ISSLTC@NUSVM.BITNET (Lim Thye Chean) (06/05/91)
Hi. After reading so many replies on my original question 'Zip vs
Transwarp... which is better', I will settle down for Zip. This is
because all of you who cares to reply say Zip is better, that is 100%
agreement. So I assume Transwarp GS is an inferior product (at price/
performance ratio).
But two things almost change my mind. The first is the report on that
disgusting magazine A+/Incider. On the 4 reports they produce on a
10 MHz Zip with 64K cache, Zip is only slightly (2 seconds in some
case) faster than the 7MHz Transwarp GS with 8K cache. A similiar
report is on A2-Central (Title: The need for speed), where Transwarp GS
beats a 8MHz, 16K cache Zip GSX. So I really wonder, is Zip really
a faster board? It seems that Transwarp GS performs much faster on
the same MHz and same cache configuration.
The second point of view is my friend's experience who original have
a Transwarp GS, but later bought a Zip GSX (8 MHz, 16K cache). He
upgrade it to 64K cache, but found that in majority of the applications,
he only have about 1 second gain. But later I discovered that he
has replace 16K 70ns cache with 64K 100ns cache, and I am not sure
whether it will affect the speed. I always believe that if a processor
(in this case Zip GS) work faster than the memory can handle, the
computer will crash, so since my friend's GS is working properly, it
should means that Zip will works OK under 100ns or 70ns. The same
reason applies for buying 150ns, 100ns, 70ns memory chip for GS, it
won't increase the speed. But this is just my assumption.
So, any comment? Anybody have actually perform some bencemark test on
1) Zip vs Zip on different configuration, 2) Zip vs Transwarp?
I will appreciate any comments on my letter.
***********************************************************************
*** Apple IIGS Forever ***
An Apple IIGS lover from Malaysia. A software engineer from Singapore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact me at ISSLTC@NUSVM
Lim Thye Chean - Lim is my surname. My name is Thye Chean.
***********************************************************************jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) (06/05/91)
ISSLTC@NUSVM.BITNET (Lim Thye Chean) writes: >Hi. After reading so many replies on my original question 'Zip vs >Transwarp... which is better', I will settle down for Zip. This is >because all of you who cares to reply say Zip is better, that is 100% >agreement. So I assume Transwarp GS is an inferior product (at price/ >performance ratio). >But two things almost change my mind. The first is the report on that >disgusting magazine A+/Incider. On the 4 reports they produce on a >10 MHz Zip with 64K cache, Zip is only slightly (2 seconds in some >case) faster than the 7MHz Transwarp GS with 8K cache. A similiar >report is on A2-Central (Title: The need for speed), where Transwarp GS >beats a 8MHz, 16K cache Zip GSX. So I really wonder, is Zip really >a faster board? It seems that Transwarp GS performs much faster on >the same MHz and same cache configuration. It depends on what the benchmarks are done on. Personally, I wouldn't trust an A+/InCider figure if my life depended on it. Timing how long it takes to boot GS/OS is NOT a valid way to determine how 'fast' your applications will run. As Todd Whitesel has pointed out before, the Zip sports a 'latch-on-write' feature that makes it much faster than the Transwarp when dealing with slowdowns (like I/O and screen). >The second point of view is my friend's experience who original have >a Transwarp GS, but later bought a Zip GSX (8 MHz, 16K cache). He >upgrade it to 64K cache, but found that in majority of the applications, >he only have about 1 second gain. But later I discovered that he >has replace 16K 70ns cache with 64K 100ns cache, and I am not sure >whether it will affect the speed. I always believe that if a processor >(in this case Zip GS) work faster than the memory can handle, the >computer will crash, so since my friend's GS is working properly, it >should means that Zip will works OK under 100ns or 70ns. The same >reason applies for buying 150ns, 100ns, 70ns memory chip for GS, it >won't increase the speed. But this is just my assumption. Putting faster RAMs in a machine won't make the machine faster- the speed of a machine is determined by a clock crystal. As for your friend's Zip with the 100ns rams, it's a wonder it works at all. >So, any comment? Anybody have actually perform some bencemark test on >1) Zip vs Zip on different configuration, 2) Zip vs Transwarp? For real calculation intensive stuff, the 10MHz-64 Zip beat the 7Mhz-8 transwarp by 30-50%. (this is from inCider, so take it for what it is- but knowing cache design, there's no way the TransWarp truly could be faster. -- Jawaid Bazyar | "Twenty seven faces- with their eyes turned to Graduated!/Comp Engineering | the sky. I have got a camera, and an airtight bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu | alibi.." Apple II Forever! | I need a job... Be privileged to pay me! :-)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (06/06/91)
I have never used a Zip GS and have not used a Transwarp GS for
more than a total of like 10 minutes.
