Re: Slow GS video thanks to: Apple sucks

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Greg Buchner writes ...
> 
> In article <5uqs4n$qq2$1@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan 
> Mates) wrote:
> 
> >And actually, for another management-killed feature of the GS, the
> >engineers originally wanted 10Mhz 65816s under the hood. ....
> 
> And just were would they have gotten 10MHz 65c816's?  It seems to me
> that Applied Engineering had problems getting 7MHz versions when they
> were first coming out with the TransWarp GS.
> 
> Apple Computer never would have designed a GS using parts that were
> not readily available ....
> And, Western Design Center probably wasn't going to put too much work
> into making a faster version unless Apple was going to be using
> them.
> 
> We were sort of stuck in a Catch-22.


     Maybe not. After all, WDC was a small IC maker. When it came to 
pushing for a fast 16-bit version of the 6502, the ball was squarely in 
Apple, Inc's court.

     By the late 1970's, National's PACE, TI's 9900, and Intel's 8086 
made it amply clear that 16-bit uP's would drive the next generation of 
small computers. Apple merely needed to recognize the ending of the II+ 
model cycle, commit to a 16-bit "IIx" in 1982, and back development of 
the new uP. Had they done so, there is good reason to expect that an 8MHz 
or better 65C816 would have been ready to produce in quantity by late 
1984.

     Meanwhile, development of IIx System software could have begun in 
1982 and accelerated when early, slow versions of the 65C816 became 
available. Early models of an advanced, super-res Apple IIGS might have 
hit the market in time for the 1984 Christmas season.

     Of course, we are talking about the strategy of a computer maker 
which understands that, to control The small-computing OS and dictate 
other standards and rake-in Microsoft-class profits, it is first 
necessary to dominate the home market. We are, alas, not talking about 
the real Apple, Inc. of the early 1980's.


Rubywand