Re: When's An Apple II not an Apple II?

[shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

Jeffrey Thomas Sheldon (jeff@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote:

: Well, we've seen the Mac undergo a new architecture and still retain the 
: "Mac" name, and soon we'll see it adopt more construction and abilities 
: so as to be more IBM-ized (which is when I stop buying from apple..or 
: anyone), be what could be done with the Apple II and still call it an 
: Apple II?

Actually the Power Macs are much the same as the 68000 architecture wise,
aside from a different processor. That's why the emulation deal is viable;
only the processor is emulated and the rest of the hardware works the same.

: I've heard a lot of support that the line should still be active and 
: such, but on what terms is the general consensus?  Do you mean on the 
: 6502, or w/ the same card support, or with the GUI for the GS?  Obviously 
: slapping a label on a 100mhz super-risc micromachine with mental control 
: and 3d output wouldn't make it a _genuine_ Apple II.

I'm just happy to use my IIgs, ][, ][ plus, //e, and //c as is.
 
: So I'm curious to see...where would the rest of you like the Apple II to 
: become, if Apple woke up and decided to restart assembly? 

I think an emulator running on the 120 mHz 604 PPC supposedly coming out
later this year might be cool
-- 
Randy Shackelford                                 I was internet
shack@southwind.net                               when internet wasn't cool