Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>In article <24OCT199621281979@vax2.concordia.ca>,
>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>>>My God, man, the Apple II of the late 80's did NOT have an 8-bit processor.
>>>The Apple IIGS has a 16-bit processor.
>>
>>    Agreed! I'm rather tired of hearing that stereotypical response
>>spoken out so often, claiming the Apple II is "'70's technology"; and
>>that Apple was right to end it. The words "Apple II" seem to conjure 
>>up images of a 48Kb Apple II Plus, with monochrome screen and 5.25 
>>drive in people's mind. Why? The Apple II line was more than that, 
>>but ever so much more so if you consider the Apple IIgs.
>
>Yeah, but there's no getting around the fact that all Apple IIs use a processor
>derived from a chip which debuted in '75. Staying compatible means sacrifices
>in power. The Pentium is pushing the limits of performance since it still
>can execute 8086 code. The PPC is not encumbered like that.

The Pentium also is derived from a chip from the 70's, the Intel 8080.  It
was an 8-bit chip.  This was why the later '286 used a segmented memory
scheme of 64K banks (256 banks to make 16MB of addressable memory).


>>    I have little doubt that continuing the original 8-bit Apple II 
>>design wouldn't have made sense in today's market, but not the GS. 
>>I hate seeing it lumped in with the rest of the Apple II's as far 
>>as any future feasibility would have been concerned! 
>
>Computers don't improve without newer processors. No successor to the
>65816 ever left the design phase.

Randy, if Apple supported the GS instead of the Mac, sales of 65816 chips
to Apple would fuel R&D at WDC.  We WOULD have had MANY successors to
the 65816.


>
>>    It would have been such a _simple_ matter to enhance it's design,
>>it was so blatantly obviously that Apple left it in a crippled state
>>on purpose. The VGC could have easily been updated to support at least
>>a 640x400 mode, and 256 colors per scanline. The Ensoniq chip could have
>>been given a full 128Kb of DOC-RAM, with stereo sound-out and sound-in
>>connectors built-in (being forced to buy a "stereo card" was as silly 
>>as selling a car without a steering wheel!). Better yet, they could 
>>have dropped in newer Ensoniq chips with more DOC-RAM, as they became
>>available. A reasonable amount of memory could have shipped out of the
>>box (why did they wait until 1989, and then only supply 1MB?) as could
>>a faster 65C816 have been incorporated.
>[clip]
>
>Memory was still expensive even when the ROM 3 came out. It went through
>the roof in mid '88, when a set of eight 256K DRAMs was ~$120. Gotta keep
>in mind the time context. No faster processors were available, memory was
>expensive, and hard disks were unholy expensive. It's easy to forget that
>in these days of $200 gigabyte hard disks and $100 16 mb SIMMs.


When the ROM 3 came out, the Transwarp GS was around.  How can you say no
faster processors were available THEN?

The argument still stands.  If they could improve the Mac, they could
have improved the GS.  It had more potential.  It could accept more RAM
than the Mac Plus.  Those chips and hard drives would have been expensive
on an improved Mac too, remember.

>
>If you want a new up do date computer with Apple II compatibility on a card,
>all you need is a Powermac with a PCI Apple II card to go in it. Would everyone
>be happy if there were such a card?

Apple IIGS compatibility also.  That would be a start.