Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!cs4w+ From: cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Speed (long), was: Re: A low blow from Apple Message-ID: Date: 21 Sep 90 19:22:17 GMT References: <9009200536.AA27514@apple.com>, <15362@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 82 In-Reply-To: <15362@yunexus.YorkU.CA> >If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486. The >386/486 are probablythe best price/performance >computers you will find if speed is the only issue, >which I do not agree with. [ lots of good comments about software, OS, and Apple's people deleted ] >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >philip@utstat.toronto.edu Without trying to argue about machine A being better for reaon B than machine C, here is a price/performance list for a coupla machines that I know: DEC 3100 w/ B&W 1024x768 pixel display: $16000 / 14 MIPS = $1150 / MIP IBM 386 (Model 80?) w/ VGA color (640x400) display: $4500 / 1.5 MIPS = $3000 / MIP Apple Mac //ci w/ 4-bit color (640x400) display: $5500 / 2.0 MIPS = $2750 / MIP Commodore Amiga w/ 4-bit color (640x200?) display: $2500 / 1.0 MIPS = $2500 / MIP Apple //gs w/ 4-bit color (320x200) display: $2500 / .35 MIPS = $7100 / MIP The prices were taken from the best that I could get out of CMU's computer store including serious educational discounts. (And may not reflect the prices you see in your local store....) It indicates a complete "reasonable" system, including comparable displays (well, as best as can be done) and mouse, keyboard, ~40 MB hard drive, printer, etc. The MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) figures is based on what I recall from a bunch of magazine tests, and very approximately indicates the computer's "speed" and "performance". Speed is most certainly not the most important aspect of a system, but still, a quick glance shows a disparity. (I admit that it is unfair to compare the //gs to a DEC 3100, but it does show a nice price / performance ratio. :-) I wonder why Apple doesn't redesign the //gs in order to provide certain basic improvements into the Apple //gs. These are some of the things that I'd like to see, or have heard other people wish for.... Considering that many (most?) people buy a Transwarp for $300 running at about 8 MHz, and some a 68881 coprocessor card that is available for $250 or so: Apple could build a //gs with at least an 8 MHz CPU, main memory, ROM, etc, that would add less to the cost of the machine than a Transwarp. This would make a serious improvement in the //gs' performance. Apple could include a socket on the motherboard for an optional math co-processor chip (such as the 68881) and design the SANE toolset to take advantage of such a co-processor rather than executing the torturously slow emulation thereof, greatly improving the speed of SANE calculations.... Apple could make some very needed improvements at the same time: >> like adding built-in stereo output with a decent internal amp (and an analog volume control like the //c), rather than the $50 dollar cards now required >> redesigning the Mega II >> adding a seperate SCSI connector on the "fast" side, not running through a 1 Mhz slot, thus not forcing people to buy that $129 dollar Apple SCSI card in order to operate a hard drive efficiently -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu