Re: AE PC Transporter Questions...

["Paul Grammens" <grammens@svn.net>]

"Supertimer" <supertimer@aol.com> wrote
>
> I had a PCT and used an XT and an IBM AT (286) as well as
> a IIGS.  The stock IIGS could outperform either PCs and the
> PCT anyday.

One thing about the 286's and later is that they went faster and faster. I
think the 286 started out at 6 MHz, and ended up at 20 MHz. I don't know why
the ROM 3 had the same clock speed as the ROM 0.  No way you can keep up
with the competition that way.

>
> I know many will disagree, especially those who jumped
> ship early in the PC's history to use the available MS-DOS
> business programs but speaking objectively, the PC pretty
> much sucked up to about 1995-1997.  That was when Win 95
> came out, PC sound move beyond the 4-voice SoundBlaster,
> SVGA became popular, and it was just before the AMD
> K6-2 CPU and the 3dfx Voodoo graphics chipset was
> released.

Sorry, but even my old 386DX-25 had way better graphics and better
performance than my accellerated IIgs.  Try playing Wolf3D on each. It's
painful on an unaccellerated IIgs. It's more stable, runs faster, and has
better resolution on the 386-25 compared with an accellerated IIgs. My 386
had SVGA in '90. The sound wasn't as good as the IIgs, but frankly, the
screen resolution is a LOT more important to me.  My PC is silent 99% of the
time. I'm looking at it 100% of the time. To say that the PC didn't exceed
the performance of the IIgs until Win95, the K6-2, and 3dfx is absurd.  A
486-66 with Win3.1 and a fast video card was also damn good. I played a lot
of Doom on one of those.  ;-)

> Fantasy.  PCs have left the Mac in the dust.
>

I don't think that's true.  The Intel clock speed is higher, but as we all
know, the G4 and even the AMD chips are more efficient.  Seems to me it's
more of a see-saw battle, with AMD and the Mac pulling ahead now and then in
true performance.  I wish them well. It will be a more boring world if Intel
"leaves them in the dust."
-Paul