From what I have heard and read (from magazines and comp.sys.apple2),
the Zip GS is much more easily user-upgradeable. Buy a faster CPU & clock
chip, plug 'em in, and awaaaaay you go. Same with a larger cache. Buy 'em
yourself from a local store, and install 'em yourself, save tons of money
over sending it in to Zip.
You can do the same with the Transwarp (for the CPU at least), but
it's a total pain in the butt.. Dealing with the power upgrade necessary
if you want to go above X megahertz that is. (I forget what X is.. 9??)
I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp.
It SEEMS that the Zip is still being worked on and upgraded and
such too.. at least from what I've seen here, the technicians help you more
with your problems.. (and no goddamned $1.50/min 900 #! I think that when
people need help from TransWarp, they should call their REGULAR support
# and try to get help that way. You may be spending a few bucks in vain on
a phone call, but at least it's not going to AE, and you -may- find a nice
tech person willing to help you)
-just an amalgamation of info from someone who hasn't used either
product for an appreciable amount of time. (gotta keep putting
that disclaimer in!)
--
/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! unknown@cats.ucsc.edu\
|WANT to help get ULTIMA VI //e or GS written?-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me.|
\ It's a Late Night World.... Of Love /dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (06/06/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > You can do the same with the Transwarp (for the CPU at least), but >it's a total pain in the butt.. Dealing with the power upgrade necessary >if you want to go above X megahertz that is. (I forget what X is.. 9??) You missed the point completely here. The reason for dealing with the power upgrade was to get the WDC part to go faster, not the Transwarp. > I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp. Yes, you can. -- Derek Taubert --> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | GS stuff: GScii+ derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu | NeXT: give me a break, I just I've got an apartment network from hell... | started! How many of you can rlogin to the bathroom? | Unix: I do SYSV stuff too
PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) (06/06/91)
Somebody said... ">the Zip GS is much more easily user-upgradeable. Buy a faster CPU & clock >chip, plug 'em in,..." ^ ^ | |-------------------------- Is this true? ----------------------| The reason why I ask is the timing crystal on my Zip is soldered onto the board. This makes upgrading the CPU a pain cause you have to get a faster crystal too. Just wondering... What is the latest version of the Zip anyway? Andy Kress PYC121 AT URIACC.URI.EDU Apple II: The power to take over the world!
max@compaq.com (Max Heffler) (06/06/91)
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp. Yes, $109 for 32K. A few questions for the net: What are the tradeoffs? How much would it cost to get a ZipGS or ZipGSx that is roughly equivalent? Does it make sense to change over instead of upgrading? Does Applied Engineering have any plans for upgrading the speed of the TWGS? Thanx in advance. -- Max Heffler, Senior Software Engineer internet: max@compaq.com Compaq Computer Corporation uucp: ..!uunet!max@compaq.com P.O. Box 692000 - M050701 phone: (713) 378-8366 Houston, Texas 77269-2000 fax: (713) 374-7305
giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) (06/06/91)
In article <max.676218388@isis> max@compaq.com (Max Heffler) writes: >unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >> I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp. > >Yes, $109 for 32K. > Actually, A+ has an ad from Zip Tech saying that it's $49.95. Here are the other prices FYI: 7Mhz, 8k cache: $149.00 8Mhz upgrade : 29.95 9Mhz upgrade : 59.95 8k cache upgrade: 19.95 32k cache upgrade: 49.95 10Mhz: call 1-800-937-9737 An article in A+ says that 10Mhz with 64k is $429 list price. An ad from TMS later in the magazine has these prices: 7Mhz, 8k : $139 8Mhz, 16k: $179 9Mhz, 16k: $229 (1-800-626-MEGS) Both ZIP and TMS say that they ship by Federal Express. I don't know about Transwarp prices, but I think that the cheapest was $255. Rocky Giovinazzo
