Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: rom 03 upgrade (or lack thereof)
Message-ID: <1990Feb15.050507.19892@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 90 05:05:07 GMT
References: <10599.infoapple.net@pro-generic>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 31

sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes:

>In-Reply-To: message from dale@pro-colony.cts.com

>> Re:  Apple should have released a faster machine 3 years ago.
>>
>> Well, folks, where would Apple have gotten the chips? Since WDC seems to

>Hold on for a moment. Take the lid off your IIgs. You'll see a GTE 65816-part
>rated at 4 Mhz.  Why couldn't the IIgs have been at some 'nice' frequency
>(more than 2.8 Mhz).. say 3.58 Mhz. I don't think that would be too hard to
>syncronize with the FPI.

Not hard at all; in fact it would drastically improve performance when dealing
with the slow side of the machine. Add some other minor improvements, and you
wouldn't believe how much better the //gs could have been.

>I do expect reasonable 'bang' for the buck. And frankly I don't think we got
>it with the IIgs. I love my IIgs and its relatives. But not too many people
>(other than in schools) will find out about the IIgs because they're just not
>worth it.

Precisely my point in other posts.

I can fully back the statement that the //gs was artificially limited, or at
least could have been improved drastically within a year or two after its
release. ROM 03 was the valiant attempt of the Apple // group to give it what
they could with the miserable funding that Apple management gives them.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu