Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote:
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards, sysadm@zws.com wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>I see he programs for OS/2 and thus for the Intel architecture.
>>I'm surprised he would feel this way considering the Pentium
>>has evolved from the 8-bit Intel 8080 and we don't think of the
>>Pentium as "basically an 8-bit CPU at heart."  Let me see what's
>
>But the Pentium *is* basically an 8-bit CPU at heart, it simply
>has 16 and 32-bit extensions. Nobody except Intel regards the
>8086 as being a real 16-bit CPU, and the Pentium situation is
>closely analogous. Proof of the point lies in the fact that the
>Pentium has 8-bit opcodes.

(CC: Lewin A.R.W. Edwards, sysadm@zws.com)

I see.  Well, if you regard a chip as fast as the Pentium in the
same light, then it is not an insult to the GS.  :)

My point was that if it could be done for the Intel line, a fast
derived 65C816 must also be possible.  I know that this was more or
less what you said in the original post, but I just wanted to
clarify this for others.

>>>Hmm. I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but if the 65832 is
>>>pin-compatible with the 65816 then it is still basically an
>>>8-bit CPU
>>
>>Here's the problem.  Who said the next generation 65816 would
>>be pin compatible?  It would only have to be instruction
>>compatible!
>
>The guy who wrote the original message [to B.J.] said it was pin
>compatible! I can only work with the information I'm given, you
>know. It wasn't an assumption, it was information received.

That guy was just quoting rumors, then.  After all, we would not
want the '816 derived chip to be tied to an 8-bit data bus forever!
Like the Pentium, a derived '816 chip would only need to be
instruction compatible.

>>>horsepower. The 68000, clock for clock, is substantially more
>>>powerful than the 65C816 used in the IIgs.
>>
>>but the 65C816 is much more efficient at handling memory.  It can
>>access memory in a single cycle whereas the 68000 needed 4 cycles. 
>
>Right, and how many major programs do you know that have nothing
>but :
>
>      move 1000000,d0
>loop: move (a0)+,(a1)+
>      dbra d0,loop
>
>as the entire meat of the program? That's the only situation where
>your observation will have a real-world effect. I stand by what I
>said.

What I forgot to say was that the 65C816 can also complete most
instructions in a single cycle.  The 68000 could not.  That's where
the 65C816 would come out ahead.  :)

For the record, I'm saying this about the 68000.  Obviously, with
all the money Apple poured into supporting Macs and therefore
Motorolla, by the time the '030 came out, this fault was fixed.
Then again, had Apple used the same money to support the GS and
therefore Western Design Center, the derived 65C816 chip would
continue to have the advantage.

Clock for clock, the 65C816 would perform many instructions much
faster than the 68000, which must use up several clock cycles to
complete an instruction.

>>Similarly, I clocked a Macintosh LC '020 running at 16MHz
>>against a GS running at 9MHz and found that the GS came was
>>faster consistently at tasks such as scrolling through a word
>>processing document (graphical), sizing a page to fit, etc.
>
>Yes, yes, it can be done - the point is, it needs to be done,
>which adds cost to the project, which is what I was saying.

At least you see that it _can_ be done.  There are those who've
spammed csa2 claiming that it was impossible because the 65C816
was based on the 65C02.  The Pentium did it, so can a derived
65C816 _had Western Design Center had more support_ from big
computer manufacturers such as Apple.

>Basically what you have said in this message
>is that Apple shouldn't have made the Mac, they should have
>made a Mac and called it a IIgs "plus" or something.

Yes.  Basically, their next generation machine _should_ have been
Apple II and GS compatible.  That only makes sense not to alienate
the market.  Now you might point out that modern PowerPC based
Apples can emulate even the GS.  That's true, but the early Macs
such as the SE could not run GS software!  Apple alienated most
of its user base and it was all part of the plan to get schools
to buy new computers.  This plan backfired and Apple lost market
share even in education to the "Wintel" machines that are so hated
by Apple fans.  The fact that PowerPC machines are finally powerful
enough to do GS emulation, however incomplete, changes nothing.
All those users of the Apple II and the GS have gone PC already,
many convinced that they would never buy from a company that
abandoned users in this way again.

Like you said, it _was_ possible for Apple to upgrade the GS and
Western Design Center to upgrade the 65C816.  At least to the
degree of the Pentium (the next step would then be to make a
migration to something similar to PowerPC, keeping compatibility).
Yes, it would have cost money to upgrade _either_ the Mac Plus
or the GS.  Apple got greedy and thought "if we dump the GS and
make the incompatible Mac more glamorous, then the schools would
need to switch.  If we supported the GS, schools would feel
secure using their IIe's until they fail.  Damn, we made those
IIe's _too_ reliable!"

So Apple basically deliberately killed the GS even though it had
the potential to become a PowerGS someday.  They could have spent
the same R&D money and upgraded the GS instead of the Mac.  The
difference is that Apple would have kept its loyal user base.

>And you've never heard of OS/2 for PowerPC? I'm not surprised,
>but it exists.

That makes sense, since IBM and Apple are cooperating.  Even
Micro$oft makes (made?) a PowerPC version of Windows NT.

>Believe me there are few things in the world I despise more than
>the iAPx86 series of CPUs.

The saddest thing is that many PC users are former Apple II users.
This was the once loyal customer base that believed Apple.  Believed
in the company line of "Apple II Forever."  Now we have lost faith.

Do you think we like messing with config.sys and IRQ conflicts?
It is just better than getting burned by Apple again.  Imagine
if Apple built the "GS Plus" instead?  All of us would still be
loyal to Apple.  Millions of Apple users, still keeping faith
in The Company.  Imagine that.  What could have been.

(Even MacOS users have to pause: Apple is burning many of them by
killing off the MacOS clones.  MacOS users: you believe now, but
what will you do when you get burned?  First, they came for the
GS users, but I said nothing.  Then they came for the clone users,
and I said nothing.  Now they are coming for me and there is no
one left to speak on my behalf.)

-Scott G.