Re: What is the quintessential Apple II?

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> > I've always felt a good rule was "do in software that which cannot be
> > done more efficiently in hardware". Doing too much in software can
> > compromise the performance of a design, while doing too much in
> > hardware compromises flexibility. Although, as you point out, not
> > anymore due to 'soft' hardware :-)
>
> Agreed.  My own biases toward minimal hardware solutions for the
> Apple II also come from wanting my designs to be usable by the largest
> possible fraction of Apple II users, which argues strongly against
> requiring *any* hardware.
>
> NadaNet is an interesting case, since it began life as a completely
> software-based network (hence, "nada-"), but changes to the Apple II
> line starting with the //e made it necessary to add a tiny buffering
> board with two emitter followers.  That minimal, but non-zero, hardware
> requirement has probably done more than any other thing to prevent folks
> from giving it a try.

The main thing preventing me from giving it a try is only ever having
one Apple II setup at a time, although I did at one point consider
modding an emulator to use a PC parallel port as a 'game' port (since
the signalling is similar), but the timing delays might be problematic

I've often thought that a 'killer app' for nadanet would be some form
of network block device support. On a IIe, it should be possible to
disconnect /RAM and reuse that space to implement the bare essential
calls, which would just be readblock and writeblock :-)

Such a thing would actually be a better solution than the Workstation
card, which overloads the PFI to do its magic and in the process
'breaks' compatibility with many utilities (CAT DOCTOR in particular).
The WS card is probably faster, being RS-422 based, but NadaNet is
easily fast enough to provide a responsive remote disk.

> If I could generate more electronic "drive" in software, I'd do it!  ;-)

Indeed! The emitter followers would be necessary even on the original
][ though if cable length was long
> I do agree that the no-hardware approach is a limitation that should not
> apply in a more flexible environment.
>
> > Of course, we the enthusiasts would prefer to assess designs based on
> > the design, and ignore the time constraints on the designer. It's also
> > reasonable that design 'quality' have the time investment involved in
> > its realiastion be a part of it's metric. And herein lies the problem.
>
> Yes, having the design time be the most fun does distort the metric
> a bit!

:-)

> > In a world where sub $1000 PC's have > 3GHz processors, more than one
> > of them, and multiple gigabytes of RAM, I'm mindful that promise was
> > made before. Each time a major improvement in design methodology came
> > along, demand (in terms of expected functionality of product) expanded
> > to match it. It takes seemingly no time at all for someone to come up
> > with an innovative product which pushes the limits of what's acheivable
> > with delivery technology X, and the rest of pack, in an effort to
> > scavenge whatever market share than can from the innovator, will push
> > the limits of any delivery methodology from a time perspective, with
> > the above mentioned consequences :-(
>
> In the case of consumer electronics, the usual pruning factor is product
> cost.  If a more customized approach can deliver functionality "X" at a
> cost saving of a fraction of a percent, then someone will use it and
> gain a lead over less thrifty competitors.

An example of this was the emergence of 'soft' modems at the start of
the decade, reducing modems to nothing more than a line coupler and
DAC/ADC, with all the QPSK work being done by a software stack. I
always considered this cost reduction gone mad, and refused to purchase
any such product. After all, hardware solutions already existed, how
much cheaper could the softmodem be?

Of course, almost every notebook computer built since the advent of
softmodems has been equipped with one so it was a lucrative move by its
originators.

> Interestingly, Apple is one of the few companies that routinely "spends"
> on reducing product complexity, and it seems to be working for them.

Well, lower complexity has a direct impact on product quality, so it's
integral to the whole 'just works' mantra that Apple live by.

It's interesting that they haven't really changed much in terms of what
they deliver, but a market flooded with mediocre products is allowing
Apple's higher than average product cost to appear more like a small
price to pay for quality rather than the unnecessary premium it used to
be seen as.

> On the other side, Microsoft used to think their job was consuming a big
> part of the exponential growth in PC speed and capacity, so as to create
> a need for newer hardware, and fuel the "virtuous cycle" of rapid
> platform evolution.  I suspect they've changed their tune a bit since
> Moore's law (and their stock appreciation) has slowed down.

It's been really fun over the last year or so to watch the players in
the market scramble to take advantage of dual core processors, only to
be back where they started now that quad core is coming along :-)

> The whole PC industry is suffering through the commoditization of the
> PC.  Now a PC is as useful as it is an appliance, not as an extensible
> platform.  Partly, this is the usual mass market evolution, and partly
> it's the result of a decade without any new "killer app" to drive the
> market.
>
> Ironically, the "any media anywhere, anytime" potential killer app is
> what scares the heck out of content "owners" (not creators), and so has
> been slowed significantly.  It's the usual problem of protecting one's
> share of the pie instead of taking a risk and growing the pie.

It's these two things that have propelled Apple back into the spotlight
in recent years. The one thing missing from their product line is a
system targetted at hobbyists - something that has been the case more
or less constantly since the demise of the Apple II.

You really have to admire Job's master stroke of becoming Disney's
largest shareholder. This enables enough clout to get one big media
company on the "any media anywhere, anytime" bandwagon, forcing the
others to follow suit, and handing Apple the lions share of the market
in the process :-)

Matt