Re: Solutions in Modernizing GS (Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs)

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

Scott G.:  I will forward these comments onto Lewin Edwards.  I'm sure
he'll have much to say about them as he himself has programmed *many*
Amiga items and still uses that platform himself on occasion.

--------------------------------------------------

<pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> I talked to an friend of mine that uses and programs an Amiga 500
> (a computer that uses the 68000) and asked him about these supposed
> problems in upgrading the GS.  Here's what he has to say:
> 
> Some Mac users have spammed csa2 and claim that the GS could never
> be upgraded.
> 
> "Yeah, we Amiga users get spammed by those freaks too."
> 
> They doubt the derived 65C816 32-bit chips could have been made.
> 
> "That figures, we've been trying to convice them that they don't
> have pre-emtive multitasking for ages and they don't get it.
> Where there is demand, there will be supply.  Since Apple wanted
> the GS dead, clone makers gave up their efforts and as a result,
> Western Design Center gave up theirs.  That's why they placed
> their emphasis on microcontroller applications."
> 
> Just for the benefit of their doubt, assuming that WDC did not
> make a 32-bit variant one way or another, could the GS still be
> upgraded?
> 
> "Absolutely. Apple wanted it dead, which is why they refused to
> upgrade it.  In the early 1990's, a Mac Classic with big
> memory and a hard drive was priced the same as a GS system
> without a hard drive and the same processor as in 1986.  They
> made it clear they wanted to push GS sales down so that they
> could justify killing it.  This is not saying that even Mac
> Classic prices were reasonable when you consider that Amiga 500
> systems were selling for less that $800 fully equipped, but
> the Classic was deliberately made a steal compared to the GS."
> 
> They say that the 68000 was more powerful clock for clock.
> Having studied the 65C816, is this so?
> 
> "Clock for clock?  No way is the 68000 more efficient at all
> tasks.  At the equivalent frequency, the 65C816 will beat a
> 68000 in many tasks.  If Apple put a 7MHz 65C816 into the GS,
> it would beat a 7MHz 68000 Mac to a pulp in most tasks.  Even in
> the 2.8MHz version that Apple crippled the GS with, it will
> keep up with a 7MHz 68000 in a Mac on a good day.  Actually,
> the 65C816 at 2.8MHz and the 68000 at 7MHz are pretty slow.
> The Amiga deals with this by using custom hardware graphics
> chips, which is why our graphics are so much better than the
> equivalent Macs and don't slow down the computer."
> 
> How would you upgrade a GS without a 32-bit 65C816 derivative?
> 
> "I would put the fastest 65C816 that WDC has (20MHz) into a
> motherboard that runs at this speed.  Then I would use 'the
> Amiga Principle,' using custom chips to off-load work from
> the CPU.  Put the equivalent of the Amiga graphics chipset
> in (that TurboRez card that was cancelled is a good equivalent)
> that provides multiple bitplanes and a hardware blitter.
> Give SVGA output, like that Second Sight card offers.  Put
> in a 68882 math coprocessor unit like the one that was
> available for the GS on a card.  Then round it off by putting
> in a modern version of the GS's Ensoniq sound chip.  8-bit
> Apple II emulation could be moved into software easily.  Use
> an IDE hard drives for the biggest bang for the buck and put
> in at least 4MB, expandable to 16MB."
> 
> Is it too late to upgrade the GS?
> 
> "No.  If Apple dies and sells the technology, the GS, using
> the Amiga Principle, can be revived.  The Amiga is being revived
> by Gateway 2000, so it can be done.  The market for computers
> priced at $600 is large and left by the void formerly filled
> by the Amiga 500.  Apple could target this market with this
> GS.  They could buy the rights to all the significant GS
> software and bundle it together.  If people are willing to buy
> GeoWorks based integrated software in a dedicated word processor
> (for example, from Brother) for $400, this GS will sell like
> crazy as an appliance computer."
> 
> Can this new GS evolve into something even better?
> 
> "Definitely yes.  If successful, Apple should move to upgrade
> the GS's OS.  The first thing I would do is to slowly make the
> GS toolbox reentrant.  I assume this is why you can preemtive
> multitask under GNO/ME, but only have one Desktop program being
> multitasked.  Then they could eventually migrate the platform
> to PowerPC if things work out.  Keep the hardware graphics and
> sound, port the GS toolbox to native PPC code, and emulate the
> 65C816."
> 
> The Mac folks say that this is like the PowerMac.
> 
> "Sure, except that it has sound and graphics features that we
> Amiga and GS users like and it has the GS toolbox in native
> code.  That's a big advantage.  Also, all you Apple II folks
> would have such a GS now and Apple would be in much better
> shape."
> 
> They say at some time backward compatibility must be cut
> 
> "Yes, but if you give users an upgrade path with backward
> compatibility at each step, they will follow.  If you break
> backward compatibility in a single step, they [the users]
> will defect.  The GS is compatible with the IIe.  The
> 'Amiga-like' GS I am suggesting will break IIe compatibilty
> but remain truly GS compatible.  Then the RISC based GS
> will emulate the GS in software and eventually, after a
> few years, go native.  At each step, give a few years in
> between for users to migrate and be backward compatible
> not with the very oldest model, but with at least the previous
> one."
> 
> Based on my conversation with him, I'd say Apple would have
> had a winner using the following timetable:
> 
> GS w/1MB:  1986
> GS/30 (7MHz processor/30MB hard drive): 1987
> 'Amiga-like' GS:  1990
> PowerGS (65K emulation):  1994
> PowerGS (all native):  1997
> 
> -Scott G.


-- 
--bj   Auto reply will not work; remove "black" to reply.  
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.   
"None of my computer systems do Windows."