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (06/06/91)
In article <max.676218388@isis> max@compaq.com (Max Heffler) writes: >unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >> I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp. >Yes, $109 for 32K. Now does anyone know what the retail price (i.e. at an electronics store) for 32K of static RAM? (pick whatever 'reasonable' speed you want. I think 100 ms or less would be a useful price-comparing speed). What prevents you from going and buying your own static RAMs and plugging 'em in the Transwarp??? I don't definitively KNOW that anything does prevent that, it just seems nobody else upgrades their cache themselves.. (which, I -guess- saves at least 50% of the cost). Yet I know that's possible on the Zip GS, from what other people have said. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! unknown@cats.ucsc.edu\ |WANT to help get ULTIMA VI //e or GS written?-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me.| \ It's a Late Night World.... Of Love /
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (06/07/91)
PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) writes: > The reason why I ask is the timing crystal on my Zip is soldered onto the > board. This makes upgrading the CPU a pain cause you have to get a faster > crystal too. Just wondering... What is the latest version of the Zip > anyway? The timing crystal is soldered in because it is far more reliable to do so. Part of the TWGS's reliability problem comes from improperly seated parts that work themselves out of their heatmonger expansion card as you turn the machine on and off. Latest version should be 1.03, although they may still be shipping 1.02's until the first batch of 1.03's get back from the board maker. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (06/07/91)
ISSLTC@NUSVM.BITNET (Lim Thye Chean) writes: >Hi. After reading so many replies on my original question 'Zip vs >Transwarp... which is better', I will settle down for Zip. This is >because all of you who cares to reply say Zip is better, that is 100% >agreement. So I assume Transwarp GS is an inferior product (at price/ >performance ratio). > >But two things almost change my mind. The first is the report on that >disgusting magazine A+/Incider. On the 4 reports they produce on a >10 MHz Zip with 64K cache, Zip is only slightly (2 seconds in some >case) faster than the 7MHz Transwarp GS with 8K cache. A similiar >report is on A2-Central (Title: The need for speed), where Transwarp GS >beats a 8MHz, 16K cache Zip GSX. So I really wonder, is Zip really >a faster board? It seems that Transwarp GS performs much faster on >the same MHz and same cache configuration. > [big big big cut] I haven't read the latest A+/InCider... the magazine is generally trash so I don't waste my time. At any rate, if it's one second here or one second there (especially one second over 10 or 20) then the difference IN SPEED, IN THE BENCHMARKS THEY WERE USING, isn't significant. (Note that benchmark performance only shows how well a CPU runs that benchmark... any predictive value is inferred) If the speed difference between the TWGS and ZIPGS isn't significant (that's your IF, not mine), then to distinguish the two products, you'd better look to other criteria... reliability, upgradability, power consumption, compatibility, etc. I'm not telling you which one to buy. I'm saying that you should look beyond the numbers. ...IM ever so HO... (as always) +---------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Brown Toronto, Canada | | Internet: sb@pnet91.cts.com UUCP: utzoo!pnet91!sb | +---------------------------------------------------------+ | Apple II Forever !!! | +---------------------------------------------------------+ | Like my new .signature. ? Too bad. | +---------------------------------------------------------+
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (06/08/91)
In article <16728@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > What prevents you from going and buying your own static RAMs and >plugging 'em in the Transwarp??? Basically, the fact that it will not work.
