Re: Complete Basic?

[Michael Kent <michael@syndicomm.remove.this.com>]

Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> Charlie wrote:

>> "David Schmenk" <dschmenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
>> news:bC2Gi.33748$RX.21877@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

>>>Michael J. Mahon wrote:

>>>>Charlie wrote:

>>>>>"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
>>>>>5PqdnVXUWsYfRnvbnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com">news:5PqdnVXUWsYfRnvbnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>>>>>As I've observed before, a GUI means that almost any program you want
>>>>>>to write will be 10% your functionality and 90% GUI wrangling.  That's
>>>>>>a heck of a tax!

Your numbers seem to be off.  With GSoft BASIC (and apparently Complete
Pascal from what I read of Chye Thean's site) you can write a desktop
program in just a few dozen lines of code.  That's the magic of the
toolbox.

>>>>>Certainly true (and I'm someone who likes GUI programming).  There are 
>>>>>non-GUI tools in the IIgs toolbox but text based programs were pretty 
>>>>>rare on the IIgs.  Merlin 16+ is one I used (and liked) a lot and it is 
>>>>>GSOS/text.  The Orca text shell is another.

By far the most powerful, IMO, is GNO/ME -- a text-based multi-tasking
shell for GS/OS that provides access to GS/OS's drivers, filesystems,
and desktop applications.  It was a decent attempt at 16-bit Unix for
the IIgs.

>>>>True, but only developers used text-based apps on the IIgs.

Not true.  Many non-developers used AppleWorks, ProTERM, Applesoft,
ProSel, Davex, GNO/ME etc. on the GS.  AppleWorks and ProTERM appealed
to non-programming users for obvious reasons, while power users liked
more powerful tools like GNO/ME.  Those power users -- mostly college
kids and hacker types -- were the same type of people writing AppleSoft
and machine language programs on the IIe just a few years before.  The
IIgs allowed them to expand into a modern environment.

>>>>The original Apple II "idea" was that its considerable capabilities
>>>>were accessible out-of-the box to anyone who was patient and could
>>>>read--a true "bicycle for the mind."

And that idea is carried much further on the GS than the classic Apple II.

>>>>I still say that the IIgs, like the III, departed radically from the
>>>>original Apple II idea of *accessible computer power*, and having Woz's
>>>>signature on the case of the first 50,000 or so was irony.

The IIgs is every bit as accessible as the other slot-based II's.  Even
more so.  (And much more so than the IIc and IIc+.)  The GS has the same
slots as the classic II's, which accept nearly all the same cards (Disk
II controller cards, Super Serial cards, slinky RAM cards, etc.).  It has
Monitor, AppleSoft, and most of the II firmware built in.  It can switch
video modes using the same soft switches as the classic II's, read the
keyboard at the same address, and be programmed in the same AppleSoft as
the others using the same peeks and pokes.  It can even load Integer
into the langauge card just like older Apple II's.

What's more, the GS can be accessed at the bare metal of the system in
ways 8-bit Apple II's can't.  Nearly any program on the GS -- 8-bit or
16-bit -- can be stopped at anytime with a command-ctrl-esc, and the
user can instantly access the Monitor with said program frozen in place.
Any byte in RAM, ROM, or on any card in any slot can be read, and any
byte in RAM can be written -- total God-like accessibility -- and the
program then continued by just exiting the CDA menu.  "Visit Monitor"
is built-in to every Apple IIgs.

To say the IIgs is not accessible like an Apple II is just plain wrong.
It *is* an Apple II -- at the CPU level, at the bus level, at the slot
level, at the Monitor level, at the firmware level, and at the AppleSoft
level.  It then adds more functionality and more accessibility on top
of that.

Oh, and the Apple IIgs was designed by Woz -- or rather the design was
started by Woz -- himself back when it was known as the Apple IIx.  That's
probably why the machine remained so open at the time all of the other
computers put out by Apple (starting with the Lisa and including the
IIc and IIc+) were closed boxes.

