[comp.sys.apple] Transwarp vs Zip

SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (04/11/88)

 Heiko Blume <mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!blume@uunet.uu.NET> writes:
>>I know the Zip chip is coming out and claims to do the
>>same thing for $130,
>
>sure wont, since the transwarp card has 256KB so it doesnt have
>to use the slower ram on the motherboard / 80 col card

Note that the Zip chip, like some other accelerator boards uses
a memory cache.  While that means it won't run entirely at the
3.6MHz speed, it isn't slowed to 1MHz either (except for 5.25 inch
drive I/O which is timing dependent).  I use an accelerator with
a 5K cache (the Zip chip alleges an 8K cache) and the timing
difference between things like a data base sort or a global search
and replace with my word processor is 2.8 (My //e is 2.8 times
faster with the accelerator active).  I'd expect the Zip chip
to perform about as well.  So, the cost difference between the
Transwarp card and the Zip chip buys a relative speed improvement
of roughly 28.5%.

Even the transwarp can't get away from the slower RAM on the
80 column card since it still has to use that to display doesn't
it (even by-passing the card's ROM and accessing the ctrc directly
doesn't make the display much faster -- about 4800 baud display
rate is all an Apple <software scrolling 8-( > 80 column card will
do)?

---------------------
Disclaimer: If my employer tries to express my opinion, I'll sue
            for violation of the "look and feel" of this message!
            (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)

ARPA:   sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu       Murphy A. Sewall
BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM                          School of Business Admin.
UUCP:   ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL  University of Connecticut

blume@netmbx.UUCP (Heiko Blume) (04/15/88)

> Even the transwarp can't get away from the slower RAM on the
> 80 column card since it still has to use that to display doesn't
> it (even by-passing the card's ROM and accessing the ctrc directly
> doesn't make the display much faster -- about 4800 baud display
> rate is all an Apple <software scrolling 8-( > 80 column card will
> do)?

yes, the problem is that the video circuit is hardwired to use the motherboard/
80col card memory. but it seems that is speeded up somehow anyway...when i run
the hardisk check, the text in 40 col mode scrolls so fast that only the first
two or so rows of pixels from some lines get to the crt before the ram is 
updated again...
 
access // can receive and display serial data with  9600 bps,
aztec's tty prgm keeps up with the at$ menu from my modem at
19200 bps *with* scrolling the stuff above.

the major feature that transwarp has for me is that i can select which slots
to use at 3.6 or 1 Mhz, since many cards (like my hardisk controller and 
SerialPro) can be used with 3.6 MHz . especially ramworks etc are used 
at full speed.
anyway the zip chip seems to be a nice thing !

have phun !

--
Heiko Blume                    # DOMAIN: blume@netmbx.UUCP { BITNET: ( mixed }
Seekorso 29                    # BANG  : ..!{backbone}!netmbx!blume 
D-1000 Berlin 22, West-Germany # Phone : (+49 30) 365 55 71 or ... 365 75 01
Telex : 183008 intro d         # Fax   : (+49 30) 882 50 65 

-- 
Heiko Blume                    # DOMAIN: blume@netmbx.UUCP { BITNET: ( mixed }
Seekorso 29                    # BANG  : ..!{backbone}!netmbx!blume 
D-1000 Berlin 22, West-Germany # Phone : (+49 30) 365 55 71 or ... 365 75 01
Telex : 183008 intro d         # Fax   : (+49 30) 882 50 65 

jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (04/17/88)

These postings talking about Tranwarps vs. Zips
are neat,
but....

are there any real Zip Chips out there?????

Reviews, please!!!!!!

(It's been a long wait)


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.