lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) (12/01/90)
I just got an unsolicited "Sierra News Magazine" from
Sierra Online today and in it was an article about a
revamped version of Stellar 7 using VGA graphics,etc
I looked in their ordering section to see if it was
available for the //gs (I loved Stellar 7), but it
wasn't listed.
Any rumors on if there will be a //gs version out there?
--
Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer
AOL: Gargoth / BIX: Keving / Pro-line: kgreen@pro-angmarunknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Dec1.040457.22532@world.std.com> lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) writes: .I just got an unsolicited "Sierra News Magazine" from .Sierra Online today and in it was an article about a .revamped version of Stellar 7 using VGA graphics,etc .I looked in their ordering section to see if it was .available for the //gs (I loved Stellar 7), but it .wasn't listed. . .Any rumors on if there will be a //gs version out there? I doubt it, so WRITE to Sierra to request a GS version! Stellar 7 wasn't my favorite game or anything so this will probably be one that I don't write in for, but I really hope other people that are interested -do- write in for it! (But if you only write in for one, write in for Ultima VI //e and IIGS!) -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) (12/02/90)
In article <9621@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > I doubt it, so WRITE to Sierra to request a GS version! Stellar 7 >wasn't my favorite game or anything so this will probably be one that I don't >write in for, but I really hope other people that are interested -do- write >in for it! I had already planned to write and ask for a //gs version, just wondering if there was any rumors that it was being written. I just have to wait until I get to work and use my slave (er Mac plus...blech) to do a nice laserprinted version of the letter. (I will write the actual text on a //gs at home..so fear not...the Mac is but my toy). -- Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer Party naked... /AOL: Gargoth / BIX: Keving / Pro-line: kgreen@pro-angmar
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/02/90)
In article <7578@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > I don't know if writing to Sierra will do any good, >as Dynamix wrote the re-port. Sierra just publishes >it. Well, write to Dynamix ALSO... It can't hurt to write to the publisher also! If there's enough interest, the publisher could ask Dynamix to do a GS version, couldn't they? -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/03/90)
> I just got an unsolicited "Sierra News Magazine" from > Sierra Online today and in it was an article about a > revamped version of Stellar 7 using VGA graphics,etc > I looked in their ordering section to see if it was > available for the //gs (I loved Stellar 7), but it > wasn't listed. > > Any rumors on if there will be a //gs version out there? Stellar 7 was one of my all-time favourites back in the early 80's. Geez, I could use a few rounds of that game right now... To answer your question directly, "No". As far as Sierra is concerned, the IBM comes first, the Amiga, ST and 64 second, and the Apple II's last. I'm willing to bet a competent GS assembly programmer can make Stellar 7 run faster on a GS than on a 286 (or even 386). Fill-mode graphics and multiple-palette graphics would be put to VERY good use in this game. Perhaps a shareware programmer can thumb his/her nose at Sierra and write their own version? \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) (12/03/90)
In article <7578@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > > I don't know if writing to Sierra will do any good, >as Dynamix wrote the re-port. Sierra just publishes >it. I quote from Sierra News Magazine Fall 1990 p16 under the heading Dynamix, Inc. : Visionary Entertainment with distinctive style paragraph 1: "In Spring 1990, the six-year-old Eugene, Oregon based computer entertainment company, Dynamix, Inc., becamse part of the Sierra On-Line family. Much like Touchstone Pictures is to Disney, Dynamix represents an expansion for Sierra into new, and perhaps more serious, product catagories." If not to Sierra, who shall I write Parik? -- Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer Party naked... /AOL: Gargoth / BIX: Keving / Pro-line: kgreen@pro-angmar
tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (12/05/90)
In-Reply-To: message from lucifer@world.std.com
>Regarding GS version of Stellar 7...
I guess you haven't heard. Sierra dumped the Apple II line. So, I for one,
dumped Sierra. They aren't making any Apple IIGS products anymore. I don't
really care... a lot of their stuff was forgettable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest
ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc
BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/06/90)
In article <6111@crash.cts.com> tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from lucifer@world.std.com >>Regarding GS version of Stellar 7... >I guess you haven't heard. Sierra dumped the Apple II line. So, I for one, >dumped Sierra. They aren't making any Apple IIGS products anymore. I don't >really care... a lot of their stuff was forgettable. Have they said they're never gonna make GS programs again? I don't think so.. Their adventure game compiler/whatever for the GS is just too damn slow. They've said that if/when Apple puts out a faster GS, they may come back into the GS market.. Someone could get a job from them to improve their game maker/compiler.. But even though they said they aren't writing GS programs anymore, that doesn't mean a write in for Stellar 7 GS wouldn't help because Stellar 7 isn't written in their adventure game program (obviously).. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/06/90)
|From: Terry Guelfo <crash!pro-harvest.cts.com!tg.exc@NOSC.MIL> |In-Reply-To: message from lucifer@world.std.com | |>Regarding GS version of Stellar 7... | |I guess you haven't heard. Sierra dumped the Apple II line. So, I for one, |dumped Sierra. They aren't making any Apple IIGS products anymore. I don't |really care... a lot of their stuff was forgettable. What do you mean, you dont care??? If you gave a damn about the future of the Apple II, you'd care. We must at all costs prevent the Apple II from becoming isolated from the mainstream of computing. There is little enough reason to buy an Apple II; If there's no software, there will be no reason at all. Sierra hasn't "dumped" the Apple II. They HAVE stopped making IIgs versions of their new software...because the IIgs is too slow to run SCI (the Sierra Creative Interpreter), but Mr. Williams said that the IIgs SCI would be completed if accelerators became popular enough, or if Apple upgraded the IIgs. Neither of these things, of course, will happen. (Don't start whining about assembly language, virtually no software companies program on the metal anymore. Most major software companies port programs down from mainframes. software producers shouldn't be forced to program seperate versions on seperate machines.) Stellar-7 could be done on the IIgs...but it still wouldn't be as good as the PC version. I hope everyone out there who thought that the Mac LC would be a boon to the Apple II (by spurring interest) has learned their lesson. It didn't spur any interest, it delivered a message to software producers: "last orders please." You may have noticed my recent posts about building a new II outside of Apple. I would support this action since it would take the future of the Apple II out of the evil hands of Mac Inc. (Ewww...scathing attack!!!) ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/07/90)
From $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr): >Stellar-7 could be done on the IIgs...but it still wouldn't be as good as > the PC version. No way... if that were the case, why is Sierra bothering with the Atari and the Amiga then? Games using SuperVGA or Mac II enhanced video would be so much nicer than ST or Amiga graphics. What do you mean "it still wouldn't be as good as the PC version"? Is that an excuse not to write the game? It should be re-phrased "Stellar-7 will be good enough on the GS." Certainly a heck of a lot better than the original, and that was awesome. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/09/90)
In reply to two messages from Brian Tao: |>Stellar-7 could be done on the IIgs...but it still wouldn't be as good as |> the PC version. | | No way... if that were the case, why is Sierra bothering with the Atari |and the Amiga then? Games using SuperVGA or Mac II enhanced video would be so |much nicer than ST or Amiga graphics. What do you mean "it still wouldn't be |as good as the PC version"? Is that an excuse not to write the game? It |should be re-phrased "Stellar-7 will be good enough on the GS." Certainly a |heck of a lot better than the original, and that was awesome. Why is Sierra bothering with the Atari and Amiga? In this case, they aren't. Stellar-7 has only been released for PC clones and for no other machine. I don't believe that they will make Atari ST or Amiga versions (at least, they didn't say so in the article.) Besides, Sierra didn't write the game, Dynamix (i.e. Damon Slye) did. Dynamix is doing several other games for the PC and I really don't think he (or Sierra) gives a flip about what happens with the Apple II anymore. |> Someone posted that Sierra has released a new version of Stellar-7 and |> asked when a GS version would be written. It'll never be written. The GS |> cant do what that program needs it to do. Stellar-7 uses VGA (640x480 |> graphics) with 256 colors; the GS cant do 640x480 and cant do 256 colors |> in its highest (640) mode. | | I hope your way of thinking does not reach Sierra! The original Stellar-7 |on the Apple II ran in hi-res graphics (280x192) in monochrome. It was an |excellent game. What's wrong with Stellar-7 running on a GS in 320x200 mode? |Fill-mode graphics and hidden-line removal is old hat now (i.e.: various FTA |demos, Polyognia, etc, etc) Add really powerful stereo sound effects to it, |and it would rival (and surpass) the VGA version. I never said that Stellar-7 wasn't an excellent game. I own it, and have spent more time than I would like to admit on that game. As far as the "powerful stereo sound effects" go, perhaps you haven't heard the Roland LAPC-1 for the PC. The article didn't say that Stellar-7 supports it, but coming from Sierra, I'd imagine it did. The Ensoniq cannot surpass the LAPC-1. The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no match) With the FTA demos, you're still talking about a program written on the metal. I bet anything that Stellar-7 on the PC wasn't written that way. And you can't demand that a company write a machine-specific version for the IIgs. BTW, for which gs would you have them write it for, the ROM01 or ROM03 (since we can't use tools...much too slow to handle what the FTA does) ? There are no two ways about it...The Apple IIgs hardware must be upgraded. |"/"/"/"/"/"/"/"/"/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | |/ " | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | |" The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | |/ Lives On!! " |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| |" / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | |/"/"/"/"/"/"/"/"/" | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) | ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (12/09/90)
In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU
>Have they ever said they're never gonna make GS programs again?
YES, they have. They said the GS is too damn slow. Well, that's their
problem if they don't want a transwarp or a ZipGSX.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest
ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc
BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (12/09/90)
In-Reply-To: message from $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET >What do you mean you don't care??? I mean I DON'T CARE. I'm tired of fighting. I could care less anymore. I have a GS system, with an RGB, System saver, 2.75megs ram, 2 3.5", 2 5.25", and ... lesse... 5 disk boxes of GS software. We're talking, about 300 or so programs, at LEAST. I've got enough to keep me going on the GS for a few years. If I want new games, I'll buy em for my Nintendo. Fact is, I'm tired of everyone complaining about Apple, Co (yes, I've been guilty of it, too, but I've stopped) and tired of Apple kicking the II users in the teeth. I've had enough and that's that. >Stellar-7 could be done on the IIgs...but it still wouldn't be as good as the >PC version. HA HA HA HA HA! You should add an IMHO to that. I happen to think the complete opposite, IMHO. But, hey, that's life. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney.... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/09/90)
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >LAPC-1 for the PC. The article didn't say that Stellar-7 supports it, but >coming from Sierra, I'd imagine it did. The Ensoniq cannot surpass the LAPC-1. >The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no match) Ah, but the LAPC-1 doesn't come standard. How much does it cost? >which gs would you have them write it for, the ROM01 or ROM03 (since we can't >use tools...much too slow to handle what the FTA does) ? That's a totally unfounded statement. The FTA screwed up. Apple's guidelines are more than reasonable and they don't force anyone to use QuickDraw. I maintain that the FTA is just too damn lazy to write S16 versions of their programs that use the memory manager. O/S friendly 3200 color viewers have been written -- the "Z" demo is also an example -- I've got 60 frame/sec animation hacks that run from BASIC even. The main difference between FTA demos and real programs is that FTA demos are closed and refuse to be compromised. Brian Greenstone's -ware games all use tools. Brian can't design playable games, but they are all technically superb. >There are no two ways about it...The Apple IIgs hardware must be upgraded. On this we both agree. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (12/10/90)
Just as a note, FTA has virtually no technical books from Apple because their grasp of the english language is poor (at best) and no GS tech books are in french. Also technical books in France cost * A LOT *, and when you see how many GS books there are, its astounding. We're lucky we live in the USA; programmers in foreign countries have a very tough time. This holds true not only for the GS, but as any astute amiga user will hold, just about every Euro-programmer breaks every damn rule...:) (but hey! If you'd like FTA to follow the rules... feel free to hire someone to translate all the technical books to French and ship 'em over!) -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | | | Parik Rao, Univ. of California Santa Barbara... 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | |_America Online:AFA Parik_______________________________________GEnie:P.RAO_|
NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) (12/10/90)
Someone obviously has little experience in the synthesizer field
out there...Comparing the Roland to the Ensoniq proves and solves nothing. BOTH
support excellent synthesis, the difference is that the Ensoniq (though a b*tch
to program) is a *built in* digital synthesizer. It is NOT a 'sound chip' but
a full fledged digital-sampling-synthesizer. And if you want to get down to add
ons (such is the Roland LAPC to the PC) then lets compare your PC with Roland to
my GS with Audio Animator by AE and a Midi keyboard. NO COMPARISON! The sound
on a IIgs beats even a MAC! Don't you know that even the most ardent supporters
of the PC will admit that 'if you want to do music, buy and Apple (Mac or GS)'?
