FNSOKO@WEIZMANN.BITNET (Asaf Sokolowski) (07/18/88)
The GS+ rumors have no doubt excited many GS owners and owners to be
- and rightfully so. Heck, this machine is like a dream come true, but how
soon and what will it take for this dream to become reality! I will try
the SPECULATE the answers to these questions and perhaps add a few
comments along the way... (keep in mind that the following represents my
personal thoughts and speculation alone - read: no qualification)
The introduction of the gs+ as things are today is not as yet
visible (I hope i'm wrong but i think so ). I'm sorry if that was a
little to blunt for some of you, however, i think so and by the end of
this writing you may too (-:. At this point, i would like to make
something very clear - I'm not a Mac-lover, on the contrary, i think
that for general home use the gs surpasess the macs. (You
will see later why this statement was important).
The $10000 prize question is of course WHY? Why aren't things ready
for a gs+ intro. according to some idiot with no marketing experience
what so ever ( that's me). The gs+ info ( all based on rumor and picked
up from postings on this list alone) is very good: Speed:~7.4MHz, higher
resolution and of course more colors and fixes. These are very nice
numbers and should have made this computer - just right (not to heavy
not too light (-:). The gs+ can't touch the Mac// market (Speed,
Resolution, colors, +),however, this machine could hurt the SE - don't
you think. Lets look at some numbers:
.
SE * //gs+
speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x
SCSI yes yes
color no 256
Resolution normal-mac Rumored better than SE
sound 4 voice (sw) 15 voice (hw)
I put it to you - which would you buy for office use?
* I am not counting in the optional card which makes the SE run at MAc//
speed for two reasons a) You are left with a slotless SE
b) It costs extra not only in the pocket but
also in the mind.
Ok, you creep (just talking to myself no offense intended) - What's your
answer? I'd say the answer if possible is a faster SE (15.xMhz will
do). By the way I don't mean for the next gen. of macs i mean soon.(notice i
didn't say mac// Res and hopefully not price - just the speed). This
suggested change will make room for the gs+ and in my opinion probably
crush rising rivals (ie: AMIGA) and help defend the Apple market against
IBM.
Disclaimer:... etc
P.S. Does any of you know if the //gs is marketed in Japan?
P.S.S. Still waiting for the gs to be intro. here in Israel although both
SE and Mac// were introduced quite a while ago...well, perhaps
there is hope for a //gs+ intro. - i'm crossing my fingersoliver@thelink.UUCP (Joel Sumner) (07/21/88)
>In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: > SE * //gs+ >speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a 16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) I would think that 8 extra bits to work with would have some sort of increase in speed not to mention the 816's 8 bit data path limit to the rest of the machine... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | oliver@thelink.UUCP |AT&T (219) 291-8343| GEnie K.SUMNER [Joel] | | (Joel Sumner) |----------------------------------------------------| |USnail 1505 Sheffield Ct. | It is always darkest before the lights go out | | South Bend, IN 46614| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ken@hpclkms.HP.COM (Kenneth Sumrall) (07/21/88)
/ hpclkms:comp.sys.apple / oliver@thelink.UUCP (Joel Sumner) / 2:51 pm Jul 20, 1988 / >In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: > SE * //gs+ >speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a 16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) I would think that 8 extra bits to work with would have some sort of increase in speed not to mention the 816's 8 bit data path limit to the rest of the machine...
