Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ucselx!crash!pro-sol.cts.com!lbotez
From: lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: World GeoGraph
Message-ID: <3575@crash.cts.com>
Date: 17 Jul 90 04:44:11 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 40

In-Reply-To: message from tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com

>Heh... "too slow; lousy resolution"?  Well, Lynda, I wouldn't go that far.

Well, perhaps I didn't say it clear enough.  The article in Byte I was
referring to said the program was too slow, and the resolution was coarse.
I would imagine they were using it on a regular Apple IIGS (the 2.8 mhz
kind...  who knows, it could have even been set to 1 mhz...).

Accelerators are great, but if the basic machine runs at 2.8 mhz, then that's
how the whole world looks at it.  It's slow, compared to what else is out
there (BTW, I don't mean to set up another debate about the x4 factor with the
65816 vs the other guys...).

The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400
and better, our machine is getting way behind.

Just think how neat it would be to have our machine with this better
resolution, and a decent speed as standard.  It would bring us up-to-date.

BTW, I have a transwarp; it can run at 9 mhz.

Lynda

>Everyone wants an IBM inside an Apple case.  I don't look at IBM and then
>look at my Apple and wish it could go as fast and have VGA comparable
>graphics.

I dunno.  I look at my Apple and say, why can't Apple make my 9 mhz Apple IIGS
standard?  A redesign of the motherboard would give the speed I have to
everyone.

I dunno.  A friend of mine who designed a 640 x 400 card for doing graphics on
the Apple II gave me a demo when I was curious to see what it would look like.
It was monochrome, but resolution was terrific (the card was developed a few
years ago for a specific use, and was never sold).  Gosh, I had 640 x 400
graphics running at 9 mhz.

I don't want an IBM inside my Apple.   I want my Apple to be as good as an IBM
(I know it can be).