EmpireAndrew wrote:As they both use the CPU vs a GPU for drawing and are broadly the same I'm curious as to the reason behind any speed difference.
Bear in mind the LC II runs a 16 bit data bus vs the LC III that I use which has a 32bit bus and of course a much faster clocked 030.
I wonder what the reason is behind the screen drawing routines being so much slower on the LC II?
I forget the Falcons Gem windows, is there as much eye candy (ie complexity to the design of the Macs windows?).
As they both use the CPU vs a GPU for drawing and are broadly the same I'm curious as to the reason behind any speed difference.
calimero wrote:I wpuld never say that Atari lack of quality software (not talking about games).
Falcon had audio software far more advanced than you could find on UNSTABLE wintel boxes.
3D deparment laged maybe to other platforms but there also was quality titles in 90s.
Beside half of programs that you use today on Windows have start their life on TOS, Amiga OS or Mac OS. All these software come to PC only after releasing Windows 95 (or was unusable on Windows 3.x).
I hope I will document all this ASAP - to test my memories from 80s and 90s... chiwriter vs signum for example. Or Ventura vs Calamus...
EmpireAndrew wrote:In the video the Falcon screen drawing does seem faster, although the windows are much simpler in terms of design.
I wonder if there is a difference between what language the OS was written in on the Falcon vs the Mac?
calimero wrote:Hehe... I played today with Papyrus on Falcon and M$ Word on Mac LC II and I can say that Mac is USELESS!!!
I will make video in next days but LC II simple is not in same league as Falcon!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest