Re: ZipGS 12MHz on ROM 01?

[foegelle@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu (Michael Foegelle)]

Well, this is obvious flame bait written by an uninformed IBM type compu-geek
who confuses "new" with ability, but what the heck...

In article <1994Apr28.003250.28141@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
DANIEL PERLBERGER <dp02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> wrote:
>I have a suggestion that might just work.  Get a real computer that hasn't
>been out of date for years now.  You are dying for 12 MHZ???  That is
>pathetic...  If I had 12 MHZ I think I would die from the waiting of the
>computer to process the information.  

Well, first off it's rather apparent from that statement that you're comparing
to IBM clock rates.  Like so many, you apparently don't realize that due to 
the simpler instruction set, the 6000 series microprocessors execute their
instructions in about 1/4th (or less) of the time (clock cycles that is) that
it takes an 8000 series processor to execute an instruction.  Thus, the old
1 MHz Apple II with its 6502 was roughly equivalent to the 4.7 MHz IBM PC/AT.
A 12 MHz GS would perform somewhere along the lines of a 20-30 MHz 386.  Heck,
I know my 8 MHz //e can outperform this PS/2 (20 MHz 386) I'm using right now
on a number of things.  At any rate, a 12 MHz GS would perform at least at the
level of what the average PC owner's computer would perform. 

>Face it, the Apple II had been dead, is
>dead, and always will be dead.  A 8-bit/wanna be 16-bit computer of its type
>will never be able to come close to the funcionality of today's systems (i.e.,
>PC dos,windows, MAC, Unix, etc...)

First off, your first statements there are nonsense.  If that were so, this
group obviously wouldn't exist and wouldn't have the traffic it does (why the
hell are YOU here anyway?)  Second, why SHOULD it "come close to the funcTion-
ality of today's systems"?  99.999% of the people owning computers don't have
systems that have the functionality of "today's" systems (i.e. Pentium/Power
PC).  It's a known fact that by the time you buy a system, it's "obsolete",
but that doesn't mean that the system you bought suddenly can't do what's 
needed of it, or that it has no value.  The value of the system is based on 
whether or not it can perform what the user requires of it to the users' 
satisfaction.  If it does that, then who CARES if there's a more expensive
fancier system that could do more if you don't have to do more?!!


>  Besides that, even if the IIGS was the
>most amazing machine on the planet, which it is far from being, the machine is
>not supported AT ALL by any software manufacturers today.  

Well, lessee...  Quality, Vittesse (sp), Sequential, Procyon, Creative Comp., 
just to name a few...  That would seem to disprove THAT statement...

>Therefore, it is an
>obsolete dinosaur that should be left alone.  Let it rest in peace for god's
>sake!  If you feel you can debate this, then be my guest.  However, I see now
>answer to the FACTS I have stated.

Your FACTS are F***ED.  (In deference to the young ones who may be reading..)

>                                        Dan

Michael Foegelle
-- 
 Michael Foegelle  | Call Wunderland BBS! |   foegelle@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
  University of    | (512) 472-0544  8n1  |   foegelle@utaphy.ph.utexas.edu
 Texas at Austin   | 14.4kbaud, v.32/bis  |   GEnie:   M.FOEGELLE2
Physics Department | 500 megs on a //e!   | > Ask me about Columns //e & VGA! <