IBM showed up here at Buffalo State College over the summer and set up
a big open air demo stand for the PC in the quad. They had the Roland with a
MIDI keyboard set up and I checked it out. Nice, and the mouse with the GS/MAC
style graphics was familiar too. I went home thinking that for about 500$ less
I had more and better sound than what they tried to impress me with! Such that
I consider my GS to be a mini 'Fairlight' but 9000$ cheaper. The only thing that
impressed me about the Roland Ripoff was 'Oh, IBM is trying to imitate Apple,
how cute....'
- Joe NowakowskiMQUINN%UTCVM@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (12/10/90)
>The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no match) CGA level????? In 320 mode in CGA, you have FOUR colors! In 320 mode on the GS, you can have up to THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED colors! Hardly a comparison. Or, a little more practical... TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX colors! Hardly a comparison. Or, at the lowest end, SIXTEEN colors (4 times the CGA limit). Hardly a comparison. Not only does the GS have 4 times as many colors as CGA, but those 16 colors can be chosen from a pallette of FOUR THOUSAND NINETY SIX colors. Hardly a comparison to CGA. CGA has FOUR pallettes of FOUR colors each. That's it. Hardly a comparison. I'd say the closest graphics mode on the IBM that the GS's graphics can be compared to is VGA. And believe me when I say this. I work EXTENSIVELY with CGA, EGA, VGA, and the GS's graphics every day. >There are no two ways about it...The Apple IIgs hardware must be upgraded. It's certainly long overdue for routine improvements. ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/10/90)
In article <6203@crash.cts.com> tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU >>Have they ever said they're never gonna make GS programs again? >YES, they have. They said the GS is too damn slow. Well, that's their >problem if they don't want a transwarp or a ZipGSX. Well, I disagree with this again... Maybe I'm confusing what some other company with what I thought Sierra said, but I don't think so. I think that Sierra has said that they will make more GS software when a speed-upgraded GS comes out. I realize that is the "right" thing to say... What I mean is that you don't want to say that you won't write for it, you say that if a faster one comes out you'll write for it.. Since it seems a speed-upgraded (out of the box) GS seems very very unlikely, the point's moot. I still think that Brian Greenestone or one of you other GS whizzes should try to get a contract with Sierra to improve/rewrite their adventure game "compiler"... If I were currently a GS author, I would at least make the attempt if I were looking for a job. Another attempt would be to get a job at Origin writing Ultima V GS or Ultima VI GS or //e. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/10/90)
|From: APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST | <NOWAKO09%SNYBUFVA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> | | Someone obviously has little experience in the synthesizer field |ut there...Comparing the Roland to the Ensoniq proves and solves nothing. BOTH I'd say it does. I know the synthesizer field. Ensoniq makes expensive synths like the Mirage which, though good enough for many applications (such as sampling, does not have the sound quality of comprably priced Roland or Yamaha equipment. Face it, the Ensoniq DOC has some sharp limitations...like the fact that it does not produce full range sound (like DSPs and 16-bit oscillators). |support excellent synthesis, the difference is that the Ensoniq (though a b*tc |to program) is a *built in* digital synthesizer. It is NOT a 'sound chip' but |a full fledged digital-sampling-synthesizer. And if you want to get down to ad |ons (such is the Roland LAPC to the PC) then lets compare your PC with Roland |my GS with Audio Animator by AE and a Midi keyboard. NO COMPARISON! The sound |on a IIgs beats even a MAC! Don't you know that even the most ardent supporter |of the PC will admit that 'if you want to do music, buy and Apple (Mac or GS)' Your right, no comparison, the LAPC-1 wins hands down. A single chip cannot beat a board full of chips. The LAPC-1 (or the MT-32, a MIDI device which CAN be hooked up to a GS) has 32-voices, with a lot of built-ins. The LAPC-1 dosent do sampling (which is it's only dim spot). The Ensoniq does sound very good, but I wouldn't compare them feature for feature. When you consider that PC systems cost less than GSs, the LAPC-1 really shows its value. You have to add either a Sonic Blaster or an Audio Animator (or some homebrew circuitry) to get stereo out of a GS (i.e. Apple didn't put RCA stereo line-outs). The LAPC-1 has a module that connects to it, containing stereo line-outs, MIDI-In, MIDI- Out, MIDI-Thru, and a tape sync. Plus there is a lot of software for the PCs that allow it to run MIDI. Look, I like the sound capabilities of the Apple IIgs. But the MIDI market has passed the II by. I have a Computers and Music catalog for '85 (they are a company that reviews music hardware/software and sells some too), back then, the Apple II was king of musical computers. The Apple II had more products for it than any other machine (only the C-64 came close). But all that's gone now. Most companies have gone over to PCs or Macs (and some to Atari STs). Barely will you hear mentioned the Apple II anymore. | IBM showed up here at Buffalo State College over the summer and set up |a big open air demo stand for the PC in the quad. They had the Roland with a |MIDI keyboard set up and I checked it out. Nice, and the mouse with the GS/MAC |style graphics was familiar too. I went home thinking that for about 500$ less |I had more and better sound than what they tried to impress me with! Such that |I consider my GS to be a mini 'Fairlight' but 9000$ cheaper. The only thing tha The Ensoniq has about 1/9 the capability of the Fairlight. You can buy PCs with synth cards for much less than the Apple IIgs (mostly because the GS is so overpriced). Sampling is the only problem with the PCs and Macs...the Audio Animator produces decent samples for dirt cheap...excluding the Mac LCs and such (which are still too expensive), samplers for Macs and PCs are relatively expensive. What used to be a nice system was the old Alpha Syntauri (i.e. the Mountain Computer music boards with a Proxima keyboard) with a Decillonix DX-1. There were some fine programs for those boards. The Alpha Syn., though designed in in 1980, still rivals a GSs sound. And the Decillonix DX-1 (1984) made samples every bit as good as the Audio Animator, but programs used the board to do loop samples with the Alpha and expanded its capabilities. (I'd give my right arm to have an Alpha Syntauri board set and a Decillonix DX-1) |impressed me about the Roland Ripoff was 'Oh, IBM is trying to imitate Apple, |how cute....' I should even diginify that shot...The LAPC-1 is one nice board. It's the perfect starting point for a MIDI system on a PC | - Joe Nowakowski ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (12/10/90)
In article <1990Dec9.132414.19329@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >>LAPC-1 for the PC. The article didn't say that Stellar-7 supports it, but >>coming from Sierra, I'd imagine it did. The Ensoniq cannot surpass the LAPC-1. >>The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no match) >Ah, but the LAPC-1 doesn't come standard. How much does it cost? For informational purposes only: Carlisle Computer (959 Hill Rd., Las Cruces, NM 88005) sells the LAPC-1 for $425 (plus shipping, I'd imagine). (Source for this info: _Computer_Shopper_, December 1990, page 385.) I don't think the Ensoniq runs for anywhere near $425--not to mention that GS owners don't have to buy it since it's built in (but we all knew that!). Does everybody need an LAPC-1 built-in? At $425 a pop, I'd hope not. (BTW, I thought I'd reply to Mark Orr's comment about the "CGA-level" graphics of the GS...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 colors?) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/11/90)
In article <F111A8CDA61FC0B0D3@snybufva.bitnet>, NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) writes: > Someone obviously has little experience in the synthesizer field > out there...Comparing the Roland to the Ensoniq proves and solves nothing. BOTH > support excellent synthesis, the difference is that the Ensoniq (though a b*tch > to program) is a *built in* digital synthesizer. It is NOT a 'sound chip' but > a full fledged digital-sampling-synthesizer. And if you want to get down to add > ons (such is the Roland LAPC to the PC) then lets compare your PC with Roland to > my GS with Audio Animator by AE and a Midi keyboard. NO COMPARISON! The sound > on a IIgs beats even a MAC! Don't you know that even the most ardent supporters > of the PC will admit that 'if you want to do music, buy and Apple (Mac or GS)'? I thought Amiga had the best sound, even though the new Atari STe has an even better sound chip than in the Amiga. (This I read in a review) I have heard the Roland MT-32, and to say the least, it was incredible! The problem still with a GS is that its too slow. (I know, you can get Transwarp, or ZipGS, but you can't rely on someone having it.) I've used a GS a lot, but what is the standard speed of one? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/11/90)
In article <6203@crash.cts.com> tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU >>Have they ever said they're never gonna make GS programs again? >YES, they have. They said the GS is too damn slow. Well, that's their >problem if they don't want a transwarp or a ZipGSX. Please don't post incorrect information. I've discussed this matter with Sierra, and have posted the actual story here before. Briefly, Sierra's SCI implementation for the IIGS was not fast enough. Sierra studied the issue of offering discounts on TWGS to purchasers of SCI-based IIGS games, also simply warning "TWGS recommended" on the box. They determined that neither approach would be economically viable, thus no SCI products are being released for the IIGS. (This includes all their recent animated adventure games, such as King's Quest V.) If a fast-enough implementation of IIGS SCI were available, several Sierra animated adventure games would probably be ported to the IIGS. This has nothing to do with games like Stellar 7 that are not based on SCI, however. The only consideration there is whether enough GS games would be sold to justify the development expense. Since it is much more expensive to port non-SCI/AGI games, it is unlikely that Sierra would determine that that is economically viable either. If they happened to acquire a IIGS implementation of something like Thexder, I imagine they would market it, but if resources had to be committed to producing a IIGS port of such a game, odds are against it happening. Given Apple's perceived lack of support for the IIGS, made if anything worse by the recent announcement of an Apple //e emulator for the Mac, and the software industry perception of low expected sales for Apple II and IIGS software (other than in the educational market), it would be pretty stupid of Sierra to put much additional effort into IIGS development.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/11/90)
In article <9907@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > I still think that Brian Greenestone or one of you other GS whizzes >should try to get a contract with Sierra to improve/rewrite their adventure >game "compiler"... If I were currently a GS author, I would at least make the >attempt if I were looking for a job. Another attempt would be to get a job >at Origin writing Ultima V GS or Ultima VI GS or //e. Right on! I estimate that a "stock" IIGS with 1.125MB of memory is fully as capable as a typical IBM PC clone; thus if a top-notch IIGS programmer worked on it, Sierra SCI (thus the majority of their recent games) and Ultima V/VI should be able to work nicely on a IIGS. I don't think the //e is feasible, though, not so much because of slow speed (although that does hurt) as because of constrained RAM access -- memory management would be just too painful.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/11/90)
In article <2445@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 colors?) I like my IIGS, but I would never claim that its SHR graphics is very good. The nearest PBM PC family equivalent is somewhere between CGA and EGA, so "CGA-level graphics" is not too far off.
