From - Tue Sep  9 22:41:23 1997
Path: netaxs.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!nntp.info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!usenet
From: pubpc1@library.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: What do you do with an Apple //?
Date: 8 Sep 1997 22:21:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <5v1tpc$1l8g@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host-a443ea73.library.ucla.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2N (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: netaxs.com comp.sys.apple2:122014

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
in response to my reply:
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
>>Wolf for the PC (and I only have the evaluation version with
>>six levels...yes Nate, I didn't buy the full program, because I tend
>>to get tired of shallow shoot-em-up blood and guts games) configures
>>itself for your display.  My PC was certainly _not_ moving around
>>256 colors [It has a 16 grayscales screen].
>
>    Like the IIgs version, it runs in 320x200 resolution and no higher.
>Notice though, to increase speed it lets you resize the display window;
>there is no option to change color depth which wouldn't noticably help
>anyway.

Ok, same resolution and same color depth (at least the way it is set
up to run on my '486).


>>I'm only relating what I see: that GS Wolf keeps up with PC Wolf
>>on my systems.
>
>    You weren't listening to what I said, even putting aside speed,
>the PC version scales bitmap images smoother than the IIgs version
>because it was _written_ that way. Each bitmap is scaled larger as
>you approach it than compared with the PC version (things look more
>chunky from the same distance comparing the two). It's almost like
>it is skipping frames to move things around faster. If you re-did
>the Apple IIgs version to have the same smooth frame system I don't
>think it would run as it does now.

The problem here is that the GS version as it is now can run at
full speed with a 7MHz Zip.  I don't notice any improvement in
speed as it bumps up to 13.75MHz.  We can only speculate what would
happen if Wolf GS is rewritten to run with the same smooth frame
system.  Personally, I think that if you optimized Wolf GS for a
13.75MHz to 15MHz GS (or at least provided a separate system for
these high speed GS systems) _and_ drop it "to the metal" (meaning
out of GS/OS, much like MegaDemo's Vaultage module), Wolf GS will
still keep up with Wolf PC, at least on a running on a '486/25SLC
with a 16 grayscale screen.  You have 7+ extra MHz for improvement.
The PC version runs from DOS and hits the metal, remember, unlike
the GS/OS based GS version.


>>Your systems have a much wider performance gap (>100MHz Pentium vs.
>>15MHz GS) than mine (25MHz 486 without any hardware graphics
>>accelerator vs. 13.75MHz GS).
>
>    I only have an AMD 5x86-133, which is functionally a 486 chip
>compatible running at roughly the speeds of a 75 MHz Pentium. Wolf
>3D easily maxes out its frame rate on that (actually so does DOOM),
>but the same is true of a 486DX2-66. In fact, I recall my brother's
>old 486DX-33 machine from years ago was able to run Wolf 3D's frame-
>rate near its limit.

There is no way to test the GS as it has no Wolf version that uses
that frame system.

>    While Wolfenstein 3-D may have been a ground breaking game,
>it is not all that complex. Think about it: There are no light
>sources, there is no floor or ceiling (notice it is all one solid
>color), everything is on level ground (there is no concept of up
>or down). Also your character's hand and weapon remains completely
>static while your moving, not too mention there is no glide when
>you move, it moves in an artifical and rigid fashion: "go - stop,
>go - stop". It is a game that works well on a 386, and even on
>a 286 if you shrink the screen, but has trouble on an Apple IIgs.

Has trouble on an _unaccelerated_ GS, perhaps.  As for the choppiness,
that's the way it was written.  Like I said, the fact that it runs
the same at 7MHz and 13.75MHz tells me that it can be rewritten to
run smoother at the higher speed.


>I'm not putting down the IIgs port or the machine itself, but I
>agree with Nathan about a 486 (or even a 386 in some cases) having
>more horse power for writing complex game software.
>
>Mitchell Spector
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca

Perhaps.  Technically, the '486 has the advantage in many tasks,
I agree.  However, as a synergy between hardware and software, a
'486/25 with Windows '95 runs word processors and integrated
software significantly slower than a 13.75MHz GS with GS/OS and
AppleWorks GS, even though my PC only has a 16 grayscales screen.
With the same TrueType fonts and the same printer connected to the
two computers, word processing and page layout is simply faster on
this particular GS vs. this particular PC and the print quality is
the same.  Sure, AppleWorks GS' word processor is not Word.  But
the way word processors run on a slow '486 simply makes AWGS faster
to use for most word processing tasks than the PC with MS Works.
For most word processing tasks, I'm using the same set of features
on AWGS as on MS Works anyway.

-Scott G.