Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!LSUVM.BITNET!$CSB211 From: $CSB211@LSUVM.BITNET (mark orr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: apple ii's with 68k's Message-ID: <9005042139.AA03276@apple.com> Date: 4 May 90 21:39:47 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 90 < caution flames ahead > i've owned an apple ii since 1977 and they have given me years of reliable (more or less) service. unfortunately, i cannot say the same for the apple computer inc. I have watched, along with you, as apple has gone from a company that ardently supported the ii to a megacorporation on the verge of telling 5,000,000 installed and loyal users that they can just jack off. we arent asking for crays (or even vaxes). if apple had made credible upgrades we would not be having this discussion. simply put "sorry, we blew it" is not going to do. a faster CLOCK SPEED IS A START. BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CASE FOR THE 68000. I HAVE BEEN USING ONE IN MY APPLE II FOR YEARS AND FIND IT MUCH EASIER TO CODE THAN THE 6502 (I DONT HAVE A GS). TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT EVEN A FEEBLE 68000 CAN DO I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN DECEMBER 1982 ---- THAT COMPARED SIX APPLE COPROCESSORS (THE NUMBER NINE BOOSTER 6502C, 6502C, the computer station ffp 9511, alf ad8088, stellation two mill (6809), coprocessors 88card (8088), and the dtack grounded 68000) the results of their benchmark: interpreted | compiled | primes FPlot roots | primes fplot roots | 6502 53 34 51 | 43 26 49 (1.0 MHz) | | 9511 29 15 5 | 24 n/a 9 | 8088 23 15 10 | 15 7 8 | 6502c 15 10 15 | 12 8 14 (3.6 MHZ) | | 68000 20 13 5 | 12 5 3 (6 MHz) | | Combo 8 6 2.8 | 6 4 2.1 (68000+ 6502c) THE PRIMES PROGRAM IS SIMILAR TO THE SIEVE BENCHMARK, THE FPLOT USES GRAPHICS TO PLOT MANY SINES AND COSINES AND THE ROOTS BENCHMARK COMPUTES 1000 SQUARE ROOTS. PRIMITVE BENCHMARKS - BUT THIS WAS '82 I BOUGHT MY APPLE IN '77, GOT A MOUNTAIN MUSIC BOARD (16 VOICES) IN '81, A NUMBER NINE GRAPHICS BOARD (NEC 7220 - 512X512 RES.) IN '83, AND TWO SAYBROOK 68000'S (EACH 12.5 MHZ) AND A TITAN ACCELERATOR II IN '84, REPLACING IT WITH A ROCKET CHIP THIS YEAR. MY SYSTEM HAS BETTER GRAPHICS, SOUND, AND IS MUCH FASTER THAN THE IIGS. SO DON'T SAY THE TECHNOLOGY IS TOO HARD TO APPLY TO THE APPLE BECAUSE IT WAS AVAILABLE (MOST OF IT WAS) BEFORE '84 (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IT WAS CHEAP - THE 68K'S COST ME LESS THAN $1200) SOMEONE ASKED IF WE HAVE SEEN THE PRICE OF HIGH SPEED PROCESSORS LATELY. I HAVE - JAMECO LISTS 12 MHZ 68000 CHIPS AT ABOUT $13 A PIECE, LESS THAN $10 IN BULK. APPLE COULD EASILY PUT A HALF DOZEN IN AN APPLE II WITHOUT RUNNING UP A BIG BILL. APPLE COULD HAVE PUT 68K'S IN APPLE IIE'S WHEN THEY FIRST CAME OUT. FOR A NEW APPLE II - THINK ABOUT A THREE PROCESSOR SYSTEM: ONE 68K FOR A CPU - EMULATING 65816 INSTRUCTIONS AND RUNNING ITS OWN RICH INSTRUCTION SET A 68K HANDLING GRAPHICS - RUNNING VGA-TYPE GRAPHICS AND A 68K HANDLING I/O AND SOUND. AMIGA'S USE A SIMILAR CONCEPT EXCEPT THEY USE SIMPLE 8 BIT PROCESSORS TO DO THE GRAPHICS AND I/O DIRTY WORK. JUST KEEP TELLING YOURSELF 68K'S ARE CHEAP. (BECAUSE THEY ARE) MY SAYBROOK BOARDS CONTAIN LESS THAN $80 WORTH OF PARTS (TODAYS PRICE FOR THE SUPPORT CHIPS). IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE THE EMULATOR BURDEN OFF THE MAIN 68K, A MIXED 65816/68000 SYSTEM COULD BE DEVELOPED. A HIGH PERFORMANCE SYSTEM NEED NOT HAVE EXPENSIVE PARTS - JUST A CLEVER DESIGN. MY APPLE II RUNS A LIGHTNING FAST ACCELERATED APPLESOFT ON THE 68K AND I CAN CONTROL BOTH 68K'S THROUGH MACHINE LANGUAGE. I GENERALLY USE ONE 68K TO HANDLE GRAPHICS (SENDING COMMANDS TO THE NUMBER NINE GRAPHICS BOARD) AND ONE TO CRUNCH NUMBERS. ON THE ABOVE TABLE MY SYSTEM EASILY OUTPERFORMS THE COMBO 6502C+SLOW 68K and can smoke any '386. AND I CAN RUN UNIX SYSTEM V TOO! JUST A SUGGESTION MARK ORR | "YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY $CSB211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | UNTIL YOU CUT YOURSELF WITH IT!!" @LSUVM (BITNET) |