Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!eos!aurora!barry From: barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: In defense of the IIgs Message-ID: <1827@aurora.UUCP> Date: 28 Mar 88 19:37:44 GMT References: <8803221951.aa27106@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Reply-To: barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Organization: QQQCLC Lines: 65 In article <8803221951.aa27106@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >>From: Lazlo Nibble >>Subject: IIgs Too Wimpy, Seeking Greener Pastures >>Most of the // people I know (four or five of us) are looking >>into trashing the //s and gettting Amigas. >>[...] >>I didn't bother to upgrade to a IIgs because >>the wimpy increase in processor speed didn't make it worthwhile > >Processor speed is NOT the most important thing, and it's not the GS's >strongest feature. What about desk accessories, built-in clock & parameter >RAM, built-in printer and modem ports, built-in 80-col card, built-in mouse >port, built-in SmartPort interface, and a large [and hackable] toolbox? Processor speed is just one factor, but it should not be ignored. The problem with the good points you make about the GS above is that they're in comparison to an Apple ][, not with modern machines. Lazlo's wondering why he should buy a GS instead of an Amiga, Atari, or 286 IBM clone, not instead of a ][. Most of the features you cite are common to all these machines. I speak as one who deserted Apple's ship about a year ago. I bought my 1st computer, an Apple ][, in 1978. I still have it, and it works beautifully. But I don't use it much since I bought my Amiga. Why Amiga? Same reason that I chose Apple in '78 - most bang for the buck from a hacker's point of view. >Be CAREFUL throwing "MHz"'s around--there are major differences in the number >of clock cycles taken for each instruction cycle between different processors. >There isn't all that much difference in processor speed between a 2.8MHz >65816 and a 12MHz 80?86. Uhhh... this is an exaggeration. You're certainly right about machine cycles not being one-for-one comparable. I don't know much about the GS or the 65816, but if it's like the 6502, I'd grant it's probably as fast as a 80?86 running at twice the clocks. Not at 4X speed, though. Nor is this the best comparison. Lazlo sounded more interested in an Amiga 500 than a '286. I think you'll find the Amiga's 68000 + coprocessors makes it much faster than a GS, especially for graphics and animation. Believe me, I'm not out to trash the Apple ][ line. The original ][ is the Model T of computers. It's a great machine for its size, and so versatile that we still get use out of Apple ][s here at Ames, despite the availability of many bigger, faster machines. It's even fun to program - arcane but basically comprehensible. As for the GS, it's a reasonable upgrade that preserves the best features of the ][, while adding attractive enhancements. The sound is particularly nice. But you just don't get the bang for your buck that you can get from other machines out on the market. Compatibility is pointless. If I want to run Apple software (and I'm still hooked on "RobotWar" :-), I turn on my Apple. No point in selling the machine; I probably have 5K invested in just the hardware, and I doubt I could get 1K for hardware and software combined. And compatibility is equally pointless for those who've never owned an Apple, obviously. If you're going to run the kind of fancy software that takes advantage of the neat features of a GS, Amiga or Atari ST, it never existed for the old 8-bit machines, anyway. So, I think Apple missed the boat with the GS. But they have brought out the 1st Apple computer I really like since the original ][: the MAC II. Now, if only they'd cut the price by about 60%, they might get me back as a customer :-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry - QQQCLC - NASA-Ames Research Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!aurora!barry ARPA: barry@ames-aurora.arpa