Re: RFC : SOME IDEAS FOR THE APPLE II FPGA'ers

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

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Ack!  I'm sorry to hear that, because I've had a Checkmate for years,
> and have been thinking about trying out an RGB monitor with it.  ;-(

As I recall, back in the day Applied Engineering had a patent on the
technique they used in the RamWorks to avoid the screen flicker, and
were obviously unprepared to license it for a reasonable amount.

> Possible--but surely you aren't worried about scarcity or durability
> of 74LS chips...

No. PALS, GALS and ASICS on the other hand...

> When some preservation solution becomes necessary (and it probably
> won't in my lifetime), there will be even better tools and techniques,
> and the solution will be both simpler and more elegant than it would
> be this year.

Oh sure, but by then all of us will have expired as well ;-) Seems to
me it would be good to contribute to the legacy our own ideas and
improvements, otherwise they may be forever lost.

> Ironically, it basically uses an FPGA!  ;-)

That, is exactly my point.

> Efficiency is a peculiar measure for a nostalgic labor of love...

Is it? labour of love or not, it's still an engineering exercise ;-)
The end result is what counts, ie. the nostalgic
recreation/restoration. If you think disturbing as little of the
original hardware as possible is a worthwhile goal, fair enough, but
I'm unconvinced that there's a lot more than can be done, improvement
wise, whilst doing that.

> It's worth a lot to me to keep the case, keyboard, and all the chips
> when I take off the top.  ;-)

Cool. All I want to see when I lift off the lid is the 7 slots,
populated with whatever nostalgic device I so choose. I'm prepared to
trade the original board for that.

> Careful--this way lies madness!  ;-)
>
> Remember, I'm motivated by *constrained* resources, and feel that
> "limitless" design environments are corrupting.  You don't have to
> look far to see what I mean...

LOL! I'm with you on this one, believe me. I just like the idea of
surrounding that constrained environment with mod-cons, much like
adding a CFFA board does, except more.

People have invested countless hours of effort in adding modern
storage, modern networking et al. to the Apple II. Countless hours have
been spent on this forum extolling wacky new additions. All I propose
is an environment where these dreams can become reality, which to me is
a side benefit, as my primary goal is simply recreating my favorite
platform, plus my favorite third-party additions in a more reliable,
obtainable, and accessible way.

> So what you really need is a virtualization of a 5.25" disk that lives
> on a ProDOS hard drive.  RAM disk isn't much of a speed winner against
> a hard drive, even with a Zip Chip.

Yes, I'd love to have this functionality. It could be achieved with a
peripheral card that replaced the Disk II controller, something I've
considered as a project. But really, building a bunch of different
add-ons using FPGA's seems like a ridiculous waste of effort, when you
could replace the motherboard instead, and have all the hardware you're
ever going to need for this, that or the other wacky add-on.

> The way things are going, no one will be able to *afford* to dispose of
> a CRT monitor in another decade--anyone attempting to get rid of one
> will be prosecuted as an environmental terrorist!

There is that aspect, for sure. An additional issue for me personally,
is that those displays are in much greater supply in the US than they
are here, we being a PAL country (btw, my IIe has a US motherboard
fitted, as the PAL compatibility of the Euro style boards is a hack at
best, and not having physical access to slot 3 bothers me)

> That approach illustrates the discipline required for a modular
> design--good luck on recruiting Apple-oriented contributors, though.

Indeed. I think at a minimum though, anyone who's already contributing
to the Apple II arena with actual hardware has the discipline required.

> I think that's debatable.  If you look at what people were fantasizing
> about six or seven years ago, there is very little cumulative progress
> toward a result.  And, I think, there is a potential downside if all the
> fantasizing about the "perfect" detracts from individual contributors
> going off and making "good" things that are real and very useful--like
> CFFA cards.
>
> Then, of course, there is the standard problem that if there are five
> people discussing, there will be ten or more ideas of what "perfect" is.
> ;-)

All true. Although the device I'm promoting does create an environment
in which the barrier to producing these useful things drops
considerably, and provides the means by which we can tell the
fantasisers to just shut up and to it. win-win again ;-)

Although unless *I* actually shut up and do it, it seems unlikely we'll
ever get there :-)

Matt