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/11/90)
|From: SCOTT ALFTER <unsvax!uns-helios!alfter@UUNET.UU.NET> |I don't think the Ensoniq runs for anywhere near $425--not to mention |that GS owners don't have to buy it since it's built in (but we all |knew that!). Does everybody need an LAPC-1 built-in? At $425 a pop, |I'd hope not. But wait...Let's talk complete systems. Once you add in a monitor, a hard disk, software, etc. the PC based systems with the LAPC-1 are quite competitive with the GS. Depending on what you get, the PC-system may even be cheaper. This wouldn't be a factor if the Apple IIgs cost, say half of what it does now. |(BTW, I thought I'd reply to Mark Orr's comment about the "CGA-level" |graphics of the GS...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 |colors?) Oh wow...you have colorful, but still low resolution. No way you slice it, you cannot compare a 320x200 to a 640x480 screen; you can whine all you want about colors. When I said CGA-level, I didn't mean that the GS had CGA, but CGA-equivalent resolution. RESOLUTION, GOT IT!!!!!!! NOT FREAKING COLORS!!!!! -------------------------------- BTW, I was reading a copy of MacWorld I saw on a bookrack somewhere. They were reviewing the Mac LC...the second to last paragraph mentioned something interesting: It suggested that this is the perfect opportunity to dump the IIe and IIgs (what do you expect coming from Mac people). But it also said that the Mac LC is designed for fully automated production, and that the only Apple now produced without human assistance is the Apple IIgs. Now Apple has a reason to dump the IIgs. Since Apple is having problems producing enough Mac LCs, they can stop IIgs production and retool for Mac LC production. < read the current issue reviewing the Mac LC, see how little Mac users think of us > |Scott Alfter _/_ | / v " Apple II: |Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! | GEnie: S.ALFTER "_^_/ ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | "Sure eagles may soar, | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | but weasels don't get sucked into | @ LSUVM.BITNET | jet engines" ----------------------------------
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (12/11/90)
|From: Terry Guelfo <ucselx!crash!pro-harvest.cts.com!tg.exc@UCSD.EDU> |In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU | |>Have they ever said they're never gonna make GS programs again? | |YES, they have. They said the GS is too damn slow. Well, that's their |problem if they don't want a transwarp or a ZipGSX. What they said was: "were not going to complete our SCI interpreter until accelerators get sufficiently popular (i.e. most gs users have them) or when Apple upgrades the gs." (which is about the same thing as you said) No, it's our problem...If Sierra stops making programs for the GS, then alot of other people will too. We cannot afford to become isolated from the mainstream of product development. The Apple IIgs must be upgraded. ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | "Sure eagles soar, | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | but weasles don't get sucked into | @ LSUVM.BITNET | jet engines." ----------------------------------
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (12/11/90)
In article <14702@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >Briefly, Sierra's SCI implementation for the IIGS was not fast enough. >Sierra studied the issue of offering discounts on TWGS to purchasers >of SCI-based IIGS games, also simply warning "TWGS recommended" on the >box. They determined that neither approach would be economically viable, >thus no SCI products are being released for the IIGS. (This includes >all their recent animated adventure games, such as King's Quest V.) >If a fast-enough implementation of IIGS SCI were available, several >Sierra animated adventure games would probably be ported to the IIGS. There is an obvious opportunity for an assembly whiz here- convert the C based implementation of SCI to 65816 assembly. Hand optimized, of course. It would rock over the C based SCI for the 'x86 series, to be sure. And Sierra would be happy. On a side note, the incredible slowness of "Mystery House" didn't stop them from producing it... >This has nothing to do with games like Stellar 7 that are not based on >SCI, however. The only consideration there is whether enough GS games >would be sold to justify the development expense. Since it is much more >expensive to port non-SCI/AGI games, it is unlikely that Sierra would >determine that that is economically viable either. If they happened to >acquire a IIGS implementation of something like Thexder, I imagine they >would market it, but if resources had to be committed to producing a >IIGS port of such a game, odds are against it happening. The situation seems to revolve around the '816s lack of speed for such things as high level languages. This is indeed a problem, although one that could be solved by a 8MHz Apple-produced IIgs (as is possible according to Tony Fadell's conversations with Apple engineers). >Given Apple's perceived lack of support for the IIGS, made if anything >worse by the recent announcement of an Apple //e emulator for the Mac, >and the software industry perception of low expected sales for Apple II >and IIGS software (other than in the educational market), it would be >pretty stupid of Sierra to put much additional effort into IIGS >development. I agree, but I don't have to like it. Basically what is needed is an Apple-endorsed accelerator, maybe even for Apple to produce one. Given Apple's resources, they could do it, and if they could sell it as cheaply as they do the DMA SCSI (there's not too much involved in an accelerator, esp. with Apple's gate-array ability) I could imagine a heck of a boost in support from third-parties. This problem, as do many others, revolves around Apple. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Being is Mathematics Senior/Computer Engineering | Love is Chemistry jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | Sex is Physics Apple II Forever! | Babies are engineering
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (12/12/90)
In article <14704@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <2445@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >>...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 colors?) > >I like my IIGS, but I would never claim that its SHR graphics is very good. >The nearest PBM PC family equivalent is somewhere between CGA and EGA, so >"CGA-level graphics" is not too far off. The GS's SHR graphics are definitely better than CGA. Although the resolution leaves much to be desired, if you look at the 320x200 mode, which is used in most games for both the GS and the IBM, I would put the GS's graphics between EGA and VGA. The GS has 16 colors out of a pallete of 4096 on one scan line, and 16 palletes so you can easily get 256/4096, and with some timing, 3200/4096, although I don't think an animation-intensive game would be able to use the 3200 color mode. IBM VGA in 320x200 mode has 256 colors out of 262,144 right? I think GS graphics come pretty close to that. Now if the GS could get 640x480 or 1024x800, I would be very happy :-) -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/12/90)
Well, if the people who make the accelerators made them just a WEE bit
cheaper, I'm sure just about everybody would have one. I haven't looked
at prices in quite a while, but I think they were about $300 - $400.
- Andrew.
Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu
BITNET: AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNETMQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (12/12/90)
On Mon, 10 Dec 90 16:49:43 CST Mark Orr said: > >|(BTW, I thought I'd reply to Mark Orr's comment about the "CGA-level" >|graphics of the GS...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 >|colors?) > >Oh wow...you have colorful, but still low resolution. No way you slice it, >you cannot compare a 320x200 to a 640x480 screen; you can whine all you want >about colors. When I said CGA-level, I didn't mean that the GS had CGA, but >CGA-equivalent resolution. RESOLUTION, GOT IT!!!!!!! NOT FREAKING COLORS!!!!! If you're gunna talk resolutions, let's discuss the most used and popular resolution used with VGA Graphics. Let's see, that would be 320x200? Right? Right. With 256 colors. Colors is just as an important issue with graphics as resolution is. From my experience with computer graphics, my personal opinion is that the amount of colors available is more important than the resolution. I'd MUCH rather have a 320x200 high color mode than 640x480 black and white mode (not implying that VGA high mode is BW). Beyond a certain resolution (about 320x200) for good, decent graphics, color will greately improve the appearance of the graphics than resolution will. Unless you're using CAD or something else that requires high resolution (DTP) color is a MAJOR issue. Besides, you're comparing the GS's lowest resolution to VGA's highest resolution. If it's resolution you're comparing, then you should say it's 640x200 vs. 640x480. I could compare VGA's lowest resolution to the GS's highest resolution and come up with this: 640x200 (gs) vs. 320x200 (VGA) OR, I could compare it with a graphics overlay card: 640x400 vs. 320x200. I don't want to sound harsh, but when making comparisons, try to stick to the highest of both being compared, not the lowest of one and the highest of the other. > >-------------------------------- > >BTW, I was reading a copy of MacWorld I saw on a bookrack somewhere. They were >reviewing the Mac LC...the second to last paragraph mentioned something >interesting: It suggested that this is the perfect opportunity to dump the >IIe and IIgs (what do you expect coming from Mac people). But it also said that >the Mac LC is designed for fully automated production, and that the only >Apple now produced without human assistance is the Apple IIgs. Now Apple has >a reason to dump the IIgs. Since Apple is having problems producing enough >Mac LCs, they can stop IIgs production and retool for Mac LC production. >< read the current issue reviewing the Mac LC, see how little Mac users think >of us > > >|Scott Alfter _/_ >| / v " Apple II: >|Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! >| GEnie: S.ALFTER "_^_/ > >---------------------------------- >| MARK A. ORR | "Sure eagles may soar, >| $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | but weasels don't get sucked into >| @ LSUVM.BITNET | jet engines" >---------------------------------- For those interrested,... Here's what the MacWorld article says (I stole this issue form the office:) ------------ As for the education market, the mac LC has tougher competition. Universities may want more power and expandability than the mac LC offers [THEN GET A GS, DA MNIT!]--especially if they are connecting to a UNIX network or doing multimedia work. But for K-through-12 schools, the mac LC, with its Apple IIe board and low-cost color, [ABOUT 400% THE COST OF THE //E OR MORE!] is a good deal [COMPARED TO A CRAY]. Apple claims that the mac LC will sell to schools for th e same price as--or even less than--an Apple IIGS [TRY TWICE AS MUCH!]. Now more than ever, it makes sense for Apple to phase out the Apple IIGS [ACCOR DING TO WHAT PLANET'S LOGIC?] and maybe even the Apple IIe. The mac lc is desi gned so that it can be assembled completely by robotics once the production vol ume is up enough to justify it. Currently, only Apple's manufacturing facility in Singapore has experience assembling machines with no human contact [IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE]--and that's on the Apple IIGS line. Couple that with the Mac l c's expected price equivalency to the Apple IIGS for schools, and the no-holds- barred approach Apple took to anabling complete Apple II-compatibility [COMPLET E??? I THOUGHT THE GS WAS THE 'CURRENT' APPLE II???], and it doesn't make much sense for consumers to choose an Apple IIGS. [IF THEY WANT TO PAY TWICE AS MUC H FOR A MACHINE WITH VIRTUALLY NO EXPANDABILITY AND LOWER QUALITY SOUND AND ABO UT EQUIVELENT GRAPHICS WHEN YOU COMPARE THE AMNT OF RESOLUTIONS THE GS HAS AND THE AMOUNT OF COLORS IT CAN SUPPORT AT ONE TIME] Overall, the mac lc is a winner [ON THE SIDE OF APPLE FOR PROFIT MARGIN]. It's a solid machine with good performance and capabilities at an aggressive price [AGGRESSIVE PRICE IS RIGHT! IT ALMOST CHOCKED ME WHEN I SAW THE PRICE!]. Afte r several disappointing mac introductions (most notably, [THE FIRST ONE TO HIT THE MARKET??] the protable and the mac IIci), Apple has shown that it can s till be innovative AND competitive [SO THEY ADMIT IT? THE APPLE II IS INNOVATI VE?... COMPETITIVE? WITH WHAT? A 68020 TO A 486? PRICE WAYS MAYBE]. --------------------- By the way, that was page 87 of the Dec. 90 issue of macworld and the uneducate d fool who wrote it was Cheryl Spencer. editor in chief is Jerry Borrel. MacWorld communications, inc., 501 second street, san francisco, CA 94107 Have at it! ;-) ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (12/12/90)
On Mon, 10 Dec 90 21:23:20 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > >I thought Amiga had the best sound, even though the new Atari STe has an >even better sound chip than in the Amiga. (This I read in a review) I have >heard the Roland MT-32, and to say the least, it was incredible! Amiga??? Better SOUND? Nope. The GS's sound is equal to the Amiga's sound squared... that is, the Amiga produces 4 voices while the GS produces 15 (or more with clever programming). >The problem still with a GS is that its too slow. (I know, you can get >Transwarp, or ZipGS, but you can't rely on someone having it.) I've used a >GS a lot, but what is the standard speed of one? The GS's native speed is 2.8Mhz...7Mhz Transwarped and 8+Mhz Ziped. BTW, a 1Mhz GS is FASTER than a 4.77Mhz ibm. The official Apple notes say that the Apple //e (1Mhz) is equal to about .5 MIPS. I would imagine, that the GS in native mode is 2.8 times this (1.4MIP S?) if that .5MIPS is correct. Is that the way it works? Anyone? I'm really stepping out of my league when I'm talking about MIPS. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu > / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) > /(____/__(_) o)_/ > /) [ || ] Atari Computers, > "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just > Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast > gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/13/90)
>>The official Apple notes say that the Apple //e (1 mhz) is equal to about
.5 MIPS
HA!
