Re: ber IIgs

[dev.null@personal.information.com]

I think the difference between emulation and hardware is that, by using the
original hardware, we are making something of the old machine.  You can not
say the same thing about emulation because the only piece of that machine
which you are still using is the software.

Even an older Macintosh, with its IIgs style serial and ADB ports, (maybe
even a floppy port), does not support the cranky 5.25" floppies nor the
peripheral cards which have been developed over the years.

But even if the Mac supported everything an Apple II supported, it still
would not be the same.  A continually updated Apple II would be no differnt
from the Macintosh or Intel boxes which we use today.  Those machines are
common stock, and you can do pretty much anything which can be done on
computers today.  It is not as challenging, and it is not as fun, to do
things which come too easily.  (Easily, sure.  But too easily?)

At least that is a bit of the reason that I think I like my Apple II's.

Have a great Chrismas,
Byron.

IceWeasel <noaddress@for.you> wrote:
> Looking at the "Apple II Accelerator Project" thread after writing my
> ber-IIgs dream machine article got me thinking a bit philosophically about
> computer hardware.  It's  a common thing, esp. among classic computer
> devotees, to have a particular attachment to the hardware that comprises the
> computer.  With the A2 for instance, we could all be running 40MHz IIgs's
> via the Bernie II emulator.  But it wouldn't be the same.  My question here
> is: why?  Why is it not the same?  Where, in the bowels of a tricked-out
> computer, lies the heart of the machine?  What particular component
> comprises its soul?