Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!gnh-starport.cts.com!whitewolf From: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Stellar 7 re-release Message-ID: Date: 27 Dec 90 07:40:31 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 45 X-Unparsable-Date: Wed Dec 26 90 at 04:53:57 (EST) 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