The Apple IIe can execute about 500,000 NOPs per second. In terms of real
instructions it can do about 0.15-0.2 8-bit MIPs. If you want to talk about
RISC MIPs, try 0.04. If you want to compare it to high-end CISC MIPs, try
0.01.-Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) (12/13/90)
Hi all, I own both an Amiga 500 (with a 1084S moniter, S is for stereo), and an Apple //gs. The amiga sounds much better than a ROM 1 //gs. I have not heard a ROM3. I have heard a friends, with the Bose speakers in stereo, and the sound is great, but I cannot enjoy it for all of the noise. On paper, the //gs is better. Hearing both, running normal programs, the Amiga is better. But I have not turned on my Amiga since I moved, and have purchaced a HD for my //gs, and a ZipChip, which dosent work with my RAMFAST. Given a choice, I use my Apple //gs. But in real life, Amiga has better sound than a ROM1 machine. This may not be true for a ROM3 however... Rich -Rich-@cup.portal.com
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/13/90)
-Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) writes: >a HD for my //gs, and a ZipChip, which dosent work with my RAMFAST. Given a Delete the RAMFAST.DRIVER and it should work until you can call Zip and get an RMA number. Zip knows what the problem is, and they should have the new boards in by now. >choice, I use my Apple //gs. But in real life, Amiga has better sound than >a ROM1 machine. This may not be true for a ROM3 however... Welp, the difference here is that the Amiga has four voices with on board stereo, and the IIgs has 15 or more voices WITHOUT on board stereo. If you get a good stereo amplifier for the GS (like the AE sonic blaster) then the GS's sound is far from noisy. I routinely play soundsmith songs with a sonic blaster though my box or my headphones and it isn't noisy at all. The tinny internal GS speaker, however, is a joke. It's there because educators who buy GS's don't care about 15 voice sound quality. Even so, the ROM 03 is far more noise-free than the ROM 01 (I've talked to the ROM 03 engineers). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (12/13/90)
In article <36863@cup.portal.com> -Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) writes:
[stuff re the Amiga sounding better than a GS...]
The Amiga has a lot going for it but you must have been listening to a
defective GS to say that it doesn't sound as good! The only computer
that I have used( and now mainly use) that has better sound is the NeXT.
You must not have been listening to the "right" programs. Try listening
to Diversi-Tune or a synthLab sequence, The Amiga has basically a
similar sound to the Mac, not bad but not great. I have a ROM03 GS but
I don't think the noise level was that much higher on the ROM01. At
least this is a humorous note. In any case, listen again!
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[my own opinions, you hear!]tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (12/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET
>RESOLUTION, GOT IT!!!!!!! NOT FREAKING COLORS!!!!!
Yah, got it. I'll bet that 640x480 resolution is just dandy in only FOUR
colors. <big grin!> :) j/k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest
ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc
BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |Knights of the Plex: Reardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Sheckel) (12/13/90)
In article <14703@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >Right on! >I estimate that a "stock" IIGS with 1.125MB of memory is fully as capable as >a typical IBM PC clone; > It isn't. Even the oldest PC clones with 8088 processors are at least twice as fast as stock IIgs's, and the 8088 processor has a much more functional instruction set than the '816. That was yesterday. Today's typical PC clone is a 16MHz 32-bit machine with at least 2MB memory, a GUI, and graphics that blow the IIgs away. > >thus if a top-notch IIGS programmer worked on it, >Sierra SCI (thus the majority of their recent games) and Ultima V/VI should >be able to work nicely on a IIGS. I don't think the //e is feasible, though, >not so much because of slow speed (although that does hurt) as because of >constrained RAM access -- memory management would be just too painful. > I agree with this. If Atari could make, for their 8-bit computers, a nearly perfect adaptation of Defender, and make it fit in a 16K ROM cartridge, then certainly one could make King's Quest V or Ultima VI run on a IIgs. I doubt if they could swing a Wing Commander or a Stellar 7, though, simply because of the demand on processor speed. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
meekins@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (timothy lee meekins) (12/13/90)
In article <36863@cup.portal.com> you write: >Hi all, > > I own both an Amiga 500 (with a 1084S moniter, S is for stereo), and >an Apple //gs. The amiga sounds much better than a ROM 1 //gs. I have not >heard a ROM3. I have heard a friends, with the Bose speakers in stereo, and >the sound is great, but I cannot enjoy it for all of the noise. On paper, the >//gs is better. Hearing both, running normal programs, the Amiga is better. > > But I have not turned on my Amiga since I moved, and have purchaced >a HD for my //gs, and a ZipChip, which dosent work with my RAMFAST. Given a >choice, I use my Apple //gs. But in real life, Amiga has better sound than >a ROM1 machine. This may not be true for a ROM3 however... Huh? The ROM 3 machine simply has a different ROM than the ROM 1 machine. There are is no major HW differences (except maybe the keyboard stuff). I have a feeling from your comments that you haven't seen the GS's sound capabilities unleashed.. Have you heard Diversi-Tune or synthLAB??? SoundSmith is nice, but it isn't the best.. I really doubt that the Amiga's sound can take on the IIgs.. (I'm not saying the Amiga is bad, just that the GS's sound capabilities are far greater than those of the Amiga). If you want your Zip Chip to work with your RamFast, call Zip Tech. and ask for the ROM upgrade... > > Rich > -Rich-@cup.portal.com -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II << >> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! << >> timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> << -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) (12/14/90)
Philip writes (please excuse the lack of return paths, portal strips
them off, I download the post, and upload the response,
but no mail header is available to edit)
>In article <36863@cup.portal.com> -Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne
)
>writes:
>
>[stuff re the Amiga sounding better than a GS...]
>
>The Amiga has a lot going for it but you must have been listening to a
>defective GS to say that it doesn't sound as good! The only computer
>that I have used( and now mainly use) that has better sound is the NeXT.
>
I did qualify that, "running normal programs". I do not use dedicated
music programs, though I have heard Synthlab on a ROM1. The music was
great, but the random data bursts, in my opinion, made the number of
voices and all numbers worthless. Like listening to a Stratavarius (sp?)
through a tin can, what is the point. This was through a Stereo system
with the BOSE speakers. However, Silpheed has a pretty catchy beat, but
that is through the 1" speaker. The Amiga has much better stereo sound
through the 1084S. Many programs use music, listen to Hybris on the Amiga.
I do not want to get into a Computer A is better than Computer B argument,
but in my experience, with stock systems, the music or sound from the
regular Amiga applications sound better. My opinion, stock (for sound)
systems.
>You must not have been listening to the "right" programs. Try listening
>to Diversi-Tune or a synthLab sequence, The Amiga has basically a
>similar sound to the Mac, not bad but not great. I have a ROM03 GS but
>I don't think the noise level was that much higher on the ROM01. At
>least this is a humorous note. In any case, listen again!
>
See above...
>Philip McDunnough
>University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu
>[my own opinions, you hear!]
>
Mine as well...
Rich
-Rich-@cup.portal.com-Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) (12/14/90)
>In article <36863@cup.portal.com> you write: >>Hi all, >> >> I own both an Amiga 500 (with a 1084S moniter, S is for stereo), and >>an Apple //gs. The amiga sounds much better than a ROM 1 //gs. I have not >>heard a ROM3. I have heard a friends, with the Bose speakers in stereo, and >>the sound is great, but I cannot enjoy it for all of the noise. On paper, the >>//gs is better. Hearing both, running normal programs, the Amiga is better. >> >> But I have not turned on my Amiga since I moved, and have purchaced >>a HD for my //gs, and a ZipChip, which dosent work with my RAMFAST. Given a >>choice, I use my Apple //gs. But in real life, Amiga has better sound than >>a ROM1 machine. This may not be true for a ROM3 however... > >Huh? The ROM 3 machine simply has a different ROM than the ROM 1 machine. >There are is no major HW differences (except maybe the keyboard stuff). >I have a feeling from your comments that you haven't seen the GS's sound Where have you been. There was a major board redesign, and one major improvement was that the sound circuitry was better isolated. This is one reason why you cannot upgrade from a ROM1 to a ROM3 without a motherboard swap. It is not just that the ROM's are twice as large. >capabilities unleashed.. Have you heard Diversi-Tune or synthLAB??? >SoundSmith is nice, but it isn't the best.. I really doubt that the >Amiga's sound can take on the IIgs.. (I'm not saying the Amiga is bad, just >that the GS's sound capabilities are far greater than those of the Amiga). I have heard both, on a ROM1 with Stereo and BOSE speakers. The noise drove me to distraction. But I do not have a system souped for sound. On stock systems, the programs that use sound sound better on the Amiga. This is my personal observation of course. >If you want your Zip Chip to work with your RamFast, call Zip Tech. and >ask for the ROM upgrade... Sorry, my Zip SHOULD work with the RAMFAST, according to Zip Customer service. But it hangs in boot, no matter whose drivers I use, or how I set the switches. Nothing mentioned on the net on this topic has helped. And Roger Coats does not answer their phones. Merry Christmas everyone... > >> >> Rich >> -Rich-@cup.portal.com > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II << >>> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! << >>> timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> << >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich again...
