ST802148@BROWNVM.BITNET (Evan) (09/29/89)
Needing of advise: Before the summer, I ordered the 8Mhz Zip chip for $169. When I returned from the summer, I called to check if it had been sent, and they said it still wasn't out. I call this week, 1 month more... maybe. Now the 10Mhz rocket chip has been out for a while. I know there were compatability problems at first, but one company told me they have a new revision that has worked with everything they have tried so far. And the rocket chip is only $30 more. So, which should I get? I have a //e with a Ramworks III w/576K, SSC, no-slot-clock, 20 Meg SCSI, and 2400 baud modem. Later
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/04/89)
Network Comment: to #712 by ST802148%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu In benchmarking the two, I discovered that the Rocket Chip does a much more thorough job of accelerating your computer. In fact, the 4 MHz Rocket Chip darn near outperforms the 8 MHz Zip Chip. ... for what it's worth. UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (10/05/89)
On Tue, 3 Oct 89 19:16:42 CDT you said: >Network Comment: to #712 by ST802148%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu > >In benchmarking the two, I discovered that the Rocket Chip does a much more >thorough job of accelerating your computer. In fact, the 4 MHz Rocket Chip >darn near outperforms the 8 MHz Zip Chip. Doesn't the Rocket Chip have a considerably larger cache memory than the Zip Chip (8K to 5K?)? If so that would explain the performance difference. I take it that the 8Mhz Zip is a 'no wait state' processor (if it isn't -- because, for instance the cache memory is the same speed as the 4MHz Zip (?!) -- then the extra MHz means nothing). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/06/89)
Network Comment: to #952 by SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu That's right, Murph. Rocket Chip also has more options. With each slot, you can choose cache/don't cache, and accelerator/don't accelerate. When you get into hard drive reads and the like, this can make a big difference in performance. NOTE to interested parties: Don't set up your chip to cache your hard drive without adequate backup. UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com
jerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") (10/06/89)
Network Comment: to #795 by SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu The Rocket Chip not only has a larger cache than the Zip Chip, but it caches MORE of your computer's memory. The Zip Chip caches only the main ROM and all RAM. The Rocket Chip can cache peripheral card ROM ($Cnxx space) and also expansion ROM space ($C800-$CFFF). All Apples since the IIe have had a large portion of their firmware bank-switched -- the Rocket Chip accelerates that, too. On my IIc, a Zip Chip (4 Mhz) produced a flashing cursor in 40-column mode that was only slightly faster than the 1 Mhz cursor. With a Rocket Chip, the cursor blinked VERY fast. Both seemed about equal when running programs that don't use the ROM much (ie, AppleWorks and ProTERM). The Rocket Chip is also a friendlier chip. You can turn off the annoying pause after Reset. You can set the WAIT function ($FCA8 in the ROM) to normal speed so that delay loops run at normal speed. You can set up a variety of sound modes which control how long the chip slows down after an access to $C030. You can use the standard TransWarp POKE to turn the chip on and off (and you don't have to reset the computer after changing speeds -- although you don't have to with the Zip either, you do with the TransWarp). I've had both a Zip Chip and a Rocket Chip in my IIc and parted with my Rocket Chip only because I was short on funds at one time. I plan to get a 10 Mhz Rocket Chip real soon now. _____ ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pnet01!pro-tcc |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry
djhill@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( Number_6 **) (10/06/89)
Does the Zip Chip cache all the slots like the Rocketchip (5Mhz, BTW)? The buffering of video (slot 3) makes a dramatic improvement in program speed (according to the booklet that came w/ the chip). Oh, for those of you out there who have the 5Mhz and have an itch for the 10 Mhz version, Quality computers will give you $50 for your old one making the upgrade to 10 MHz ~$140. - Doug Hill -------------------------------------------------------------------------- InterNet: djhill@rodan.acs.syr.edu BitNet: RTRON@SUVM
CHRIS@MSUS1.BITNET (10/07/89)
I'm sorry if this was posted already, but who make the Rocket chip, how much, etc...You can send it directly to me if you wish. Chris@msus1.bitnet
dale@pro-colony.cts.com (System Operator) (10/11/89)
Network Comment: to #10902 by pnet01!pro-tcc!jerryk@crash.cts.com > CS-ID: #10902.apple.ii/info-apple@pro-colony 1672 chars > Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 04:16:45 CST > From: pnet01!pro-tcc!jerryk@crash.cts.com (Jerry E. Kindall) > Subject: Re: Zip-Chip/Rocket Chip > > Network Comment: to #795 by SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu > [stuff deleted] > $C030. You can use the standard TransWarp POKE to turn the chip on and off > (and you don't have to reset the computer after changing speeds -- although > you don't have to with the Zip either, you do with the TransWarp). > You only have to reset the TransWarp if you turn the card off. You do not have to reset the card to change from one speed to another. Dale > _____ > ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com > | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pnet01!pro-tcc > |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry > ============================================================================== proline: dale@pro-colony uucp : crash!pnet01!pro-colony!dale inet : crash!dale@pro-colony.cts.com arpa : crash!pnet01!pro-colony!dale@nosc.mil ============================================================================== >>> pro-colony 214/370-7056 24 hours <<<
jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (Mike Jetzer) (10/11/89)
Articles recently have been saying how much better the Rocket Chip is than the Zip Chip. I currently have the 4 mhz Zip, but plan on upgrading to a faster chip as soon as I find someone who is really and truly shipping them. If the Rocket is significantly faster than the Zip, well, there goes my brand loyalty :-). However, I seem to recall last year something about the Rocket Chip not being compatible with Apple (aka Ramfactor) style memory expansion cards. Since both of my //e's have this type of card, the Rocket would be quite useless to me. Has this problem been fixed? -- Mike Jetzer "Hack first, ask questions later."
jerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") (10/12/89)
Network Comment: to #992 by dale@pro-colony.cts.com Thanks, Dale, for clearing that up. Since setting the Rocket Chip to 1 Mhz is the same thing as "turning it off", I thought that the TransWarp equivalent was also to "turn it off" -- which needs a reset. As you said, you can switch the card to 1 Mhz without turning it off, though -- you can't do that with the Rocket Chip, of course. _____ ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pnet01!pro-tcc |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry
UD169430@VM1.NODAK.EDU (Aaron Swiers) (10/12/89)
About the Rocket Chip vs. Zip chip, when I first started looking (right after the 5 MHz Zip chip came out, I was talking to a rep from Quality Computers, and he said that the Rocket Chip was not nearly as reliable and it quite frequently crashed while running AppleWorks. This was enough to steer me away from the Rocket Chip. (Although I have not as yet purchased either) I'm wondering if such problems still exist or if they have been eradicated. If so, it looks like I'm going to be looking at a 10 MHz Rocket Chip when I decide to get my accelerator (interpret as: when I can afford to get an accelerator.) I was "dreaming" of waiting till the 'IIgs+' came out (the faster one), but by the looks of things it may be quite a while, and I guess I'll be getting an accelerator anyway, even though I don't want to spend more money on my //e, as I plan to 'eventually' have a IIgs.
ST802148@BROWNVM.BITNET (Evan) (10/12/89)
I called Quality Computers and they said ALL compatability problems were fixed with numerous patches for the individual user....
jerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") (10/12/89)
Network Comment: to #998 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!marque!studsys!jetzer@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu The Rocket Chip problems with "Slinky" style memory cards were, I think, greatly exaggerated by the A+ review. From what I understand, the only program that ever caused a problem with that hardware combination was AppleWorks, and then only if you had the RAM card in a fast slot. I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that Bits and Pieces' new configuration software for the Rocket Chip includes an AppleWorks patch to alleviate the problem. >From ProDOS (as a RAM disk) and from other programs, there was reportedly no problem with the Rocket Chip and the Slinky RAM card. _____ ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pnet01!pro-tcc |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (10/14/89)
In article <8910110859.AA13733@trout.nosc.mil> dale@pro-colony.cts.com (System Operator) writes: > >> From: pnet01!pro-tcc!jerryk@crash.cts.com (Jerry E. Kindall) >[stuff deleted] > >> $C030. You can use the standard TransWarp POKE to turn the chip on and off >> (and you don't have to reset the computer after changing speeds -- although >> you don't have to with the Zip either, you do with the TransWarp). > >You only have to reset the TransWarp if you turn the card off. You do not >have to reset the card to change from one speed to another. To be even more exact, you don't have to reset the TransWarp at all. Its the motherboard 65x02 that you have to reset. Realize that the normal speed processor has been hanging around dormant the whole time the TransWarp was active, and turning the TransWarp off means you need to cold boot the motherboard. None of the 65x02 registers have been initialized, and who knows where the Program Counter is pointing. RESET just forces your regular processor to a known state. I have had the unpredictable luck of switching off the TransWarp and not having to RESET, probably because the main 65x02 just happened to execute a BRK instruction, or somehow decided to reset on its own. I have had the monitor do some strange things when attempting to change TransWarp speeds (but keeping the TransWarp active). Typing $C074:1 for slow speed or $C074:0 for high speed will sometimes lock up the computer. I have had trouble with using the monitor to do direct writes to hardware before, so I wrote two BIN programs to do the 'POKES' for me. These never lock the machine up when changing speeds. The problems I had with directly writing to hardware from the monitor were related to a 6581 (Commodore) SID chip (Sound Interface Device) board that I built. I made a habit of directly storing sound commands to the chip, but occasionally the monitor would screw up the volume register and I wouldn't hear the sound output anymore. So I would have to re-write a new output volume register value. I assumed that this was related to the 6502 bug/feature where index register addressing modes would sometimes do an access on a partially incomplete address. I.e. the monitor stores to STA (A3L),Y and (A3L) is put on the address bus (a read access) the cycle before the 6502 computes A3L + Y for the actual write address. This extra read doesn't hurt RAM addresses, but extra I/O reads can sometimes do damage. The confusing part was that I seem to remember having a R65C02 at the time - and I thought that the 65C02 corrected this anomaly? Also, why would a random read of a 6581 register or the TransWarp speed register change the value stored there if its not a write access? Anybody have any more details on why the monitor might screw up I/O accesses? Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
paul@pro-europa.cts.com (System Administrator) (10/15/89)
Comment to message from: UD169430@vm1.nodak.edu (Aaron Swiers) > About the Rocket Chip vs. Zip chip, when I first started looking (right > after the 5 MHz Zip chip came out, I was talking to a rep from Quality > Computers, and he said that the Rocket Chip was not nearly as reliable > and it quite frequently crashed while running AppleWorks. This was > enough to steer me away from the Rocket Chip. (Although I have not > as yet purchased either) I'm wondering if such problems still exist > or if they have been eradicated. If so, it looks like I'm going to be > looking at a 10 MHz Rocket Chip when I decide to get my accelerator > (interpret as: when I can afford to get an accelerator.) I remember Bits & Pieces were aware of the Appleworks bug when they sent a chip over here for review. My 10 MHz Chip works fine with AWorks although its primary function is running my ProLine system. Paul | UUCP: [ucsd, nosc] !crash!pro-europa!paul | "All that is necessary for the | | INET: paul@pro-europa.cts.com | triumph of evil, is for good | | ARPA: crash!pro-europa!paul@nosc.mil | men to do nothing." |