[no subject]

> Adding a card to the
> old II/IIGS system will not do that for me.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) Why the hell would I wan't PCI slots in a machine that's supposed to
> be
> > > "simple"? Do any of you have any idea of the complexities of the PCI
> > > architecture??? That costs money, and I be a f@#king idiot to try and
> add
> > > them in!
> >
> > I certainly don't. But why? I've already answered that one in above
> posts -
> > Apple has adopted PC technologies like PCI and IDE, because it allows them
> to
> > ride the larger marketplace on some items and put their advanced
> technology
> > dollars where they think they can get the biggest bang for the buck. If
> you
> > don't want PCI, or can't do it, that's no skin off my nose.
>
> Weren't you listening??? I said that I don't give a rats ass about selling
> this system. Given that, then why would I put PCI slots in this system?

Fine, don't put PCI slots in. Yes, I was listening, but I'm not so sure that you
were listening to why PCI is a good idea, if it is cheap/easy enough. The point
of the above is that you get to use cool new cards and have Wintel and Mac
people design them for the new II, that makes the machine more usable, more
expandable, and more likely to be expanded. Whether you sell it or not.

>
> Answer: I WOULDN'T. They're too complicated and require relatively expensive
> bus controllers to manage.

I wouldn't know about that. But I do know that used 486 PCI motherboards cost as
low as $10, and you could salvage slot and bus controllers off them, if new
parts are too expensive.

> I'd rather find a good solution to extending the
> Apple slots, and I think I've already got that.
>
>
>
> While a new system built by Woz would be instantly accepted as the successor
> to the A2 series, I'm left with the impression that he is under so many
> limiting agreements with Apple that if he even tried, he'd have the
> underwear sued off of him by Apple legal. That eliminates him.

The presupposition was that Apple would release to him the patents and
copyrights to a machine they no longer sell, service, or support. Some of those
might start becoming public domain soon anyway (how long are patents good?) Then
he would have to want to do something, because he loved his creation enough to
want to do it.

> The /// was a
> successor to the A2, but definitely unworthy due to all of the built-in
> limiters to make it difficult to manage backward compatibility, not to
> mention the fact that it flopped.

But much of the //e's enhanced technology came from the ///. ProDOS, according
to Apple's own literature, is a cut down version of SOS.

> Lisa/Mac, both born of the same twisted
> notion that the Apple 2 was slated to die in the market, doesn't even come
> close to being an A2 successor.

Some of the Mac creator's had been with the early II team, and for them, the
first Mac was the II again. One interesting point is that Jobs didn't want slots
on the II, and he got his way on the Mac.

>
>
> I did and I do, but when someone argues me to the floor that using slots is
> unnecessary when everything it needs to run is already built-in.... Whether
> or not it needs slots, I have designed them in for upgradeability sake. That
> same person argued about the examples I gave as uses for the slots. THEY
> WERE MERELY EXAMPLES!!! Who cares if the examples would ever be made. They
> just expressed possibilities. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think I was that person. I wasn't against slots, I was merely pointing out the
limitations of the II bus, and that rather than try to widen it or speed it up,
that removing some of them and adding a few slots (like PCI) that are currently
supported in the wider industry would make it more likely to have cards to put
in those slots.

>
>
> I originally started out with a PPC chip and a 65816 coprocessor for
> backward compatibility. Someone said that that design was too clumsy. I
> agreed and changed to a PPC with a ROM to emulate the older 65xxx series
> processors. Someone suggested 4 65816's to do the work since they didn't
> like the idea of software emulation in the system.

Well, you can't please everybody. Do what makes sense to you. The PPC, or
Pentium makes sense to me, because there are IIGS emulators now, and just
emulating the 65816 would be easier than the whole computer. Multiple fast 816s
would be interesting, but a system software nightmare, I would think.

> I agreed about the
> emulation but rejected the 4 65816's. Someone suggested a PLU programmed as
> a new 65832. This I liked and decided to replace the PPC and ROM. Someone
> suggested SCSI instead of IDE, but I rejected it since IDE is easier and
> cheaper.

I like both - SCSI for using older disk drives, IDE so you can use cheap fast
new harddrives.

> Someone suggested PCI, but I have rejected it due to complexity.
> Someone suggested using an old-style 486 case. I like that idea.

That was me, glad you like the idea. I personally don't like it, but it does
kinda fit in with 70s hacker mode doesn't it?

> Someone
> suggested using the IIgs power supplies, but I was thinking about using the
> more prolific PC power supplies. They're cheap enough.
>
> I am listening to the ideas of those who are making valid suggestions
> whether in favor or against the current design. It is the general "It'll
> never fly" style comments that I want to see end.
>
> Arkain

Have fun

Roy