rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (04/17/89)
Andy Nicholas writes: (regarding some performance notes on the TWGS) > Also, in all fairness, you should have tried something that was written > on the IIgs _specifically_ for high performance text editing -- > unfortunately, I'm not aware this _is_ anything that fits that bill that > anyone can talk about right now -- but, how about trying wordperfect across > all the product lines? That would seem to be a fairly decent test of > "performance" and throughput... > The prob>lem I have with that test is that the performance of AppleWorks GS > is already known to be sluggish, and MicroEMACS is a bulk port of code > using APW C, which has yielded a very sluggish editor yet again. Even the > slow APW text editor is faster than most anything else... but it's > restricted to 64k of text to edit. (as is/are most other IIgs editors). You missed a couple of things there, Andy -- I wasn't trying to test the word processors themselves, just the difference in performance with and without a TransWarp, which was the subject of the message. The three other times were thrown in as "comparisons" -- AppleWorks at normal //e speeds, and a couple of popular editors from the Mac and IBM worlds. I'd love to have tested Word Perfect, but I don't have it, for any of the machines. > *Apple IIgs 7.0 mHz AppleWorks 2.0 25 sec. 35 sec. Also, I didn't use AppleWorks "GS", but AppleWorks 2.0. I could have borrowed a copy of the GS version, I suppose, but as you point out, it's known to be very sluggish. I chose those editors because (a) I have them, (b) they are all in very widespread use, (c) they all work on RAM based files so disk I/O is eliminated [except, of course, for the load times], (d) they would all handle files of that size, and (e) AppleWorks (2.0) happens to be available across the Apple II product line and is probably quite well known to the majority of the readers of this group. I could have used AppleWriter, APW, Merlin, or any of a number of other text editors, also, but (again, as you pointed out) they only handle 64k or smaller files, and I wanted to work with a larger file -- something more in keeping with the GS's potential. (The size of the test file was dictated by the IBM -- all the others could load a larger file!) I'd =love= to have a "high performance" editor for the GS -- as soon as you give me the name of one that's *currently available*, I'll check it out. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anything which falls into that category. Of course, you mentioned that point, too. We do "what we can" with "what we've got"! I have no doubt that the speed will be much greater on my Apple IIGS-XS-enhanced, with its 65864 running at 50 mHz, and using GS Turbo Edit -- someday!! :-) Rich Sims UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com