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

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:
>Adam Myrow  <adam.myrow@asu.edu> wrote:
>>Of course a 13 MHZ gs runs faster than a 25 MHZ 486.  The GS's clock-rating
>>(according to many sources) should be multiplied by 4 to get the PC
>>equivalent.
>
>   Bzzzt, you misremember. Comparing the 65xx against the 8086 (and
>8088, 80186 and 80286 also I think), plus the 68000 (and probably thru
>68020), there is the magic number of '4' because that's the ratio of
>bus clocks needed to get a byte out of memory. On the 65xx, it takes 1
>bus cycle to read or write a byte (instruction opcode, memory value,
>all the same) from memory. The early 80x86s and 680x0s all took 4
>clock cycles to move data. However, they soon realized that was very
>inefficient, and definitely by the 486 and 68040, both families were
>down to 1 clock cycle busses. [And they've gone to wider data paths,
>internal caches, etc]

Yes, which is why, as I found out in recreating some InCider tests,
a 9MHz GS outperforms a 16MHz Mac LC in most operations.  The Mac
LC uses a 68020, so it falls under the "magic 4" category.  If I
recall correctly, the LC has a 16-bit wide data bus on the main
logic board due to Apple cost cutting.  While the 9MHz GS has an
8-bit wide data bus, its 1 clock cycle bus compared to the '020's
4-cycle bus (but at 16-bits) means the GS has a 2:1 advantage at
a given MHz (integer divide/multiplication aside).  No wonder a
9MHz GS can outperform a 16MHz Mac LC.  No doubt the bloated MacOS
plays a part, but as we all know AppleWorks GS is sort of bloatware
itself in the GS world!


>>Thus 13 MHZ*4 = 52 MHZ.  I heard this here on the newsgroup as well
>>as the Apple II history.  So this statistic that Scott G quotes all
>>the time makes perfect sense.
>
>   Nope. It's only the slow GUI OS and a laptop (historically
>underpowered in terms of system bus and video versus desktop boxen)
>that's dropping Scott's laptop to a crawl.

No doubt that plays a large role.  Of course a system is a synergy
of hardware and software, so _as a system_, my GS w/AWGS is faster
than my PC with MSWORKS.  Heck, the way MSWORKS crawls on a PC, if
it were not for the GS, I'd rather use the DOS version of WordPerfect,
and that means giving up fonts and graphical formatting options.  I'd
rather use the GS for that, since AWGS gives me access to the same
TrueType fonts and page layout options I get from MSWORKS, but faster.
Coming out of the same printer, I can generate identical results with
either machine, so of course I use the GS.


>>[And a 486/25? That's easily 1/10 the speed of any modern PC/Mac].
>

Not everybody needs a zillionhertz Dodecium PC or Mac zooming about.
Besides, that's my only PC.


>Dump the bloated OS and hit the system more on the metal with games,
>and the GS can't hold a candle to that PC-- 386/33s (maybe 2/3 the
>speed of a 486/25) can handle DOOM fullscreen. The GS is having BIG
>problems with Wolf, a far simpler design.

Nate, I have to contest that statement just a bit.  I've run Wolf
on both systems and at 13.75MHz, the GS version runs as fast as the
PC version.  Now the '486 game boots from DOS and is "on the metal,"
but since Bill and Eric play by the rules, the GS version runs under
GS/OS.  This time, the GS version is more bloated, correct?  Yet the
GS still keeps up.  I call that impressive.

(A GS at 13.75MHz runs considerably faster than one at 9MHz.  Yes,
there is a smaller increase in speed as you go up each subsequent
MHz, but believe me, you notice going from 9MHz to 13.75MHz.)


>However, general consumers are not going to flock to the
>GS simply because by by adding in enough hardware to overcome the
>builtin limitations you can approach something only 5 years
>old. They'd rather buy a 5 year old PC for next to nothing and get
>more power right of the box than have to hunt down used accelerator
>cards and a soldering iron.

And no one is advocating that.  Rather, we are saying that if your
main use of a computer is word processing, page layout, playing some
games and songs, educational/hypermedia, a little MIDI, and some
telecommunications/internet stuff, _and you already have a GS_, it
can still be useful (not that I soldered the card at all).

Heck, the fact that a GS can match a 5 year old PC at all is amazing.
The GS is more than 11 years old!

If I were a programmer, I'd probably go for a 200MHz Pentium or
PowerMac.  However, many of us do not need such power.  No one
is going to flock to the GS or 25MHz '486 class PC, but these two
still work for me (and the GS better than the PC in many tasks)
and if one still has these types of machines, they can still be
quite useful.  Besides, I got the PC for a great price.  :)

-Scott G.