> The Apple II wasn't just a collection of chips--it was the embodiment
> of the hacker ideal of minimal, efficient logical design with great
> malleability for simple adaptation to any task.

Proving that the Apple IIgs is a true Apple II.

> "Beauty = Function / Complexity", and by that measure, the Apple II
> was at least a "10".  ;-)  The II line continued to hold the record
> until the IIgs, at which point complexity increased much more than
> functionality, causing a big dip in engineering beauty.

Functionality increased way more than complexity.  With the IIgs near-
photographic quality graphics was possible, as was near CD-quality
music (the Ensoniq can duplicate nearly any sound except human-quality
voice through wave-table synthesis).  A usable desktop-based graphical
user interface was available -- in color -- as was a pre-emtive multi-
tasking shell.  Multi-gigabyte storage, modern computer languages,
multiple filesystems (such as HFS, High Sierra, ISO-9660, and MS-DOS),
AppleTalk networking, laser and inkjet printers, Apple Desktop Bus,
TCP/IP-based networking, true-type fonts, and much more all became
available to the user at whatever level -- from novice to expert -- he
chose to use that particular functionality at.

At what price did all this functionality cost?  None if you didn't use
it.  The IIgs is at its core an Apple II.  Or you could start using the
16-bit opcodes they added to the 6502, or speed your bus up to 2.8 MHz,
or start using the firmware instead of the softswitches, or the ADB
instead of the keyboard bytes, or the Ensoniq instead of toggling the
speaker directly, etc.

Unless you define "complexity" as "functionality", the IIgs wins this
comparison hands-down compared to its 8-bit brothers (and even its
32-bit cousins).

>> Come on, no one was forced to use the GUI on an Apple IIgs or the toolbox or 
>> managers either.

> Indeed--the "French connection" proved that--but it wasn't easy, like
> Applesoft!

The IIgs has Applesoft.  And GSoft BASIC.

> The 65816 is a horrible kludge of a processor architecture, particularly
> in contrast to the clean, spare 6502.

The 65816 is a 6502 with 16-bit opcodes added, the address bus expanded,
and a few other things.  This program:

300: 20 58 FC 60

clears the screen on the IIgs just like on any other Apple II.

> The Ensoniq chip is a universe
> unto itself, completely "tacked on" to the IIgs design.

True, but the capability it brought to the Apple II was unmatched by
any other personal computer for about seven years or so.

> The SHR modes
> are distinctly non "Apple II", even having a different pixel clock!

But they have higher resolution, many more colors, a fill mode, and
linear addressing (so in some ways are less complex than classic Apple II
video modes).

> It, like the Mac, symbolizes the shift of Apple away from the hobbyist
> machine toward a consumer machine.

It is a hobbyist machine to its core.  But it adds much of the function-
ality of a consumer machine that enables hobbyists to get things done as
well as have fun.

> A shift that was inevitable if the
> company was to survive and prosper, but one deserving of a lament from
> hobbyists, at least.

I just don't understand the lament from the 8-bitters, unless it's the
extra functionality that gets your goat.  Nearly everything you can do
with a IIe I can do with a IIgs -- hardwarewise as well as softwarewise.
And then there's boatloads of things a IIgs can do that a IIe can't.

>>>Why, when I was a youngster I learned to program by typing hex code into 
>>>the monitor!

And the IIgs has the same Monitor and accepts the same hex code as the
8-bit Apple II's.

> I still love sitting down after supper and dashing off a 50-line
> program to try something and provide it with graphical display of
> the results!  ;-)  Sometimes that's the end of it, and sometimes
> it results in a (completely different) full-blown program--but it's
> always great fun, and the computer is seldom in the way of the
> problem I'm focusing on.  The computer?  A //e with Applesoft!

A IIgs has the same Applesoft as the IIe.  Plus you can put the keyboard
on your lap!

Like I said before, I just don't understand the disdain the GS receives
from the 8-bit Apple II users.  I'd say it's envy, but come on!  Both
the 8-bits and the GS are the same price these days -- essentially free.

Mike