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/14/90)
From gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn): > In article <2445@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT > ALFTER) writes: >>...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 colors?) > > I like my IIGS, but I would never claim that its SHR graphics is very > good. The nearest PBM PC family equivalent is somewhere between CGA and > EGA, so "CGA-level graphics" is not too far off. Even EGA will only let you pick from a measly 64 colour palette. Yes, you can have 640x350 resolution with 16 colours, but the colour range simply does not compare to standard SHR. I say "standard SHR", because we all know about multi-palette graphics, fill-mode animation and 3200-colour pictures -- none of which EGA can claim. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/14/90)
From $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr): > I never said that Stellar-7 wasn't an excellent game. I own it, and have > spent more time than I would like to admit on that game. As far as the > "powerful stereo sound effects" go, perhaps you haven't heard the Roland > LAPC-1 for the PC. The article didn't say that Stellar-7 supports it, but > coming from Sierra, I'd imagine it did. The Ensoniq cannot surpass the > LAPC-1. The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no > match) > > With the FTA demos, you're still talking about a program written on the > metal. I bet anything that Stellar-7 on the PC wasn't written that way. > And you can't demand that a company write a machine-specific version for > the IIgs. BTW, for which gs would you have them write it for, the ROM01 or > ROM03 (since we can't use tools...much too slow to handle what the FTA > does) ? > > There are no two ways about it...The Apple IIgs hardware must be upgraded. That's strange... this is the first time I read your message to me, yet I swear I've already come across replies to your message... No, I have never listened to the LAPC-1, but I do know that it is not included with any PC. How many people do you know have LAPC's? Now tell me how many GS owners have Ensoniq's? That's right... every single one of them. When you said "The Ensoniq cannot surpass the LAPC-1" and "The Apple IIgs' CGA-level graphics against VGA...", are you implying that Stellar-7 should not be written for the GS simply because it does not have the top-of-the-line capabilities??? You must agree that the Ensoniq and 256-colour graphics on the GS are more than adequate for this game. Although FTA's wares are pure assembly hacks, you can still achieve quite a bit of speed by following more conventional programming procedures. As for the ROM 01 vs. ROM 03 argument you bring up: what does it matter? Everything the runs on the 03 will run on the 01. Just about everybody has one meg of RAM or more these days. I don't see how that is a valid argument. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/14/90)
From $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr): > But wait...Let's talk complete systems. Once you add in a monitor, a hard > disk, software, etc. the PC based systems with the LAPC-1 are quite > competitive with the GS. Depending on what you get, the PC-system may even > be cheaper. This wouldn't be a factor if the Apple IIgs cost, say half of > what it does now. I don't want to sound TOO rude, but why don't you take this thread over into comp.ibm.pc.misc... maybe your posts will help to sell a few LAPC-1 instead causing GS/Ensoniq lovers to go up in arms. Besides, I still wouldn't buy a PC with the LAPC-1 simply because it is STILL just an MS-DOS computer. Blech and double-blech. > Oh wow...you have colorful, but still low resolution. No way you slice it, > you cannot compare a 320x200 to a 640x480 screen; you can whine all you > want about colors. When I said CGA-level, I didn't mean that the GS had > CGA, but CGA-equivalent resolution. RESOLUTION, GOT IT!!!!!!! NOT FREAKING > COLORS!!!!! Last time I checked, "resolution" includes the number of colours displayable at once on the screen. The GS has 320x200x4-bit colour (or 320x200x8-bit colour, if you push it) while CGA has 320x200x2-bit colour. Anyway, what does it matter that VGA has 640x480 resolution (they would probably only use 320x200x256-colour resolution anyway)? 320-mode on the GS is more than adequate for the game. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/14/90)
From -Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne): > But I have not turned on my Amiga since I moved, and have > purchaced a HD for my //gs, and a ZipChip, which dosent work with my > RAMFAST. Given a choice, I use my Apple //gs. But in real life, Amiga > has better sound than a ROM1 machine. This may not be true for a ROM3 > however... You know what Apple likes to say, "The best computer is the one that you use..." ;) I think the Amiga has pretty thin sound compared to the GS. I agree that digitized sounds are a bit noisy on the GS, but games rarely have that problem, or they use synthesized sound and music which will overshadow the Amiga's capabilities. The ROM01 and ROM03 have identical sound specs. By the way, I think Zip will upgrade your ZipGSX (lucky you) to behave correctly with the RAMFast card. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/15/90)
In article <9012101706.AA17599@apple.com>, MQUINN%UTCVM@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >>The Apple IIgs's CGA-level graphics against VGA...HAHAHAHAHA (no match) > > CGA level????? In 320 mode in CGA, you have FOUR colors! In 320 mode on the > GS, you can have up to THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED colors! Hardly a comparison. > Or, a little more practical... TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX colors! Hardly a > comparison. Or, at the lowest end, SIXTEEN colors (4 times the CGA limit). > Hardly a comparison. Not only does the GS have 4 times as many colors as CGA, > but those 16 colors can be chosen from a pallette of FOUR THOUSAND NINETY SIX > colors. Hardly a comparison to CGA. CGA has FOUR pallettes of FOUR colors > each. That's it. Hardly a comparison. What are the standard graphics resolutions and colors on the GS? Not with doing special programming or anything. (I'm asking cause on my ST it standard to have 16 colors in 320X200 mode, but you can get 512 colors on the screen at a time, but this is only useful for looking at pictures, it requires to much CPU to make it useful for anything else.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/15/90)
In article <14703@smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <9907@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >> I still think that Brian Greenestone or one of you other GS whizzes >>should try to get a contract with Sierra to improve/rewrite their adventure >>game "compiler"... If I were currently a GS author, I would at least make the >>attempt if I were looking for a job. Another attempt would be to get a job >>at Origin writing Ultima V GS or Ultima VI GS or //e. > > Right on! > I estimate that a "stock" IIGS with 1.125MB of memory is fully as capable as > a typical IBM PC clone; thus if a top-notch IIGS programmer worked on it, > Sierra SCI (thus the majority of their recent games) and Ultima V/VI should > be able to work nicely on a IIGS. I don't think the //e is feasible, though, > not so much because of slow speed (although that does hurt) as because of > constrained RAM access -- memory management would be just too painful. I cannot see the reasoning behind this. The current standard for a PC clone is at least a 286 running at 12MHz with VGA and 1 MB of memory. A IIgs doesn't even come close. The IIgs might have better sound, but without the muscle behind it, it will still be a dog. Get a life people, wake up and smell the coffee. The IIgs cannot compete against any of the current computers being produced today, except for the C-64. It is based on technology from the late 70's, with a few additions that were high tech in the mid 80's but are outdated today. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/15/90)
In article <9012120353.AA26625@apple.com>, MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: > On Mon, 10 Dec 90 21:23:20 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >>The problem still with a GS is that its too slow. (I know, you can get >>Transwarp, or ZipGS, but you can't rely on someone having it.) I've used a >>GS a lot, but what is the standard speed of one? > > The GS's native speed is 2.8Mhz...7Mhz Transwarped and 8+Mhz Ziped. > BTW, a 1Mhz GS is FASTER than a 4.77Mhz ibm. > The official Apple notes say that the Apple //e (1Mhz) is equal to about > ..5 MIPS. I would imagine, that the GS in native mode is 2.8 times this (1.4MIP > S?) if that .5MIPS is correct. Is that the way it works? Anyone? > I'm really stepping out of my league when I'm talking about MIPS. I've heard discussion after discussion on the uselessness of MIPS as a speed comparison. There are too many other factors that are involved. A 1Mhz GS faster than a 4.77MHz IBM, this I find hard to believe. If it is true, it could just be the fact that the original IBM was produced in 1981, and was probably very inefficient. I would like to see a speed test though. Anyone got the source code in C for any of the standard tests? (Sieve of Erostones (sp?), and a few others I can't think of right now.) We could put together a collection of these and run them on all the machines we have access to, which would include about every machine concievable! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) (12/15/90)
I remember reading somewhere (a Macmag?) a description of the IIgs with the
sentence "...and its unusually sophisticated sound capabilities will be welcome
by any music teacher." As of 1990 the only computers with better sound than the
GS BUILT IN are the Next and POSSIBLY the new Atari ST. The sound capabilities
of a stock GS are far superior to ANYTHING on the market. Any IBM has pathetic
sound capabilites from a 4mhz XT up to an i486 PS/2. "But I can connect a
Roland/Yamaha/Casio etc... to my machine that BLOWS AWAY your stinking GS!"
True, you can, but I can connect the same stuff and instantly have parity if
not superiority. You can connect ANY MIDI device to ANY properly equipped
computer and have a computer controlled digital synthesizer. The difference
with the GS is that for no additional cost (or parts) you get this tremendous
sophistication in sound. Then when you do want to spend the $$$ on sound you
don't have to buy a synthesizer in the first place, you can go for amplifiers
, stereo card, mixers, samplers, etc...
The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought
when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips!
Its only asscessible through assembly/machine language which I am only a fair
beginner at yet (though trying hard). As someone pointed out here, the problem
with GS sound is that it has not been fully exploited yet in software, there is
no integrated package for sound development available (sort of an Appleworks of
sound). Sure theres individual neat stuff but they are not modular to one anothe
r. Despite the ASIF (apple standard instrument format) its still a pain getti
ng
some of these music packages to share instruments let alone songs. (sure you
can do it but it SHOULD be much easier).
I still think that the GS can be looked at as 'a synthesizer wrapped
in a computer' and that means unlike many digital midi machines on the market
you can program your own instruments AND your own sequencers AND your own
translator (midi keyboard to notes on a staff) AND anything else you want. This
'synthesizer' also is expandable 'cause it has six built in slots for various
fun cards. The only synthesizer I can think of that offers ALL these options
standard like the GS is the Fairlight series that routinely go for 10000$+!
So, for music/digital synthesis/no-extra-hardware voice synthesis, I'll
stick to the best...the GS!
- Joseph Nowakowski
- nowako09@snybufva
(bitnet)unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (12/15/90)
In article <3137.27692c59@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >I've heard discussion after discussion on the uselessness of MIPS as a >speed comparison. There are too many other factors that are involved. And you don't seen to know a lot of them. God, is there an "ignore" command in rn like there are in forum programs I see? >A 1Mhz GS faster than a 4.77MHz IBM, this I find hard to believe. If it is While that is true also, the commonly accepted statistic is that the original Apple // (that is, 1 Mhz) is faster than a 4.77 Mhz IBM PC. I will admit that I do not have any references or statistics to back up this claim, although I am virtually certain someone else does. (This is so well known that it's like a "the sky is blue" or "the Earth is round" statement). Another claim, that seems like it's on a little shakier ground, is that the standard 2.8 Mhz GS is as fast as an X Mhz '286. I don't recall the value of the '286 that was used in this comparison though. Someone else will most likely be able to come through with the facts on this one too. >true, it could just be the fact that the original IBM was produced in 1981, >and was probably very inefficient. I would like to see a speed test though. >Anyone got the source code in C for any of the standard tests? (Sieve of >Erostones (sp?), and a few others I can't think of right now.) We could put >together a collection of these and run them on all the machines we have >access to, which would include about every machine concievable! Talk about not knowing what other factors are involved! This guy is trying to compare computers based on their C compilers! While I do not doubt that C source for these types of tests (Are you referring to the "Drhystones" that are mentioned a lot?), I think that speed tests for a computer should be written directly in assembly. This takes out the possibility (probability!) of a compiler not being as efficient as possible. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ |WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. | \ "Dammit Bev, is it you inside or is it the clown?" -IT by Stephen King /
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (12/15/90)
In article <3137.27692c59@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >A 1Mhz GS faster than a 4.77MHz IBM, this I find hard to believe. If it is >true, it could just be the fact that the original IBM was produced in 1981, >and was probably very inefficient. I would like to see a speed test though. >Anyone got the source code in C for any of the standard tests? (Sieve of >Erostones (sp?), and a few others I can't think of right now.) We could put >together a collection of these and run them on all the machines we have >access to, which would include about every machine concievable! In _Programming the 65816_ by Lichty and Eyes, there is a comparison of the speeds of a 4Mhz 65816, a 4.77(?)Mhz 8088, a 4Mhz 6502 and a 8Mhz 68000. The tests were conducted by running an assembly language version of the sieve of erastosthenes. I forgot the exact results, but the 65816 was more than 2 times faster than the 6502, and about 3(?) times faster than the 8088. The 68000 was 4 times faster than the 65816. If someone has the book, maybe they could post the exact results. If my memory is correct, though, it would seem that a 1Mhz 65816 would be faster than a 4.77Mhz 8088. -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/15/90)
A 1 Mhz 65816 is not as fast as a 4.77 Mhz 8088. However, a 2.8 Mhz 65816 is faster than a 4.77 Mhz 8088. Of course, No one in their right mind would put up with the slouth of a 4.77 Mhz 8088.
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/15/90)
Ten years ago no one would think of writing an application in anything other than assembly language. Then we graduated a bunch of fools who knew only "C" or Pascal. That's when writing (egads!) games in "C" became popular. The real reason the Apple II has died is not because no one wants to support it-- they *CAN'T* support it. The only way to make the 65xxx scream is to write in assembly language, which, I'm afraind is a lost art. *** Randy Hyde BTW: I am doing something about this. I got so fed up with the lack of assembly language talent that I started teaching the subject at UC Riverside and Cal Poly Pomona.
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/15/90)
>> The commonly accepted statistic.. the 1mhz Apple II (!) is faster than a 4.77 Mhz PC. Commonly? I never knew this. I worked on PCs and Apple IIs side by side when the PCs first came out. The Apple II was much *SLOWER*. >> Trying to compare computers based on their "C" compilers. I agree that when you compare chips your comparisons should be in assembly. However, when benchmarking systems you should compare them using the tools that *WILL* be used to develop actual software. The 4.77 Mhz PC and the 2.8 Mhz 65816 compare neck and neck for most applications in assembly. However, compare Turbo C against ORCA C sometime. The '816 is at a big disadvantage because its architecture *STINKS* when it comes to HLLs. I tried to talk Bill Mensch into adding some stuff to support HLLs in the 65832, but he's into producing controller chips, not general purpose CPUs. He thought my ideas stunk. *** Randy Hyde
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/15/90)
>> Sieve of Eratosthenes..I forgot the exact results...
@ 4Mhz (not 2.8!) ten iterations requires 1.56 seconds
6502 @ 4Mhz (half the speed).
The Jan '83 Byte claimed 4.0 seconds for a 5Mhz PC. But if you
look at that issue, the code was written in Pascal!
Finally, the Sieve benchmark is real lousy since most of the stuff
is byte operations (except that nasty divide).
Let's compare apples and PC, not apples and oranges here!
*** Randy Hydejpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (12/15/90)
In article <41464@ut-emx.uucp> ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) writes: >In article <3137.27692c59@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >>A 1Mhz GS faster than a 4.77MHz IBM, this I find hard to believe. If it is [stuff about 4.77 MHz ibms being fast] > >In _Programming the 65816_ by Lichty and Eyes, there is a comparison of >the speeds of a 4Mhz 65816, a 4.77(?)Mhz 8088, a 4Mhz 6502 and a 8Mhz 68000. >The tests were conducted by running an assembly language version of the >sieve of erastosthenes. I forgot the exact results, but the 65816 was more >than 2 times faster than the 6502, and about 3(?) times faster than the 8088. >The 68000 was 4 times faster than the 65816. > >If someone has the book, maybe they could post the exact results. If my memory >is correct, though, it would seem that a 1Mhz 65816 would be faster than a >4.77Mhz 8088. > >David Huang | From the book "Programming the 65816" page 298 Sieve of Eratosthenes calculating the primes from 1 up to 16383 ten iterations of the program. 65816 @ 4 MHz 1.56 seconds 6502 @ 4 MHz 3.12 8088 @ 5 MHz 4.0 8086 @ 8 MHz 1.90 68000 @ 8 MHz 0.49 65816 @ 8 MHz 0.78 (so says the book) The time for the 8088, 8086, 68000 were from Jan '83 BYTE according to the book. I'm assuming BYTE meant 4.77 MHz for the 8088 when they said 4.0 seconds, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt @ 5 MHz (just makes it slower :-) The book also notes that since you're coding in assembler, anything goes. I would say their code is pretty tight. ------------------ Now, using the Sieve to determine a computer's speed is rather bogus. Most people don't run around using Sieves all day. But, for stuff like text processing, a 4.77 MHz PC is slower than an apple IIe at 1 MHz. Try doing DIR on the PC side by side a IIe doing CAT. The PC is slower. For stuff doing multiplications, the PC will probably win. The 8088 & 8086 had multiplication instructions, though they took over 100 clocks to execute. Now the 386s and 68030's can do mults & divs in ~1-4 clock cycles. Also note that on 8088's it took 4 clock cycles to do a memory operation; the 6502 & its cousins do those in 1 clock. -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/15/90)
|From: APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST | <NOWAKO09%SNYBUFVA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> | |I remember reading somewhere (a Macmag?) a description of the IIgs with the |sentence "...and its unusually sophisticated sound capabilities will be welco |by any music teacher." As of 1990 the only computers with better sound than t |GS BUILT IN are the Next and POSSIBLY the new Atari ST. The sound capabilities |of a stock GS are far superior to ANYTHING on the market. Any IBM has pathetic |sound capabilites from a 4mhz XT up to an i486 PS/2. "But I can connect a |Roland/Yamaha/Casio etc... to my machine that BLOWS AWAY your stinking GS!" |True, you can, but I can connect the same stuff and instantly have parity if |not superiority. You can connect ANY MIDI device to ANY properly equipped |computer and have a computer controlled digital synthesizer. The difference |with the GS is that for no additional cost (or parts) you get this tremendous |sophistication in sound. Then when you do want to spend the $$$ on sound you |don't have to buy a synthesizer in the first place, you can go for amplifiers |, stereo card, mixers, samplers, etc... You, and several others, keep missing the point. I mentioned the Roland LAPC-1 card...Yes, it's on a card and not built in, and yes it does cost $400. Your logic would be correct, if it all things were equal (which they never are). PC's are cheaper than GS's...$500 to $1000 for comparably equipped systems. Can you get a GS with comparable speed to a 16 MHz 386SX, a 40 Mb Hard disk, VGA-level graphics, a Monitor, and software for under $2000...not on this planet. For the money you save, you can easily buy Roland's card, and probably another MIDI Synth for that matter. | The big BIG diffeculty is in programming the damn 5505 chip! I thought |when I bought my GS that I could get great stuff out of Basic. Donkey chips! |Its only asscessible through assembly/machine language which I am only a fair |beginner at yet (though trying hard). As someone pointed out here, the probl |with GS sound is that it has not been fully exploited yet in software, there |no integrated package for sound development available (sort of an Appleworks | r. Despite the ASIF (apple standard instrument format) its still a pain ge i ng |some of these music packages to share instruments let alone songs. (sure you |can do it but it SHOULD be much easier). I can only agree. Whitesel had the right idea in mapping the Ensoniq's registers to the '816s address space. | I still think that the GS can be looked at as 'a synthesizer wrapped |in a computer' and that means unlike many digital midi machines on the market |you can program your own instruments AND your own sequencers AND your own |translator (midi keyboard to notes on a staff) AND anything else you want. Th |'synthesizer' also is expandable 'cause it has six built in slots for various |fun cards. The only synthesizer I can think of that offers ALL these options |standard like the GS is the Fairlight series that routinely go for 10000$+! | So, for music/digital synthesis/no-extra-hardware voice synthesis, I' |stick to the best...the GS! | - Joseph Nowakowski | - nowako09@snybufva | (bitnet) Anything you can do on a GS, you can also do on a PC. A "Synthesizer wrapped in a computer?" I don't think so. There are a lot better synthesizers and a lot cheaper and more powerful computers. Perhaps you just haven't seen the software and hardware available for other computers. Much more is being developed for PCs, Macs, and Ataris (music-wise) than the GS. I can't see this trend reversing. Most music programs largely ignore built in sound capabilities anyway. You want to see a "synthesizer wrapped in a computer?" Look at the old Alpha Syntauri (Mountain Computer Music board set + Proxima keyboard) for the Apple II. Add a Decillonix DX-1, and you have a real synthesizer with capabilities and sound quality that the IIgs would be hard pressed to match. (such systems were available in 1984 through about 1986. The Apple II used to be THE computer for MIDI and music, but that market is long gone.) Look, I like the GS. I'd like to see it upgraded, but that's not going to happen. Apple's brass has given up on the II. The Apple IIgs could do so many things if it had some nagging problems fixed. But Apple Inc. would rather spend time and money on other things. The Apple II just isn't as marketable as the Mac. Strike up a funeral dirge, get some shovels and lets head for the cemetary...there's a burial to attend to. ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/16/90)
>> Do a DIR on a PC side by side a IIe doing CAT. Hardly a fair comparison of CPUs. All you're comparing is the speed of the PC's BIOS (which is *horribly* slow) against the speed of the IIe's monitor ROM. For applications like word processing, the 8088 can update the screen about twice as fast as the //gs due to the more reasonable layout of the display memory. Of course, who uses an 8088 @ 4.77 Mhz anymore? >>Also note that on 8088's it took (takes!) 4 clock cycles to access memory. One of the reasons the 286/386/486 chips run faster is that they access memory in 3/2/1 cycles (depending on the processor). This, of course, is on top of the fact that the new processors access 16/32 bits at a shot). >> 386 can do mults & divs in ~1-4 clock cycles. Here you're giving the 386 (dunno about the 030) too much credit. I beleive the actual figure is 20 cycles. Perhaps you meant microseconds (20 clocks at 20 Mhz = 1 Usec). One final comment about the sieve benchmark. Back in 1983 everyone was implementing the algorithm in exactly the same way. Eyes and Lichty optimized the h**l out of this thing. The algorithm is not the same as the one used on the 8088 in the Jan '83 Byte article. I'm sure if we ported the code to the 8088 and compare the results the 8088 wouldn't look so bad (nor would the 4Mhz 65c816 look so good). *** randy Hyde
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/16/90)
From: rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) > I cannot see the reasoning behind this. The current standard for a PC > clone is at least a 286 running at 12MHz with VGA and 1 MB of memory. > A IIgs doesn't even come close. The IIgs might have better sound, but > without the muscle behind it, it will still be a dog. Get a life people, > wake up and smell the coffee. The IIgs cannot compete against any of the > current computers being produced today, except for the C-64. It is based > on technology from the late 70's, with a few additions that were high > tech in the mid 80's but are outdated today. Hardware-wise, on paper, that 12-MHz 286 might look better, but don't tell the end-users that! Most 286 and 386 programmers can be accused of slipshod and inefficient programming. They take their resources for granted. Tighter code on the GS can easily match that of a 286 (in MOST operations, some things just can't be compared). From my side of the keyboard, my 2.8-MHz GS runs just as fast as my friends 12-MHz 286. What's this about the GS being based on late-70's technology? So what? The Mac is based on early-1980's hardware, and the IBM is about as old as the II. Do you agree with those statements? Why would the GS compete against the C=64? There IS not comparison (the very thought!) Try comparing the GS to Atari ST's (no problem there), the Amiga (pretty close), low-end Macs (no problem there) and PC's (depends on the setup). (there is an IMHO after each sentence above...) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/16/90)
> I would like to see a speed test though. Anyone got the source code in > C for any of the standard tests? (Sieve of Erostones (sp?), and a few > others I can't think of right now.) We could put together a collection > of these and run them on all the machines we have access to, which would > include about every machine concievable! 'Sieve of Erostones'??? Like "Sieve of Dhrystones" or "Sieve of Whetstones"??? ;) I shouldn't talk, I can't spell it either... If benchmark tests were written in C, cross-platform comparisons would not be very fair since different C compilers have varying abilities when it comes to optimizing the code. It should be hand-coded in the machine's native assembly language to get a true impression. Although most programmers use a high-level language, so the C-compiled test might be more of a "real-world" benchmark. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (12/17/90)
On Fri, 14 Dec 90 23:26:45 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >What are the standard graphics resolutions and colors on the GS? Not with >doing special programming or anything. 320x200 16 of 4,096 colors 640x200 4 of 4,096 colors 320x200 256 colors (not 'standard mode', but it requires NO CPU time). >(I'm asking cause on my ST it standard to have 16 colors in 320X200 mode, >but you can get 512 colors on the screen at a time, but this is only useful >for looking at pictures, it requires to much CPU to make it useful for >anything else.) REALLY? The ST requires CPU time to display all 512 colors? I didn't know that! > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu > / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) > /(____/__(_) o)_/ > /) [ || ] Atari Computers, > "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just > Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast > gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (12/18/90)
In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu >A 1 Mhz 65816 is not as fast as a 4.77 Mhz 8088. However, a 2.8 Mhz >65816 is faster than a 4.77 Mhz 8088. Of course, No one in their right >mind would put up with the slouth of a 4.77 Mhz 8088. The PC Transporter runs off a 8 MHz V-30 and is definately MUCH faster than a 4.77 MHz 8088 or 8086, or even an 8 MHz 80XX for that matter. However, it is still FAR FAR slower than a 7 MHz IIgs running in similar environments (GUI or Text). And yes, I've worked with plenty of MS-DOS machines, from the IBM PC to 33 MHz '386 machines. Anything less than an AT running at 12 MHz feels dog slow compared to my IIgs. I do like that '386/33 though. / \ / / ______________________________________________________ \\\' , / // ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \\\//, _/ //, INET: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \_-//' / //<, /\\ UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider \ /// <//` //\\\ ARPA: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider@nosc.mil / >> \\\`__/_ ///\\\\ /,)-^>> _\` \\\ ////\\\\\ The opinions expressed here belong to (/ \\ /\\\ // IIgs \\\ no entity(s), living or dead! // _//\\\\ ------------------------------------------------------ ((` ((
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (12/18/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jerry@polygen.uucp [...snip] >>I estimate that a "stock" IIGS with 1.125MB of memory is fully as capable as >>a typical IBM PC clone; >> >It isn't. Even the oldest PC clones with 8088 processors are at least >twice as fast as stock IIgs's, and the 8088 processor has a much more >functional instruction set than the '816. [snip...] HA HA HA! Jeez, stupid people can be so funny. Have you ever TRIED comparing the two? You're so off base on this one I feel like I'm wasting time on commenting on it. / \ / / ______________________________________________________ \\\' , / // ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \\\//, _/ //, INET: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \_-//' / //<, /\\ UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider \ /// <//` //\\\ ARPA: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider@nosc.mil / >> \\\`__/_ ///\\\\ /,)-^>> _\` \\\ ////\\\\\ The opinions expressed here belong to (/ \\ /\\\ // IIgs \\\ no entity(s), living or dead! // _//\\\\ ------------------------------------------------------ ((` ((
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/19/90)
>>> Have you ever tried comparing the two (8088 vs. 65816).
