Re: Apple's next move (was Apple II just won't die.)

[sheldon@netcom.com (Sheldon Simms)]

In article <856930321wnr@klatch.demon.co.uk> John@klatch.demon.co.uk writes:

>I disagree completely with this comment.  Would you say that a PowerMac
>is not a Mac because it emulates a 680x0?  When the GS first came out it 
>sold because it could emulate a //e.  Even the next generation of Intel 
>chips are supposedly going to be RISC emulating CISC 80x86.

No. I think that a PowerMac is a perfect example of what you *would* want
in a new Apple II computer. But SoftPC is a perfect example of what you
would *not* want - and there are big differences between the two. So when
you talke about "emulators" you have to be clear what you mean.

>What I am saying is that we need a machine with a future.  It would do 
>no good bringing out a machine that was say a 64Mhz 65816 or even a 65832.

Agreed.

>If we had a PowerPC or similar based GS that could fully emulate a GS at 
>say at least 16Mhz, then everyone could run their software on it, but when
>a PowerPC version of GS/OS came out followed by native PowerPC apps, the 
>machine would FLY.

I completely agree. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has to be
PowerPC based, but certainly a modern RISC CPU.

>Get real.  If the world is going PowerPC (or any other chip you can 
>think of) then at least a GS based on that architecture would have a
>future.  Anything else would just be a waste of time, money and effort.

I think we agree much more than I originally thought. My point is that
a "SoftPC style" emulator running on a Power_Mac_ or a Pentium _PC_ is
*not* and Apple IIgs or any kind. It is a Mac or PC running a software
emulator. I do not care for such a thing. A computer that had seamless
65816 emulation in ROM along with hardware support for the IIgs' hard
to emulate features is another thing entirely.

-Sheldon