Re: über IIgs

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

You forgot the CP/M machines. Hardwarewise the IBM was a cross between the S100
and the Apple II, but OSwise it was a 16 bit clone of CP/M 80 version 2.2

Roy

**** **** wrote:

> You asked the right questions, and came "oh so close" to getting the right
> answers. It pains me to see that you got it wrong too. But nothing horrifies
> me more than the suggestion of GS/OS x86. <someone walked over my grave
> shiver>.
>
> No single component makes the Apple2 what it is. Just as no single chemical
> element makes you the person you are. I don't walk around saying "gee you
> are composed of 40% carbon, just like everyone else, you're all the same".
> Your personality, all the way from the purely physical on up to your entire
> spiritual soul, comes from the "pattern" of all those little pieces.
> Literally and figuratively.
>
> At the risk of starting another "definition of computer platform" holy war,
> I dare say that the platform is kind of an open ended group of similar
> computers. Clones count too, when you are talking about the apple2 platform,
> or with any. Of all the computers built since the mid 70's, they all fall
> into such a small number of "groups", and of those, the IBM compatible is
> overwhelming. And it's so boring. Paradoxically, even though I just got my
> first 3d card for my main box for Christmas, a Voodoo4, I find the older
> stuff far more interesting. I like the variety. Seeing all the different
> ways that were developed to solve the same old problems. Hell, a sub-hobby
> of mine, is cataloging all the different plug/port/jack types used for
> computers. For instance, would you know what a db23 style plug usually means
> when it comes to computers, without looking it up?
>
> What I don't need, nor anyone else, is Just Another x86 OS. JAXOS for short.
> Especially one that intends to imitate a venerable but DEAD system. The
> fools in atari.st talk about that from time to time, even in the amiga
> newsgroups. Hell, the trademark whores who bought the amiga name intend to
> actually do just that, which pisses me off to no end. If they cared to
> ressurect the amiga, sure, sign me up, but not that. Please don't be giving
> idiots like Bill McEwen bad ideas like this. They come up with way too many
> by themselves.
>
> What do we need then? Not sure. I've been toying with some hardware ideas...
> but I'm not sure what's next after this project matures to fruition. Maybe
> we need an Apple 2 SVGA card, that does everything in hardware. The problem
> isn't that there aren't things still to be done, but rather too many.
>
> Oh, and one other thing. Someone tell me if I'm wrong in how I categorize
> the platforms primarily intended for consumers. I'd like some of you to
> understand what it was I was talking about before, but I can't think of any
> easier way to describe this.
>
> Tandy (later sold out, started making IBM compatibles)
> Early CBM (Pet through c128)
> Apple 2 (apple 1 on up through GS, plus clones, plus "maybe" a3?)
> Atari consoles
>
> IBM Compatible (an entire platform of clones, but no clonee!)
> Apple Macintosh (yes, I still group the 68k and the ppc together)
> Amiga (dead)
> Atari 68k (dead)
> Bebox (stillborn?)
> Acorn (still quasi-alive in europe).
>
> This is by no means an exhaustive list, but its should give you an idea how
> I tend to think of these things. I like the AppleII because these computers
> fall into the third category from the top, and if you write some lame OS for
> #5, it won't have any connection to #3 for me. None. How am I supposed to
> think of this? The appleII-inspired x86 OS? I want some of these to still be
> alive, futile at that is. But I tend to think poorly of those who create
> ill-concieved mockeries of them.
>
> I better end it here, lack of sleep is definitely destroying whatever
> coherence I had left.
>
> Thanks,
> John Oyler
> http://aIIethernet.tripod.com/
> jojo4@va.mediaone.net