You're right. This is very difficult to do. It is next to
impossible to find an 8088 system anymore. I can tell you, though,
my 20 Mhz 80386 is about 15-20 times faster than my stock GS.
*** Randy Hyderhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/19/90)
Once again, you're comparing IBM BIOS vs. Apple II monitor ROM. You certainly won't get any arguement from me concerning the disgusting code in the PC BIOS. When looking at the bare metal, however, the 65816 is somewhat less powerful for all- around use. I *have* written hundreds of thousands of lines of code in assembly on the 8088 and 65xxx chips. Obviously, I can pick a benchmark which favors one processor over the other. Overall, though, the 8088 edges out the 65816. (Note: when the 65816's clock speed is 1/2 that of the 8088, which is a reasonable comparison point since the GS runs at 2.8 [2.5 in RAM] mhz and the PC runs at about 5)
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/19/90)
The V-30 is an 8086 clone (not 8088) with somewhat better microcode. So, of course, it should be a lot faster. However, it's I/O system is crippled by having to go through the GS (on the Transporter card). Once again, the sluggishness of the PC is almost always attributable to the BIOS, not to the 8088. Imagine how slow the GS would operate if everyone used the (ugh!) text toolkit for all character I/O to the screen. Don't believe me, try writing text based applications in an ORCA language running under APW. It's quite slow as well.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/19/90)
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: > Imagine how slow the GS would operate >if everyone used the (ugh!) text toolkit for all character I/O to the >screen. Don't believe me, try writing text based applications in >an ORCA language running under APW. It's quite slow as well. Not if you use the FASTEXT init. Paul Elseth wrote it, it patches out some of the Text Tools routines to write directly to the screen instead of calling the firmware. On an unaccelerated GS, it makes the ORCA editor reasonable. With a Zip added it's great. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/20/90)
In article <9012171124.AA05760@apple.com>, MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > On Fri, 14 Dec 90 23:26:45 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >>(I'm asking cause on my ST it standard to have 16 colors in 320X200 mode, >>but you can get 512 colors on the screen at a time, but this is only useful >>for looking at pictures, it requires to much CPU to make it useful for >>anything else.) > > REALLY? The ST requires CPU time to display all 512 colors? I didn't know > that! I'm foggy on how its done, but does some sort of palette switching to get all 512 colors on the screen at once. The downside is that it requires a lot of CPU time, and you can only have 48 different colors on a scan line. (but 256 color Gifs look really good though!!) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Sheckel) (12/20/90)
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) writes: >> >>It isn't. Even the oldest PC clones with 8088 processors are at least >>twice as fast as stock IIgs's, and the 8088 processor has a much more >>functional instruction set than the '816. >> > >HA HA HA! Jeez, stupid people can be so funny. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Geez, this sure sounds like nervous laughter to me! Look pal, this stuff just isn't life-threatening enough for you to insult anyone, OK? Chill -- there's no need to lose hair over this. > >Have you ever TRIED comparing the two? > I've worked with both at the machine language level. That the 8088 has a more functional instruction set is a fact. Speed -- OK, this is a tougher question. The things I have done have definitely been faster on the PC. As for commercial applications, could you show me one which is comparable to a similar PC package and is faster? Besides, comparing the two isn't fair, since the PC is a few years older; even if the two machines are similar in performance (and they're not), the IIgs is still way behind the times. Show me any PC made after 1982 and I'll show you a machine that'll blow the IIgs away every time. Look. I like the GS. It has nice graphics and fantastic sound. But that's what it's made for -- graphics and sound (GS). It doesn't perform at dozens of MIPS, but there's nothing wrong with that. The machine has its uses and has the hardware to be an excellent system for the home (but not the price or the software). However, when people begin comparing its performance with to of modern PC's and workstations, they are really stepping over the line. > > /\\ > //\\\ > ///\\\\ > ////\\\\\ >// IIgs \\\ > I should have known this guy was some kind of a fanatic. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/20/90)
In article <26817.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle>, lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu > >>A 1 Mhz 65816 is not as fast as a 4.77 Mhz 8088. However, a 2.8 Mhz >>65816 is faster than a 4.77 Mhz 8088. Of course, No one in their right >>mind would put up with the slouth of a 4.77 Mhz 8088. > > The PC Transporter runs off a 8 MHz V-30 and is definately MUCH faster > than a 4.77 MHz 8088 or 8086, or even an 8 MHz 80XX for that matter. > However, it is still FAR FAR slower than a 7 MHz IIgs running in similar > environments (GUI or Text). And yes, I've worked with plenty of MS-DOS > machines, from the IBM PC to 33 MHz '386 machines. Anything less than > an AT running at 12 MHz feels dog slow compared to my IIgs. I do like > that '386/33 though. How do you compare how fast the PC transporter is compared to your IIgs? Of course it will look slow, just because it has to go through using the IIgs for its display, which creates one hell of a bottleneck. You can't really look at a computer and make speed comparisons. (But what do I care, the 8 Mhz 68000 in my ST runs circles around any IBM with a 80xx, and a Mac Plus, and even a ZIP GSX or TWGS IIgs.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rjlewis@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Richard J. Lewis, Jr. - Hacker@Large) (12/20/90)
In article <3176.276fd18b@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: > In article <26817.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle>, lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) writes: >> In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu > > (But what do I care, the 8 Mhz 68000 in my ST runs circles around any IBM > with a 80xx, and a Mac Plus, and even a ZIP GSX or TWGS IIgs.) In what way does your Atari ST run circles around an 8086 PC? The GEM interface is a DOG without programs to try to speed up screen redraw. If you kill a window, you can clearly see the OS slowly erase the window and redraw the windows behind it. Mac Classics/Plus', etc. have extremely FAST screen redraw, as do PC's if the software is written correctly. Of course, we are talking here about APPARENT speed of systems, not benchmarked or architectural speeds. The II GS *APPEARS* fast, from what I've seen of it. Course, I've never seen it recalculate a spreadsheet or run Auto CAD... - Crash /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Rich Lewis A.K.A Crash rjlewis@MIAVX1.acs.muohio.edu | | | | "Language has created the word 'lonliness' to express the pain of | | being alone, and the word 'solitude' to express the glory of being | | alone." | | | | - Paul Tillich | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/
scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) (12/20/90)
In a recent post, Ryan Collins asked, "What are the standard graphics resolutions and colors on the GS? Not with doing special programming or anything. " The standard resolution are: Any Apple II graphic mode, PLUS, Super Hi Res in 320x200 with 16 colors and 640x200 with 16 dithered colors (Four pure colors). A variant that doesn't require special programing to display but requires special programming to create is 320x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes), or 640x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes). People should really look at what can be done with 16 properly used colors. I know I was stunned. _______________________________________________________________________________ | Scott Gentry * ALPE AFL Scott * I never said that!| | 2051 Mercator Drive * GEnie W.GENTRY * But you never | | Reston, VA 22091 * UUCP: uunet!ingr!ne1300! * know! | | (703) 264-5652 * brnded!scott * Do You? | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
rbannon@batman.elee.CalPoly.EDU (Roy Bannon) (12/21/90)
In article <3176.276fd18b@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >> that '386/33 though. > >How do you compare how fast the PC transporter is compared to your IIgs? Of >course it will look slow, just because it has to go through using the IIgs >for its display, which creates one hell of a bottleneck. You can't really >look at a computer and make speed comparisons. > Sorry, no. When you install the PCT you have to put a display switcher board between the gs the pct and the apple monitor. When you launch the pct software the switcher card detects a video signal on the pct and it automatically switches to displaying the ibm graphics. What is emulated is anything that has to go through the slots in the gs (like harddrive and modems and printers ..). Any disk drives hooked directly to the pct also aren't emulated, they are real time. Roy Rbannon@batman.elee.calpoly.edu
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (12/21/90)
On Thu, 20 Dec 90 01:46:02 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >In article <26817.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle>, lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com > (Laer Haider) writes: > >How do you compare how fast the PC transporter is compared to your IIgs? Of >course it will look slow, just because it has to go through using the IIgs >for its display, which creates one hell of a bottleneck. You can't really >look at a computer and make speed comparisons. The PC Transporter does NOT go through the GS's video display. There's no bottleneck there. The PCT has it's OWN VRAMS. You could even destroy the GS's VRAMS and STILL see the video from the PCT (assuming that the destruction of the GS's VRAMS didn't keep it from working :) The only thing the PCT uses the Apple II for is keyboard I/O (wich won't slow it down) mouse I/O (won't either) and ProDOS storage device I/O (this might even speed it up) and printer and modem I/0. >(But what do I care, the 8 Mhz 68000 in my ST runs circles around any IBM >with a 80xx, and a Mac Plus, and even a ZIP GSX or TWGS IIgs.) Are you SURE about a ZIPed or Transwarped GS? It's -possible- that it may be faster, but it definitely wouldn't run circles around it -IF- it's faster. > o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/21/90)
>>Not if you use the FASTEXT init.
Of course not. Naturally there are INT 10h replacements for the PC as well...
*** Randy Hydelhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (12/24/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jerry@polygen.uucp
Weren't you comparing the gs to an 8088? Yes you were. I'll be the first to
admit the gs doesn't hold a candle to a '286, '386, or '486. But an 8088?
Try your benchmarks again.
I too have been using MS-DOS machines, Macs, Amigas as well as a IIgs. For
the most part I'm jealous, but not about a machine with an 8088, 8086, or
V-30. If you think the original IBM PC and its clones are so much faster,
turn off you gs for a while and use one exclusively for a few months. I
guarentee you'll get frustrated as hell with the sloth.
