Re: What do you do with an Apple //?

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

In article pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes...

>The problem here is that the GS version as it is now can run at
>full speed with a 7MHz Zip.  I don't notice any improvement in
>speed as it bumps up to 13.75MHz.  We can only speculate what would
>happen if Wolf GS is rewritten to run with the same smooth frame
>system.  Personally, I think that if you optimized Wolf GS for a
>13.75MHz to 15MHz GS (or at least provided a separate system for
>these high speed GS systems) _and_ drop it "to the metal" (meaning
>out of GS/OS, much like MegaDemo's Vaultage module), Wolf GS will
>still keep up with Wolf PC, at least on a running on a '486/25SLC
>with a 16 grayscale screen.  You have 7+ extra MHz for improvement.
>The PC version runs from DOS and hits the metal, remember, unlike
>the GS/OS based GS version.

    Bill Heineman is well-seasoned and top-notch programmer, perhaps
the code could have been optimized a bit more, but my guess is that
he probably already made sure to squeeze as much performance from the
GS as possible. Don't you think he used larger bit maps because it
was running at unacceptable speeds even on an accelerated IIgs in
that form? (If Bill or Sheppy are reading this, maybe they could
comment on whether the GS version could have been optimized more).

    As for the extra 7 MHz you speak of, remember that performance
hits a bottleneck after about 10 MHz or so because of the limited
1 MHz bus speed and writes to screens. Yes, there _is_ a difference
between a 10 MHz and 16 MHz Apple IIgs, but those differences will
not be as noticable as when comparing 6 MHz and 10 MHz. It becomes
difficult to measure speed increases (visually or from regular use
of the system) once you hit 10-12 MHz.

>>    I only have an AMD 5x86-133, which is functionally a 486 chip
>>compatible running at roughly the speeds of a 75 MHz Pentium. Wolf
>>3D easily maxes out its frame rate on that (actually so does DOOM),
>>but the same is true of a 486DX2-66. In fact, I recall my brother's
>>old 486DX-33 machine from years ago was able to run Wolf 3D's frame-
>>rate near its limit.
>
>There is no way to test the GS as it has no Wolf version that uses
>that frame system.

    The whole point is the GS version has an advantage because it
is skipping frames and scaling bitmaps larger (in essence, if this
were a test, the IIgs would be cheating! ;). So even with this extra
advantage, it still comes out behind the PC version in terms of
speed and frame-rates.

    I understand what your saying, about there being possible wasted
CPU speed on this version with the "advantage", but I think if you
rewrote it to scale images just as the PC version does, it would run
very poorly even on the fastest GS (again, I think Bill or Sheppy are
best qualified to answer this).

>Perhaps.  Technically, the '486 has the advantage in many tasks,
>I agree.  However, as a synergy between hardware and software, a
>'486/25 with Windows '95 runs word processors and integrated
>software significantly slower than a 13.75MHz GS with GS/OS and
>AppleWorks GS, even though my PC only has a 16 grayscales screen.
>With the same TrueType fonts and the same printer connected to the
>two computers, word processing and page layout is simply faster on
>this particular GS vs. this particular PC and the print quality is
>the same.  Sure, AppleWorks GS' word processor is not Word.  But
>the way word processors run on a slow '486 simply makes AWGS faster
>to use for most word processing tasks than the PC with MS Works.
>For most word processing tasks, I'm using the same set of features
>on AWGS as on MS Works anyway.

    You do know that the "486" you keep boasting about is equal to
the same speed of a 386DX-40 system. If you do benchmark tests, you
will find that what you have and are comparing to the GS is a mid range
386. :) Also, I've heard (for some strange reason) setting the screen
to 4-bit instead of 8-bit is actually slower. Another thing, you
do know that bus-speeds on laptops are quite often lesser than a
comparable desktop system. Windows 95 is going to run quite horribly
on your laptop, I wouldn't attempt to run it on anything less than
a 486DX2-66 machine.

    Incidentally, I started using MS-Word on my my PC a few weeks
ago. Not only does it run faster than AppleWorks GS on my 15 MHz
Apple IIgs, it was so much easier to make changes and _see_ what
I was doing. Everything got done some much more smoothly and
faster than AWGS. Part of the problem is the 640x200 resolution
does not give true WYSIWYG on screen, fonts look scretched out.
Another part of the reason I blame on AppleWorks GS, not the IIgs,
since that program has not been updated in close to 9 years now
and is terribly bug-ridden and unstable.

    Understand that I'm trying to see things realistically here
and stating them as so, _not_ bashing and brushing off the use-
fulness of the IIgs (I don't think there is anyone who is less
qualified for that job in the world, I still to this day get
into long arguements and debates when someone puts down the GS
blindly and makes false statements about it :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca