Re: Apple ///?

["Greg J. Buchner" <buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us>]

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.

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.

> >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and is now out of date for more "modern" purposes.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....)
> 
> 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.

Idiotic
filler
space
to
make
Pine 3.91r
actually
post
this
to
the
net.

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| G.Buchner1@Genie.Com - or - buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us |
+-------------------------------------------------------+