Charlie wrote:
"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 0LedncJ3lLlxEnTbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com">news:0LedncJ3lLlxEnTbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...[ snip ]The IIgs was supposed to be what it is: A natural progression of the Apple II line. It gave you more memory, a 16 bit processor that was fully compatible with the 6502 and the toolbox is nothing more than a bunch of routines much like the system monitor is a collection of routines. Use them if you want or write your own. I do believe that the IIgs was not all it could have been but to suggest that it isn't an Apple II makes no sense to me. Is a car not a car if it has air conditioning?More like a car is not a "car to learn about cars on" if the air conditioner keeps you from getting at the engine. ;-)Ah, but learning how to get to the engine, air conditioner or not, is part of learning about a car, but I agree with your point for someone starting out. My point is that the air conditioner (GUI, etc) doesn't keep you from getting to the engine on an Apple IIgs.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. "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.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the Apple II was/is a tool for learning. I learned to program on the Apple II (an Apple II+) and that didn't stop when I moved to an Apple IIgs. I learned a little about the inner workings of a computer from my II+ and I learned about new things on the IIgs (mouse, interrupts, etc.).
I had to learn about those on a //e. ;-)
The "joking but serious" measure I've used in the past is "total weight of system" divided by "total weight of documentation required to fully exploit the system"--another way to compute engineering beauty. ;-)As new things are added to any system (while retaining the old) the amount of documentation to explain the system is bound to go up. The Apple IIgs documentation sure does weigh a lot but most of it is wasted paper. The toolbox references are bloated beyond belief and not particularly well written.
They are certainly a far cry from the Applesoft BASIC manual!
The II had a purpose and focus. It was the computer Woz wanted forhimself to explore what it meant to be a microcomputer. It came out of the box ready to explore. There was no right or wrong way to program it. No GUI that forced you to use the widgets handed to you in a library or toolbox. No Managers.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! And that's because of the innate complexity of the underlying hardware of the IIgs (admittedly further complicated by a requirement to remain compatible with earlier II's). The 65816 is a horrible kludge of a processor architecture, particularly in contrast to the clean, spare 6502. The Ensoniq chip is a universe unto itself, completely "tacked on" to the IIgs design. The SHR modes are distinctly non "Apple II", even having a different pixel clock! No, the IIgs is not a "natural progression" of the Apple II--it is a Frankenstein by comparison with the "organic" hardware of the II.Frankenstein! That hurts.
;-)
I'm not competent to argue processor architecture but from a programming point of view the learning curve to move from a 6502 to a 65816 is trivial. This was the main jist of my statement about "natural progression". The Ensoniq chip is certainly a big step from toggling the speaker but I saw it more as something more to play with if I wanted to and the SHR modes are non Apple II only in hardware sense. From a programming sense its just plugging bytes into memory and throwing softswitches. Actually, due to the linear memory usage SHR is quite a bit easier than HGR. I learned a lot on an Apple II+ and I learned more on the Apple IIgs so for me anyway they both served the purpose I intended. The great thing about the IIgs is that nearly everything that I learned on the II+ still exists on the IIgs. So from my point of view the potential to learn is greater on the IIgs than on any of the other IIs. As for the GUI environment, I realize that there is a 'hate it' attitude among a lot of hobbyists. I however thought of it as great chance to learn. I learned the concept of event driven programming on the IIgs, the user interface guidelines, standard methods for calling tools, relocatable object module files and much more. All of which made moving into modern GUI programming a snap.
I see what you mean. I've never aspired to learn the nuts and bolts of GUIs, though many of my programs operate in an event polling loop.
I realize that its design was pushed by many forces, not the least of which was the absence of Woz's disciplined hand. And the disdain of Jobs must have cost the project dearly. But I judge it not for how it came to be as much as for what it actually is and is not.Agreed.It, like the Mac, symbolizes the shift of Apple away from the hobbyist machine toward a consumer machine.I won't argue about symbols, but the shift started long before the IIgs came out, even before the Mac. I saw signs of it with the marketing of the Apple III when I bought my II+ in 1980. By the time the //e came out their emphasis was definately away from the hobbyist.
I agree--the III was influenced a great deal by the perception that a "hobbyist machine" was antithetical to a "business machine", as was the IIgs and the Mac...
A shift that was inevitable if the company was to survive and prosper, but one deserving of a lament from hobbyists, at least.True.When your attempts to solve a problem with a machine become dominated by trying to understand and control the machine rather than trying to understand and solve the problem, the balance is off. This is a function of system complexity, system documentation, and the provided programming tools.Why, when I was a youngster I learned to program by typing hex code into the monitor! Harumph! ( I know somebody is going to reply with: I had toggle switches! or: I had to program core memory with tweezers!)Toggle switches! You youngsters had it easy. I had to build a new computer for each problem. (analog computer, not digital). Couldn't resist :-)Yep--been there, done that! In fact, the sweetness of digital computers for me was their universal (and even easy) programmability to solve whatever problem came to mind. ;-) In fact, it's the precipitous decrease in "casual" programmability that I most lament in computers since the //e. Ah, well--I don't expect to change anyone's mind, after all "there's no disputing tastes"--so I'll let it go. It's just my opinion.And I respect your opinion. I just wanted to balance what you've said with another opinion.
Very nicely put, Charlie--there's not a thing you said that I'd dispute (and that's saying something! ;-). -michael NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers! Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/ "The wastebasket is our most important design tool--and it's seriously underused."