Forum unknown
· Help/Announcements
#New Computer
7 messages in this thread
Just wondered what you all thought about the Apple IIgs. It sure bugs me a lot!
They obviously wanted a color Mac which could run Apple II software, and boy,
did they create one. I haven't had my hands on one yet, but thay claim that it
will run ALL software for the Apple II as well as looking and sounding as good
as the Amiga. I think this is great, except for one thing, it could possibly
ruin our Amiga's (and the ST's) future. First of all, I can picture people
buying it over the Amiga because of the software base (no small reason).
Second, I think people will buy it over the Amiga just because of Apple's
sterling image. This KILLS me! They designed a computer which LOOKS a lot like
the Amiga but falls way short. They advertise that the IIgs has 320×200 (256
colors) and 640×200 (64 colors) with a palette of 4,096 colors. In reality,
though, it can only produce 16 & 4 colors in its respective modes on one scan
line. But can interrupt the screen for those hefty color totals. As far as
sound goes, it holds its own. It has an Ensoniq sound chip with 64K dedicated
RAM and 32 digital oscillators. It emulates a the Apple II mainly through ONE
chip. Another reason the Amiga blows it away is the fact that the Amiga has all
those support chips and runs at about 7.16 Mhz. On the other hand, the IIgs has
virtually no support chips (that I know of) and runs at a MAX of about 2.5 Mhz
(I believe). This machine obviously falls shy of the Amiga, but alas, people
will probably be blinded by Apple's image.
TF**
Tom,
They may be blinded by the Apple's name, but certainly not the "image"
as the "image" is far better on the Amiga <grin>, seriously, yes the new IIGS
is certainly a contender, but I honestly don't think it will hurt the Amiga
sales signficantly. Now, if they had come out with a color Mac, that might
have done some real damage. Luckily, if they do come out with a color Mac, it
won't be until January, and by that time, I think that there will be enough
installed Amiga's to "weather the blow".
Don
Tom,
They may be blinded by the Apple's name, but certainly not the "image"
as the "image" is far better on the Amiga <grin>, seriously, yes the new IIGS
is certainly a contender, but I honestly don't think it will hurt the Amiga
sales signficantly. Now, if they had come out with a color Mac, that might
have done some real damage. Luckily, if they do come out with a color Mac, it
won't be until January, and by that time, I think that there will be enough
installed Amiga's to "weather the blow".
Don
Don't panic. The IIGS won't do multi-tasking.
jan p.s. Some of us hackers will have _both_ machines (we like neat
hardware! I also have a Mac, and a few others, to boot…)
Don't panic. The IIGS won't do multi-tasking.
jan p.s. Some of us hackers will have _both_ machines (we like neat
hardware! I also have a Mac, and a few others, to boot…)
Don't assume that a 65816 running at 2.5MHz is slower than a 68000 at 7.16MHz
— the 65816 uses many fewer clock cycles per instruction. (You'd have to look
at instruction set references for both to get an idea of the actual difference,
but at a guess, they are probably about equal). The 65816 CPU is much less
>powerful<, though — less registers, weaker instruction set. Offsetting the
lower number of registers is the availability of the "zero page", 256 bytes of
RAM that can be accessed with a 1-byte address. Unlike the 6502, the 65816 can
reassign the zero page, so there are really an unlimited number of semi-fast
registers (256 for each process, e.g., in a multitasking environment). It's
not in CPU speed that the Amiga beats the IIgs, but in graphics power
(blitter/copper) and multitasking. The IIgs' sound may be better than the
Amiga's. I think it will turn out to be "more of the same" — the same quality
as the Amiga's, but more voices at once. – Bela
Don't assume that a 65816 running at 2.5MHz is slower than a 68000 at 7.16MHz
— the 65816 uses many fewer clock cycles per instruction. (You'd have to look
at instruction set references for both to get an idea of the actual difference,
but at a guess, they are probably about equal). The 65816 CPU is much less
>powerful<, though — less registers, weaker instruction set. Offsetting the
lower number of registers is the availability of the "zero page", 256 bytes of
RAM that can be accessed with a 1-byte address. Unlike the 6502, the 65816 can
reassign the zero page, so there are really an unlimited number of semi-fast
registers (256 for each process, e.g., in a multitasking environment). It's
not in CPU speed that the Amiga beats the IIgs, but in graphics power
(blitter/copper) and multitasking. The IIgs' sound may be better than the
Amiga's. I think it will turn out to be "more of the same" — the same quality
as the Amiga's, but more voices at once. – Bela