geniusman@pro-hindugods.cts.com (Chris Moylan) (06/09/91)
In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU You can upgrade the cache on TWGS, with the upgrade kit now available. Also, you can upgrade the processor by replacing it and the clock chip in the upper right hand corner of th board. Also, Incider/A+ published a short article on upgrading TWGS by buying the parts directly from Western Digital and getting a clock chip from an electronics outlet (not just your average Radio Shack). Has anyone succesfully done this? I called AE and asked them (before 900 #, thanks god) and they said "Don't do it, it most likely won't work", but I think that might just be salesman talk. Anybody tried this? Chris Chris Moylan | ProLine: geniusman@pro-hindugods CoSysop: Hindu Love Gods BBS | Internet: geniusman@pro-hindugods.cts.com 313/644-0481 | UUCP: crash!pro-hindugods!geniusman 300-9600 bps, v.32/v.42/v.42bis | ARPA: crash!pro-hindugods!geniusman@nosc.mil
larry@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) (06/09/91)
In-Reply-To: message from geniusman@pro-hindugods.cts.com >Also, Incider/A+ published a short article on upgrading TWGS by buying the >parts directly from Western Digital and getting a clock chip from an >electronics outlet (not just your average Radio Shack). Has anyone >succesfully done this? I called AE and asked them (before 900 #, thanks >god) and they said "Don't do it, it most likely won't work", but I think >that might just be salesman talk. Anybody tried this? Does anyone remember what month and year this article was punlished? I remember reading it but cannot find the issue. Larry ---- ProLine: larry@pro-odyssey Internet: larry@pro-odyssey.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!larry ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!larry@nosc.mil
PKBRANDON@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU (06/10/91)
I believe that the InCider issue describing how to upgrade a TWGS to 13mz was an *April* issue. 'Nuf said! ------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Paul Brandon Psychology Dept Mankato State Univ --- --- PKBRANDON@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU Mankato, MN 56001 --- ------------------------------------------------------------------
jmueller@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Jim Mueller) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun9.101609.14933@crash.cts.com> larry@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >>Also, Incider/A+ published a short article on upgrading TWGS by buying the >>parts directly from Western Digital and getting a clock chip from an >>electronics outlet (not just your average Radio Shack). Has anyone >>succesfully done this? I called AE and asked them (before 900 #, thanks >>god) and they said "Don't do it, it most likely won't work", but I think >>that might just be salesman talk. Anybody tried this? > >Does anyone remember what month and year this article was punlished? I >remember reading it but cannot find the issue. > >Larry I called WDC about 6 months ago and they sent me a packet of information detailing what I would have to do to upgrade a TWGS to 13mHz, including names of distributors to call for parts and even the part numbers. I know Bill Heineman has his TWGS running at 13mHz, but he made _all_ the mods in the 'walk-thru' that WDC sent me, some of which can totally fry the board. -- |Jim Mueller | |Internet: jmueller@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu | |The University of Iowa | |"Many truths we cling to...greatly to our own point of view do they depend."|
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (06/10/91)
In article <F396299B60000BAB@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU> PKBRANDON@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU writes: >I believe that the InCider issue describing how to upgrade a TWGS to 13mz >was an *April* issue. 'Nuf said! Nope -- indeed some TWGS owners HAVE increased the speed of their CPUs to anywhere from 8 to 13MHz. The highest speed I've heard of that seems to be reliable is 10MHz. One can get 65816 chips from WDC, in SMALL quantities, that are certified for operation at high speeds; they come with a so-called Shmoo plot delineating the range of speed vs. applied Vcc. For speeds above 9MHz, you almost always have to crank up the DC power supply above the nominal 5V level, perhaps as high as 6V. This is not something to be done lightly, and it is best to sever the TWGS power traces from the rest of the IIGS and increase the voltage only for the TWGS, not the rest of the IIGS. Apart from possibly needing to jack up the voltage and install a CPU chip capable of faster operation, one needs to replace the crystal oscillator with one running at a higher rate (4x the CPU clock rate). At higher speeds, you may also have to replace the TWGS RAM with faster versions. I don't recommend performing such an upgrade, except possibly to as much as 9MHz with no adjustment of power supply voltage. (I.e. just two "chip" replacements.)
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (06/11/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <16728@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >> What prevents you from going and buying your own static RAMs and >>plugging 'em in the Transwarp??? >Basically, the fact that it will not work. Oh, really? I don't suppose you've ever read the letter on the do-it-yourself 13MHz TWGS. It will work. -- Derek Taubert --> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | GS stuff: GScii+ derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu | NeXT: give me a break, I just I've got an apartment network from hell... | started! How many of you can rlogin to the bathroom? | Unix: I do SYSV stuff too
markj@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Johnson) (06/11/91)
I upgraded my transwarp by just buying a faster crystal. I am now running at 8 MHZ with a 32 MHZ crystal. A wierd thing though I tried a 32.512 MHZ crystal and the speed droped to 6.5 MHZ. A 36 meg crystal gives me a transwarp error # 2. -- Mark Johnson | __o markj%nuchat.uucp@uhnix1.uh.edu | -\<, markj@nuchat.uucp | .........O/ O 713/827-0523 (CDT) Houston, TX |
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.200742.25946@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: -gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: ->In article <16728@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: ->> What prevents you from going and buying your own static RAMs and ->>plugging 'em in the Transwarp??? ->Basically, the fact that it will not work. -Oh, really? I don't suppose you've ever read the letter on the do-it-yourself -13MHz TWGS. It will work. What does talk about a 13MHz upgrade have to do with increasing cache by plugging in the wrong style of RAM chips?
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (06/12/91)
>Oh, really? I don't suppose you've ever read the letter on the do-it-yourself >13MHz TWGS. It will work. >-- >Derek Taubert --> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | GS stuff: GScii+ You've done it and have a fully functional 13MHz TWGS running now? What problems did you run into? UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (06/13/91)
|">the Zip GS is much more easily user-upgradeable. Buy a faster CPU & clock |>chip, plug 'em in,..." ^ | ^ | | |-------------------------- Is this true? ----------------------| | The reason why I ask is the timing crystal on my Zip is soldered onto the | board. This makes upgrading the CPU a pain cause you have to get a faster | crystal too. Just wondering... What is the latest version of the Zip | anyway? | | Andy Kress | PYC121 AT URIACC.URI.EDU The crystal can be snipped off, there is 14-pin socket right (or was), next to the crystal, which you can plug in an oscillator. I noticed that Zip took the socket off, in the recent versions of 1.02. The only reason, I could come up with was that the socket didn't hold the oscillator very well, and you were better off soldering the sucker in. I tried it... I had to bend the pins on the oscillator to make it stay... even then it wouldn't stay prefectly still. The highest speed Zip offers is 10Mhz, 64K, split-cache. The fastest I have heard anyone having, is 12.5Mhz, 128K, split cache, owned by someone named Harold on Online America. He saids, he's a retire engineer, developer, so I don't doubt him. INET: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com UUCP: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf ARPA: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf@nosc.mil
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (06/13/91)
|In article <max.676218388@isis> max@compaq.com (Max Heffler) writes: |>unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: |>> I don't even know if you CAN upgrade the cache on the Transwarp. |>Yes, $109 for 32K. | | Now does anyone know what the retail price (i.e. at an electronics |store) for 32K of static RAM? (pick whatever 'reasonable' speed you want. |I think 100 ms or less would be a useful price-comparing speed). | | What prevents you from going and buying your own static RAMs and |plugging 'em in the Transwarp??? I don't definitively KNOW that anything |does prevent that, it just seems nobody else upgrades their cache themselves |(which, I -guess- saves at least 50% of the cost). | | Yet I know that's possible on the Zip GS, from what other people |have said. 100ms... they don't even make DRAMs that slow... maybe you're looking for an HD... no that's too slow to... maybe a CD ROM... Just kidding, you probablely meant 100ns. Anyways, for TWGS you need 70ns I believe, which should be about round $15-20, I would guess. It's pretty hard finding high speed SRAMs out side of CA. (I'm going to visit my brother one day in CA and go to Fry's, I live on the East Coast. I think the TWGS upgrade come on they're own circuit boards, too. It's tough to upgrade if you don't know the pin outs and stuff. Better just to hand over the $100 or switch to the Zip GSX. The SRAM on the Zip GSX is socketed on the card, unlike the TWGS which it surface mounted and to upgrade you have to use those awesome expansion connectors... (sarcasm intended)... there isn't room on the TWGS to add anything. The Zip GSX uses highly intregerated ASIC to reduce the # f components to just 6-8 chips which includes the SRAMs. The TWGS, has to go to the smaller surface mounted devices to cram everything on the card. So there you have it. INET: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com UUCP: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf ARPA: crash!gnh-starport!whitewolf@nosc.mil