ken@hpclkms.HP.COM (Kenneth Sumrall) (07/22/88)
/ hpclkms:comp.sys.apple / oliver@thelink.UUCP (Joel Sumner) / 2:51 pm Jul 20, 1988 / >>In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: >> SE * //gs+ >>speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x > >Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a >16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) > >I would think that 8 extra bits to work with would have some sort of increase >in speed not to mention the 816's 8 bit data path limit to the rest of the >machine... Sorry about the previous posting with no new information. I am used to using rn and am now being forced to use notes against my will, and I haven't learned it yet. The real problem with comparing these clock speeds is that on the 68000, each bus access cycle takes FOUR CPU clock cycles, whereas on the 65816 and ilk, each bus access cycle takes ONE CPU cycle. This makes quite a difference when running programs that manipulate large amounts of data, and I think that a 8 Mhz 65816 would outperform an 8 Mhz 68000 in many applications. Of course, you pay a penalty in RAM prices since an 8 Mhz 65816 would require 70ns RAM. BTW, please don't flame me for voicing my humble opinion, since my flame retardent suit is at the cleaners. Kenneth Sumrall INTERNET: ken%hpclkms@hplabs.hp.com
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (07/24/88)
>>In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: >> SE * //gs+ >>speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x >Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a >16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) >I would think that 8 extra bits to work with would have some sort of increase >in speed not to mention the 816's 8 bit data path limit to the rest of the >machine... Nope... its the other way around. In order to address memory, the 68000 must take an extra step for the extra address. However, the real story is not in clock speed, but in Instructions per second (IPS). The 65816 generally takes fewer cycles to perform the same basic tasks (reading, addressing, writing) than the 68000, no to mention the Intel 8088 and its family. In a nutshell, a 7.6 MHz 65816 would be effectively faster in most operations than a 7.6 MHz 68000. Yep, a 7.6MHz GS+ would be a super machine (sigh). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------| > | oliver@thelink.UUCP |AT&T (219) 291-8343| GEnie K.SUMNER [Joel] | > | (Joel Sumner) |----------------------------------------------------| > |USnail 1505 Sheffield Ct. | It is always darkest before the lights go out | > | South Bend, IN 46614| | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu ============ disclaimer: These opinions are mine and will remain so until more intelligent or insightful or informed people are kind enough to show me the error of my ways. Remember: A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) (07/26/88)
In article <1260002@hpclkms.HP.COM> ken@hpclkms.HP.COM (Kenneth Sumrall) writes: >/ hpclkms:comp.sys.apple / oliver@thelink.UUCP (Joel Sumner) / 2:51 pm Jul 20, 1988 / >>>In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: >>> SE * //gs+ >>>speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x >> >>Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a >>16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) >> >>... >... >running programs that manipulate large amounts of data, and I think that a >8 Mhz 65816 would outperform an 8 Mhz 68000 in many applications. Of course, >you pay a penalty in RAM prices since an 8 Mhz 65816 would require 70ns RAM. Exactly. On the pro side for the 68000, there is the larger datapath width (double), the existence of (reasonably) high speed advanced arithmetic (multiplication particularly), and the existence of a large number of registers. On the pro side for the 65816, there is the dramatically fewer cycles per instruction, and the existence of a relocatable zero page which effectively give you up to .5*(64K - stack_size) 16-bit registers with zero context-switch overhead. In short, there is no means for comparison. I personally feel that a 8 MHz 65816 would run circles around a 8M 68000 for general purpose applications, but would be just as dramatically pitiful when doing any arithmetic. Graphics would probably be slightly faster for general drawing and slightly slower for plain image moves.
maddie@crash.cts.com (Tom Schenck) (07/26/88)
In article <1260001@hpclkms.HP.COM> ken@hpclkms.HP.COM (Kenneth Sumrall) writes: >/ hpclkms:comp.sys.apple / oliver@thelink.UUCP (Joel Sumner) / 2:51 pm Jul 20, 1988 / >>In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> Asaf Sokolowski writes: >> SE * //gs+ >>speed in MHz (standard) 7.x 7.x > >Excuse me but isn't comparison of Mhz speeds between a 32-bit 68000 and a ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >16-bit 65SC816 kinda like comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended) The 68000 is only SIMULATING a 32-bit processor. In actuallity, it is really a 16-bit processor. Tom Schenck, Member 52nd St Development Team -- UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!maddie ARPA: crash!pnet01!maddie@nosc.mil INET: maddie@pnet01.CTS.COM Disclaimer : The only company who's thoughts are my own is owned by me. Tom Schenck, member 52nd Street Development Team.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/29/88)
In article <8807182116.aa05050@SPARK.BRL.ARPA> FNSOKO@WEIZMANN.BITNET (Asaf Sokolowski) writes: >... ,however, this machine could hurt the SE - don't you think. NO! That's the line of thinking that has been killing Apple II progress at Apple. The IIGS and the SE address considerably different audiences. Mostly, such a choice is going top be motivated by support for desired software packages. The IIGS and the SE have little application software in common, so the choice will be pretty straightforward. (Actually other computer brands need to be factored in too; the IBM PC is more of a Mac competitor than is the IIGS.)