'nuff said
/
\ / /
______________________________________________________ \\\' , / //
ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \\\//, _/ //,
INET: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \_-//' / //<,
/\\ UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider \ /// <//`
//\\\ ARPA: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider@nosc.mil / >> \\\`__/_
///\\\\ /,)-^>> _\` \\\
////\\\\\ The opinions expressed here belong to (/ \\ /\\\
// IIgs \\\ no entity(s), living or dead! // _//\\\\
------------------------------------------------------ ((` ((whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (12/27/90)
jerry@polygen.uucp writes |Geez, this sure sounds like nervous laughter to me! Look pal, this stuff |just isn't life-threatening enough for you to insult anyone, OK? Chill -- |there's no need to lose hair over this. | |I've worked with both at the machine language level. That the 8088 has |a more functional instruction set is a fact. Speed -- OK, this is a tougher |question. The things I have done have definitely been faster on the PC. |As for commercial applications, could you show me one which is comparable |to a similar PC package and is faster? Besides, comparing the two isn't |fair, since the PC is a few years older; even if the two machines are similar |in performance (and they're not), the IIgs is still way behind the times. |Show me any PC made after 1982 and I'll show you a machine that'll blow the |IIgs away every time. | |Look. I like the GS. It has nice graphics and fantastic sound. But that's |what it's made for -- graphics and sound (GS). It doesn't perform at dozens |of MIPS, but there's nothing wrong with that. The machine has its uses and |has the hardware to be an excellent system for the home (but not the price or |the software). However, when people begin comparing its performance with to |of modern PC's and workstations, they are really stepping over the line. I have to disagree with on the 8088 been faster than the 65816. The 65816 can retrieve 8-bit data in a single cycle instead of 4. 65816 has pipe-lining for higher efficency and execution speed. You try using Windows 3.0 and Finder... but that's of course apples and oranges, but imagine trying to write Finder in 8088/86 code... you're going to need a heck of a lot more clock speed than 2.8 much less 4.7Mhz to even compete... and I'm talking double digits here. What do you base functionality on? There isn't anything that you could do on an 8088 that you couldn't do on a 65816. The Gs has only been out for 4 years, now... how long has the IBM PC been out? On the point of comparing two packages... take the example of AppleWorks and some popular IBM package comparison several years ago... Both persons were considered experts in using their software, having written books on using the packages... AppleWorks won running an accelerated Apple IIe (3.6Mhz) I think against a maybe AT class IBM... They were working on a spread sheet. Now, you will agree a 286 machine is MUCH faster than a PC or even an XT... so much for the MIPS and what have you. I believe the IBM also had a math co-processor. I've used and even own an IBM compatible... I'm NOT impressed, no matter what the speed. whitewolf@gnh-starport!info-apple
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) (01/03/91)
scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) writes: >The standard resolution are: Any Apple II graphic mode, PLUS, Super Hi Res in >320x200 with 16 colors and 640x200 with 16 dithered colors (Four pure colors). >A variant that doesn't require special programing to display but requires >special programming to create is 320x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes), or >640x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes). People should really look at what can >be done with 16 properly used colors. I know I was stunned. I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by your own code does not mean that it is totally free. There is a CPU time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 colors takes CPU time. Of course, I am just being nit-picky. There are other interrupts occurring in the system anyway, each of them eating valuable CPU time as well. You can't get away from the time loss completely, anyway. Also, 16 palette interrupts (for 256 colors) per screen is far less time consuming than 200 palette interrupts (for 3200 colors) per screen. With 60 screens per second, you are looking at only 960 interrupts per second for 256 colors instead of 12,000! for 3200 colors! Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (01/03/91)
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) writes: >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for individual >scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time .... Moving from >320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 colors takes CPU time. Not true. One of the unique features of the GS is real multiple palettes in hardware. There are 16 palettes, and each scan line can independently set the following attributes: 1 bit 640/320 mode 1 bit scan line interrupt 1 bit fill mode (only activates in 320 though) 1 bit (reserved for future expansion) 4 bits palette number (0..15) It is not that hard to write a program which will display all 256 colors and then return you to basic, without using any interrupts at all. I did in fact write one to view 256 color GIF palettes. Expect to see a similar function in an upcoming GIF decoder (yes, Unknown, I AM working on it). also, 3200 pictures cannot use scan line interrupts on every line. there isn't enough time once you count the interrupt manager overhead. you can use a few (I believe dreamgraphix's 3200-sluggish edit mode does that) but not all of them at once. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) (01/04/91)
In article <60237@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) writes: >scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) writes: >>The standard resolution are: Any Apple II graphic mode, PLUS, Super Hi Res in >>320x200 with 16 colors and 640x200 with 16 dithered colors (Four pure colors). >>A variant that doesn't require special programing to display but requires >>special programming to create is 320x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes), or >>640x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes). People should really look at what can >>be done with 16 properly used colors. I know I was stunned. > >I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for >individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time >to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new >palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by >your own code does not mean that it is totally free. This is a new one to me. If one looks at the scanline control bytes, there is a 4-bit field for setting one of 16 palettes for each and every scanline. No interrupt is generated that the programmer must be aware of. As far as I know, no 65816 CPU cycles are used. On the videoDAC side, I have no idea, but I'm sure that it doesn't impose any interrupt burden on the CPU. >There is a CPU time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 >with 256 colors takes CPU time. I'll always give someone the benefit of the doubt...what is taking the CPU time for 256 colors? -- Dave Seah ^..^ | Analog Design Automation Research Group - Graphics & GUI | | University of Rochester, Dept. of Electrical Engineering | ////// Internet: seah@ee.rochester.edu ////// America Online: AFC DaveS //////
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (01/04/91)
In article <60237@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) writes: >scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) writes: >>The standard resolution are: Any Apple II graphic mode, PLUS, Super Hi Res in >>320x200 with 16 colors and 640x200 with 16 dithered colors (Four pure colors). >>A variant that doesn't require special programing to display but requires >>special programming to create is 320x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes), or >>640x200 with 256 colors (16 palettes). People should really look at what can >>be done with 16 properly used colors. I know I was stunned. > >I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for >individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time >to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new >palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by >your own code does not mean that it is totally free. There is a CPU >time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 >colors takes CPU time. I hate to continue this pretty much pointless discussion, but I have to interject- each scan line on the GS has a 'palette nibble', which chooses one of 16 palettes for that scan line. Since each palette can have up to 16 colors, we can have 256 colors on the screen at once, without ANY extra effort by the software, it's all done in hardware, and it takes NO CPU time. 3200 color pictures constantly modify those 16 palettes on the fly, using scan-line interrupts. THIS requires massive CPU time. >Brian Willoughby -- Jawaid Bazyar | Being is Mathematics Senior/Computer Engineering | Love is Chemistry jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | Sex is Physics Apple II Forever! | Babies are engineering
benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Benji Rudiak-Gould) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan3.065643.24082@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >also, 3200 pictures cannot use scan line interrupts on every line. there isn't >enough time once you count the interrupt manager overhead. you can use a few >(I believe dreamgraphix's 3200-sluggish edit mode does that) but not all of >them at once. Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 colors. Dreamgraphix is doing something besides just displaying the picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program should be able to get all 3200 colors. -- \\ I think, therefore I am. |___|___| Disclaimer: Benji Rudiak-Gould // I am, therefore I think. |_|___|_| Take with benji@euler.berkeley.edu \\ Therefore, I think I am. |___|___| a grain /////////////////////////// Therefore I am -- I think... |_|___|_| of :-)
kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kent Andrew Dickey) (01/05/91)
In article <10019@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > >>also, 3200 pictures cannot use scan line interrupts on every line.there isn't >>enough time once you count the interrupt manager overhead. you can use a few >>(I believe dreamgraphix's 3200-sluggish edit mode does that) but not all of >>them at once. > >Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an >interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 >colors. Dreamgraphix is doing something besides just displaying the >picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program Ummm, I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were to write a 3200 color viewer, I wouldn't use interrupts at all. I'd poll the vertical line register, and update the pallettes as necessary for each line. Please, stop this silly thread. Interrupts shouldn't be used for everything. (Besides, since most 3200 color picture viewers achieve the pallette changes through stack tricks, interrupts must be DISABLED, otherwise the interrupt would push stuff on the stack, which would actually be the pallette area!). Kent Dickey kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (01/05/91)
benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Benji Rudiak-Gould) writes: >Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an >interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 >colors. Wrongo!! That'd be true IF you only had one palette in the hardware to refill (like most computers -- harumph). The GS has 16 hardware palettes and you can interrupt every 16 lines if you want. Because of the time constraints, it is easier to just interrupt once per screen and have the interrupt take the entire display time to complete. That is why dreamgraphix can have an ultra slow full color edit mode. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) (01/05/91)
In article <10019@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Benji Rudiak-Gould) writes: >Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an >interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 >colors. Dreamgraphix is doing something besides just displaying the >picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program >should be able to get all 3200 colors. You don't need to use an interrupt on every scanline...your program can track the vertical scanline counter register (documented in an Apple IIGS technote I don't have handy) to figure out when to change. One could also use all 16 hardware-supported palettes and update them every 16 scanlines, which might buy you some extra CPU to do something useful other than synchronize to the electron beam. -- Dave Seah ^..^ | Analog Design Automation Research Group - Graphics & GUI | | University of Rochester, Dept. of Electrical Engineering | ////// Internet: seah@ee.rochester.edu ////// America Online: AFC DaveS //////
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (01/05/91)
In article <10019@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Benji Rudiak-Gould) writes: >In article <1991Jan3.065643.24082@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > >>also, 3200 pictures cannot use scan line interrupts on every line. there isn't >>enough time once you count the interrupt manager overhead. you can use a few >>(I believe dreamgraphix's 3200-sluggish edit mode does that) but not all of >>them at once. > >Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an >interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 >colors. Dreamgraphix is doing something besides just displaying the >picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program >should be able to get all 3200 colors. Well, you can interrupt once every 16 lines--- since you have 16 palettes, this is all you need to do. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
stc7@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Steven T Chiang) (01/05/91)
>I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for >individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time >to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new >palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by >your own code does not mean that it is totally free. There is a CPU >time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 >colors takes CPU time. That's not true, I think you are thinking of scan line interrupt mode. The actual GSSHR video memory has space for 16 different palettes. One nibble of the SCB points to one of the sixteen palettes. Thus, you don't have to swap palettes in and out. _______________________________________________ _______________ | Steve Chiang Apple //gs forever | Coming Soon: | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------| | Internet : stc7@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | DreamGrafix | | America_Online : DWS Steve | 3200 power | |_______________________________________________|_______________|
stc7@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Steven T Chiang) (01/05/91)
In article <10019@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> benji@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Benji Rudiak-Gould) writes: >Then why are 3200-color pictures called that? If you can only have an >interrupt every other line, say, then the most that can be managed is 1600 >colors. Dreamgraphix is doing something besides just displaying the >picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program >should be able to get all 3200 colors. A 3200 color pictures is indeed a 3200 color picture. A paletter per line. The DreamGrafix demo #3 does display the 3200 color picture with ALL 3200 colors, even with the text, music, and vu's going. A 3200 takes about 80% of the processor time, so there is some time leftto do minor things. _______________________________________________ _______________ | Steve Chiang Apple //gs forever | Coming Soon: | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------| | Internet : stc7@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | DreamGrafix | | America_Online : DWS Steve | 3200 power | |_______________________________________________|_______________|
ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (01/07/91)
In article <60237@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) writes: >I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for >individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time >to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new >palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by >your own code does not mean that it is totally free. There is a CPU >time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 >colors takes CPU time. Do you happen to know where this interrupt bit is located? I know it isn't the scan-line interrupt bit of the scanline control byte. Anyways, I wasn't aware that using multiple palletes required interrupts. I just set the lower nibble of the SCB to the pallete number, and everything works fine. I don't even have to mess with the VGC interrupt register to enable scan line interrupts. >Brian Willoughby -- David Huang | Internet: ifar355@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!ifar355 | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) (01/12/91)
This isn't really to David, this is to Brian Willoughby (who is generally very correct in most of his posts)... In one that got by, he said... >I think that you are overlooking a detail in the design of the GS. >Multiple palettes are enabled by setting an interrupt bit for >individual scan lines. This interrupt does, in fact, take CPU time >to handle, as all 16 color registers must be loaded for the new >palette. Just because all of this is set up by the system and not by >your own code does not mean that it is totally free. There is a CPU >time price. Moving from 320X200 with 16 colors to 320X200 with 256 >colors takes CPU time. Brian, sorry, but I wasn't overlooking anything. Others have responded with correct answers, so I'll leave it at that. I do think you should read your hardware reference manual. The overhead is all taken care of by the hardware with the exception of the individual SCB setup. Once the SCB's have been set, display is transparent to the application -- in most cases. The only applications that have to worry about the actual color in the palette pointed to by the SCB are those that create graphics in the multiple palette environment. Anyrate, have a nice day! _______________________________________________________________________________ | Scott Gentry * ALPE AFL Scott * I never said that!| | 2051 Mercator Drive * GEnie W.GENTRY * But you never | | Reston, VA 22091 * UUCP: uunet!ingr!ne1300! * know! | | (703) 264-5652 * brnded!scott * Do You? | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
johnmac@fawlty.towers.oz (John MacLean) (01/16/91)
>>picture, so I can see the problem there, but an ordinary display program >>should be able to get all 3200 colors. >You don't need to use an interrupt on every scanline...your program >can track the vertical scanline counter register (documented in >an Apple IIGS technote I don't have handy) to figure out when to change. >One could also use all 16 hardware-supported palettes and update them >every 16 scanlines, which might buy you some extra CPU to do something >useful other than synchronize to the electron beam. >Dave Seah Most display programs use all 16 palettes - although some use 8. You need to use at least 2 and possibly at least 3. Most recent code that I have seen does not use interrupts, but rather scans the counters as you suggested. However, better synchronization should be possible by disabling interrupts and using the WAI instruction. It "hangs" the CPU when interrupts are disabled, and falls through at the instant of the interrupt - without going through any vectors. I never got round to getting this working, but it should be the best way to do it. -- This net: johnmac@fawlty.towers.oz Phone: +61 2 427 2999 That net: uunet!fawlty.towers.oz!johnmac Fax: +61 2 427 7072 Snail: Tower Technology, Unit D 31-33 Sirius Rd, Home: +61 2 960 1453 Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia.