Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <4mejq3$7f9@news.ais.net>, chrisw@eagle.ais.net (Chris
Wicklein) writes:

>
>	Before last week, the last time I had heard the GSX discussed 
>seriously was during the very early 90s prior to the Twain.  I'm not sure

>why we're considering a system like you describe as a modern GSX.  How 
>does this concept differ from adopting an existing platform, such as a 
>generic PPC box, and writing a 65816 emulator and intercepting all I/O 
>location accesses?
>
>
     The PPC box/GS-emulation approach would result in vastly worse GS
performance than simply plugging a 20MHz GS-on-a-card board into any
decent PC. However, neither approach addresses some major concerns of II
users.

     First, no major vendor is going to bother developing software for the
GS part of PPC-GS or PC-GScard because the PC part is there and able to
run any game, netware, etc. faster.

     Second, PPC-GS or PC-GScard is a dead end. No further development of
the II portion of such a system would occur.

     Third, an in-PC GS would have even worse problems with system
standardization than the PC alone.

     Fourth, many-- probably, most-- II users would reject any approach
which makes the II dependent upon and secondary to PC or any other alien
platform.

     As an integrated, high-performance, non-PC, II/IIgs compatible
machine, IIGS-X does address major II user concerns. Unlike either in-PC
scheme, IIGS-X is commercially feasible.

     Despite the above, a PPC-GS and on-Card GS would both be fun,
interesting projects. From them we might learn much of value for designing
the IIGS-X.


Rubywand