprites.
>
>Sure, nonetheless it is a useful mode.

    Yet still too limited to be utilized in a game because you
cannot overlap objects. I can probably count the number of programs
that used Fillmode on one or two hands.

>>>  SVGA modes with 24-bit color can be added with an additional
>>>  video card (see the Second Sight SVGA card at Sequential
>>>  Systems http://www.sequential.com/ ).
>>
>>    No comment. ;)
>
>The only sane reply since you don't have nor have you ever
>seen in action the card.

    Although I have read enough technical literature on it to
understand what it can and cannot do. Moving around 24-bit
color is one thing it cannot do, and apparently, the firmware
on-board doesn't even allow you to support that color depth
making that moot.

    I also know what software has been written to support it,
and so far, that has only amounted to static full-screen GIF
and JPEG viewers. At present, the only worthwhile application
of the card is using it to connect a larger screen to the GS.

>>    Using scanline interrupts, you can do neat tricks like having
>>the foreground, background and border color changed on a line by
>>line basis (much like the 256 color mode, only you have multi-
>>colored ASCII text in this case).
>
>Now this is something I didn't know.  Do you know of any
>programs that use this multi-colored ASCII?  I would love
>to see it in action, if only in a demo!  Thanks for bringing this
>capability to my attention.

    DreamWorld's health patcher program for Task Force is the
nicest example I can think of (they shaded each line of text,
so each text character would have three or more color shades
in it, going vertically). The P8 utility "Zippy" for the Zip
GS board splits the text screen as a more common example. If
you look at the "TLP.Demo" (a small BBS promo) it shows not
only multi-colored text, but mixing ASCII text with the Super-
Hi-Res screen! There was another simple demo called "Stripes"
or "Stars and Stripes Forever" if memory serves right.

    If you have trouble finding these, let me know and I'll
dig them up and e-mail them to you.

>>>     The difference between a UniDisk and a IIGS 3.5" drive
>>>     is that the IIGS drive is controlled directly by the
>>>     computer while the UniDisk has a separate processor.
>>>     The UniDisk is thus much slower (up to 4x slower) than
>>>     a IIGS 3.5" drive.
>>
>>    The UniDisk 3.5 is actually closer to half the speed of
>>of an Apple 3.5 drive.
>
>It is pretty bad when you factor interleave and if the disks
>are HFS, access time is closer to 4x slower on the UniDisk.

    I'm not so sure about that, I still believe it is closer
to half the speed.

>The UniDisk is terrible.

    I agree. It should be used solely on the Apple IIc, where
you have no other choices for 3.5 drives. You should certainly
stick with the Apple 3.5 on the IIgs, and if possible, obtain
the proper controller for the IIe to use the same drive. No
need to limit yourself on speed, especially when the SuperDrive
controller is available again.

>>>     The Apple IIGS often shipped with the Apple High Speed
>>>     (DMA) SCSI controller in an expansion slot for
>>>     controlling SCSI devices.  Even 100MB Zip Drives and
>>>     1GB Jazz Drives work on this SCSI port.
>>
>>    Hmm? I don't recall Apple ever pre-installing SCSI boards
>>inside the unit at shipping time. They did at one time install
>>Apple IIgs Memory Expansion Cards as standard, which meant GS
>>machines shipped with 512K for a period.
>
>If often was equipped in systems.  Many dealers were selling
>basic systems and power systems.  Power systems typically
>included the Apple SCSI card.

    Then they were sold WITH the system. That is completely
different from shipping it with the card preinstalled so you'd
find it there out of the box. If you purchased a IIgs with SCSI
card, you could certainly pay the dealer a service charge to
install the card for you. I know someone who paid a dealer $50
to install a used TWGS board as he was uneasy about pulling the
65C816 CPU himself.

>>>     In one final gasp, the Apple II supporters at Apple
>>>     designed the Apple IIGS Plus, code named "Mark Twain."
>>>     It had an 8Mhz 65C816, a built in SuperDrive, 2MB
>>>     on the motherboard, and a hard drive.  Prototypes
>>
>>   Where did you come up with an 8 MHz 65C816? All the Mark
>>Twain prototypes that have been discovered have the same 40
>>pin DIP 65C816 running at 2.6 MHz as other GSes. It is quite
>>plausible a faster processor would have been added to the
>>final production model
>
>It did not have an 8Mhz 65C816?  Oops.  ;-)

    Nope. The only enhancements present at the time it was aborted
were the equivalent of an internalized High-Speed SCSI, SuperDrive,
stereo/digitizer and a (half populated) 4 MB SIMM card.

>(If Mark Twain was released, it would have been woefully under
>powered without an 8Mhz unit....why not just plug in your
>Zip GS instead of buying a Mark Twain?  Even the IIc Plus
>was faster.)

    Well for one thing the Mark Twain was never sold--we're
talking about an internal Apple project that never made it
out (let alone completed). My guess is had it been finished,
it would have been a worthwhile machine. As the prototype
stands, you'd be better off with a ROM 3 upgraded with 3rd
party enhancements. I pretty much built my own "IIgs+/ROM 4"
by upgrading my current system with everything I could ever
want (I just need to find a cheap Video Overlay Card to make
it complete). :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca