asong@pro-nbs.cts.com (Andi Song) (03/19/91)
Well, you misunderstand the importance of microprocessor speeds.
You cannot gauge computers strictly by their speeds (in mhz), as different
computers do different things. For example, you can say that the Apple IIgs
runs Appleworks 2.6 times faster than a stock Apple IIe, which runs at 1
megahertz. The Mac (not including the LC) cannot run Appleworks, so here
there is no standard to grade the speeds by. If the Mac with a 68000
microprocessor could run Appleworks, it would most likely be at 7.8mhz, and
that would indeed be faster than a IIe and a GS. But it doesn't, so you
cannot really say that the Mac is faster than the GS. The Mac has a faster
chip because it needs more "horsepower" to run its programs with the
Graphic User Interface (GUI). As opposed to the IIe running its text-based
program, when 1mhz is usually adequate.
The closest you could probably come to when comparing a Mac and a
GS is comparing similar programs, such as graphic word processors. Like
pitting BeagleWrite GS against MacWrite. Then you would notice a difference
in window scrolling speeds, and editing functions. When it comes to
comparing Mac and IBM, maybe the best thing to do is to compare Mac with a
33mhz IBM running Windows. And compare the speeds at which the windows can
scroll.
When you say that the IBM 33mhz is about 40 times faster than the
IIgs, you think straight clock speed. But you have to realize that it might
have to do more in that time, thus requiring the faster processor.
Andi Song
----
ProLine: asong@pro-nbs
Internet: asong@pro-nbs.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pro-nbs!asong
ARPA: crash!pro-nbs!asong@nosc.milrhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (03/20/91)
>>>>>>
When you say that the IBM 33mhz is about 40 times faster than the
IIgs, you think straight clock speed. But you have to realize that it might
have to do more in that time, thus requiring the faster processor.
<<<<<<
Ain't that the truth!
This, btw, is why people bash the Apple II series these days. Sure, an
Apple II gs with a TWGS runs Appleworks as fast as a Mac or PC running EXCEL.
But the Mac and the PC (386) are doing *so much more*. If someone is happy
with Appleworks, the GS is fine. Most people prefer the cute GUI over
text. Most people like the added functionality (DDLs, WYSIWYG, graphics,etc.)
That's why people buy Macs and PCs rather than Apple IIgs machines to run
their business software.
Unquestionably the 680x0 and 80x86 processors (today) are faster than the
65c816. Its the computer itself faster? Perhaps not. It just does more.
Several years ago when quizzed about the powerful CPU in the Lisa yet the
incredible slowness of the machine, Apple replied that they were going to
use CPU power to improve the user interface and make the software more
powerful. They weren't simply going to speed up existing applications.
That has been the trend. Better CPUs have allowed programmers to write in
HLLs (a trend I do not agree with, as a user). Better CPUs have allowed
the use of high density bit-mapped graphics (I'm not talking about a
9" Mac screen here [which is actually smaller, memory-size-wise, than a GS]).
The only hardware I've seen that truly increases speed is the addition of
more memory. This is under the control of the user, not necessarily the
manufacturer. Systems with more memory are generally faster and much more
capable than systems with little memory. plucky.duck@pro-midnightex.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (03/22/91)
In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu Er... I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not, but there are many GS specific programs out there that offer WYSIWYG and graphics, etc. I don't understand why you say "that's why people buy Macs and PC's to run their business software." If you have a GS, the software and capability is THERE. Just use it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLine: plucky.duck@pro-midnightex / tg.exc@pro-harvest| The Toxic Revenger! | INET: plucky.duck@pro-midnightex.cts.com |---------------------| UUCP: crash!pro-midnightex!plucky.duck | If you have an HP | ARPA: crash!pro-midnightex!plucky.duck@nosc.mil | DeskJet for sale, | BITNET: plucky.duck%pro-midnightex.cts.com@nosc.mil | please e-mail me. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (03/23/91)
I own an Apple //gs, a Mac, and a 386 Clone. There are many things I can do on my other machines that I cannot do on the GS. There are precious few things I can do on the GS I cannot also do on the other machines. But you are right, *if you already own a GS* you can probably find software to satisfy basic needs (assuming you're not a full blown "power user"). I would hate to imagine something like Quark XPress running on a GS. It's much too slow for that (even with a TWGS, my Mac II FX is a little too slow for Quark XPress!). *** Randy Hyde
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (03/25/91)
In article <12997@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >It's much too slow for that (even with a TWGS, my Mac II FX is a little too >slow for Quark XPress!). >*** Randy Hyde You've got a TWGS in your Mac IIfx??? :-) "I just can't help myself!" -- David Huang | "Calzoni Pizza: Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | Delivery in six UUCP: ..!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | hours, or else your America Online: DrWho29 | pizza is cold."
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (03/25/91)
>>>>You've got a TWGS in your Mac IIfx??? :-)
Whoops! Brain fry from reading too many posts. I don't know what I was
thinking. I suspect I really wanted the "(" after the TWGS.
:-)
*** Randy Hydemranger@pro-odyssey.cts.com (Richard Kissel) (03/28/91)
In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu sorry ---- ProLine: mranger@pro-odyssey Internet: mranger@pro-odyssey.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!mranger ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!mranger@nosc.mil