Re: Apple ///?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

"Greg J. Buchner" <buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1997, Randy Shackelford wrote:
>
>> In article <bjbear-ya023680000304970710400001@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>,
>> B.J. Major & Dennis J. Gorin <bjbear@ibm.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> First of all, if Apple had continued improving the IIgs, do you
>> >> honestly think it would have remained an 8/16 computer?  Think
>> >> about this for a minute.  The Apple IIgs had a processor that was
>> >> 16 bits internally with an 8-bit bus, but it had a 24 bit memory
>> >> address (16MB of memory addressable).  The PC started off with an
>> >> 8/16 processor, but only got 24 bit addressing with the '286.  The
>> >> point is that from that era, the PC has evolved into the Pentium.
>> >> What's to have kept the IIgs from doing the same?
>> 
>> WDC never put out the 65832, let alone anything newer. Kind of puts the 
>> kibosh on making a '90s vintage 6500 processor. Now before some nincompoop
>> starts up that "WDC needed Apple to make new chips, and Apple rooked 'em"
>> blather, keep in mind that 6500 chips are in everything from microwaves
>> to SNES boxes to pacemakers, so they could have made new chips anyway.
>> Computers are built on processors, not the reverse.

Computers are the driving force behind processor upgrades, not
embeded controller apps.  Microwaves and pacemakers don't need
high speed processors.  This is why Intel sells the '186 and
Motorolla sells the 68000 as microcontrollers still (to this day).
If it weren't for the Mac and PC, Intel and Motorolla would
still be at the '186 and 68000 stage.

Only computer sales to Apple and others would have created the
impetus for faster processors with more bits.

WDC had faster processors since '86, but Apple chose not to use
them.

>
>One other thing to note on this...in the late '80s when Apple would have
>been attempting toake a faster IIGS, (I don't know if they tried), WDC
>wouldn't have had faster chips in stock for Apple to order from.  Standard
>business practice for Apple at that time was to only use products that
>a company had "in stock" so that Apple would be assured of having a
>reliable source.  Until WDC came up with faster chips and was able to
>reliably produce them, there wouldn't ever have been a faster GS.

Not true, faster '816 processors were available.  The Transwarp GS
and Zip GS used them and were around in the late '80s.

>
>> >Once you're leaving 8/16 bit, it would no longer be an Apple 2 anymore from
>> >where I sit...yes, I guess Apple could have evolved it into infinity if
>> >they wanted to, but the architecture/design of the machine is still 1970s
>> >and is now out of date for more "modern" purposes.  There is more to
>> >consider than the "bit-ness" of the CPU!!! (This is NOT a slam, I'm just
>> >stating the facts....)

The GS is an '86 design, not a 1970s design.

Is a GS not an Apple II because it is not 8-bits?  Is a 68040 Mac
not a Mac because it does not have a 16/32 CPU (like the 68000 was)?

>> 
>> There was a story going around that there would be a PPC chip with an
>> intel compatible instruction set on board. It was to be the 615 I think.
>> It must be dead since I haven't heard more about it. Just as well. Why
>> would you want to make such a thing rather than use software emulation
>> or a coprocessor? Nonetheless, such a hybrid would be the only way to
>> modernize a 6500 series processor.
>
>I do believe that IBM is still at work on that chip...the thing about
>it is that it will be a PPC604 on a Pentium format pin array.  The chip
>will start up as a Pentium, but with a simple bit switch, it'll become
>a PPC.  This chip would also be a replacement that you could drop into
>any Pentium (not Pentium Pro) machine.
>
>> Randy Shackelford                                 
>> shack@frii.com                                    
>
>Greg B.

I hope IBM and Intel succeed.  IBM and Intel do not the "evil"
Microsoft make.

PC does not equal Microsoft.

-Scott G.