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

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <4lt0md$fka@atlantis.atlantis.actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) writes:

>
>....  A IIgs would NOT be an Apple II if it
>didn't run existing Apple II software.  Similar design ideas with
>incompatible software do not a computer family make.

     This does seem to be a popular view.

 
>.... I use AppleWorks 5.1 every day, and other 8-bit
>software quite often.
>

     Sure; but, getting to use 3 or 4 favorite 8-bit utilities hardly
justifies the enormous cost in lowered IIgs performance.

     It is interesting to consider what kind word processor 'everyone'
would be using on IIgs if IIgs System 6-based super-res wares were as easy
to program and de-bug as IIe software.

     Look at the number of major IIgs applications which, even after
several revisions, contain serious bugs. The guys developing this stuff
are not bumbling unskilled dolts. They are good programmers battling a
hopeless morass of hardware/firmware/software quirks. 


>....
>Ideally, the IIgs should have had a cleaner division between the 8-bit
>and 16-bit modes, perhaps providing IIe/IIc compatibility through an
>emulation card (which could borrow the main processor, or have its own
>65C02).  The slot bus should have supported higher speed communication
>and a greater address space, perhaps by having a two-part connector
>like the IBM AT, and only using the new features with cards that use
>both connectors.

     Had II+/IIe compatibility been implemented as you describe, the IIgs
would be a much 'cleaner', faster machine.

     Possibly the only sane way to retain II/IIgs compatibility in GS-X is
a nearly separate IIgs-on-a-card option. Users who want downward
compatibility can buy the card.  


Rubywand