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

[gt8624a@prism.gatech.edu (William Sheldon Simms)]

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

I don't know if this recent discussion can be called "serious", but in
any case, the difference between a "GS-X" machine and a software emulator
on a PowerMac (or Pentium) could range anywhere from little to great.
The IIgs had hardware features in it's graphics and sound systems that would
be very difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce in a software emulator.
Furthermore, a software emulator would not provide much hardware
compatibility with the Apple IIgs, which some people in this discussion
have said is important to them. A "GS-X" machine could provide significantly
better compatibility in both hardware and software while also providing
a modern computing platform. To me, your question is similar to asking
why a PowerMac isn't called a PC clone, since with SoftPC it can run
PC software.

-Sheldon



-- 
 W. Sheldon Simms III
 gt8624a@prism.gatech.edu 
 Newt's Friend / Vote Republican / End the welfare state now!