mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (03/22/89)
Ok; I'll try to go in order of messages but I'm not sure I'll make it. Paul Wenker writes: >2) Using BRL's period. A JMP instruction is 1 cycle faster. True, but BRL's don't have to be relocated by the loader. This isn't always (or even sometimes) relevant for ROM code, but not all the code in ROM 01 was originally written just for the ROM. Scott Lindsey writes: ----- On a related topic, I've never really understood why people use AX like that. Is there really any advantage over lda temp3 sta temp3+2 lda temp7 sta temp7+2 which is how (I think) the `movelong' I use does it. ----- (forgive the missing ">"s) If I'm making several copies of the long, I can load it once and store it as many times as necessary. I did this once in the segment and therefore did all the immediately following long moves the same way out of a noble sense of consistency. "matthew@sunpix.UUCP" writes: ----- For those of you that have also received this file, I'll save you the trouble of reading more than necessary. I just wanted to say that one of the functions of my shell program includes installing a Prodos-compatible clock from software, based on the 60 Hz interrupts of a mouse card in slot four. So if you don't want to buy a physical slot card, use the clock or iclock commands under shell and one will be installed for you. ----- Sounds nifty, 'cept it won't work on IIc's sold for the past three years. All of THOSE have the mouse in slot 7. A very small addition of a slot scan would make it work on all II models and saved a lot of users a little grief. Robert Brown writes: ----- A friend of mine told me he read an interesting article the other day. He said the article said, GS programmers were not writing efficent code. It sounds like they got more room from when they were writing 6502 code, and they took advantage of the extra, room shall we say... ----- Not in my experience. Oh, sure there are some *little* inefficiencies here and there, but on an overall scale GS software is much more efficient and tighter than Macintosh software. Have you seen some of those big utility programs that run just fine on a Mac II or IIx on a 68000-only machine? Some of them are *slow*. I can't tell you how many Mac software reviews I've read this past year that says "XWare will run on an SE with 2 megabytes of memory, but you really need the speed and memory of a Mac II to make it a nice program." Sure, a lot of the GS software is pushing the machine really far. But if you ported the code to the Mac with the same degree of efficiency, it would *fly*. That's about it, I guess. I may get used to this network someday. ============================================================================== Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that AppleLink PE: Matt DTS GEnie: AIIDTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its CompuServe: 76703,3030 | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, Usenet: mattd@apple.com | have any opinion on any subject." UUCP: (other stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | "So there." =============================================================================