Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Charlie" <charlied at NOSPAM bboard dot com>]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
3IqdncETYKAOTbnfRVn-3A@comcast.com">news:3IqdncETYKAOTbnfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> Charlie wrote:
> > "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> > q5adndT5WJr0477fRVn-vw@comcast.com">news:q5adndT5WJr0477fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> >

< snip >

> >>I have nothing against the Apple IIgs, but when it is not running in
> >>8-bit mode, it is nothing like an original Apple II.
> >
> >
> > I believe you are being way too hard on the Apple IIgs.  While not
running
> > in 8-bit mode it retains much of the the original Apple II (slots, game
I/O
> > socket, speaker, NTSC output, GR/HGR/Text screens, most softswitches,
> > system monitor commands, etc.).  It can even be run at the original
Apple
> > II speed if you so desire.  Programming in the 16-bit mode is only
slightly
> > more complex than 8-bit.  You still have 1 byte opcodes that are for
the
> > most part 16-bit versions of the old 8-bit ones.  This seems pretty
logical
> > to me.  You do have a few new opcodes but they are not really that
complex.
>
> I agree that the logical complexity of the hardware is incremental
> with respect to the classic Apple II.

OK

> My concern with the IIgs hardware and its fidelity to the Apple II
> tradition is its large linearly addressable RAM.  As I noted in another
> reply, that is an invitation to programmers to abandon the discipline
> of their craft.  GSOS is simply a natural result of "too much RAM"
> (and many would say, not enough processor  ;-).

Yes, the IIgs has a large linearly addressable RAM where an original Apple
II has a small linearly addressable RAM but I think this does not justify
the statement:

"... when it is not running in 8-bit mode, it is nothing like an original
Apple II."

My reason for posting was not to change your mind about the IIgs (well
maybe just a little) but although I respect your knowledge in both
programming and hardware I think that statement sent the wrong message to
someone who is considering buying their first Apple II.

I do agree that the small RAM of the Apple II forced the programmer to be
more disciplined but I never felt that was an advantage.  While I certainly
admire the compact and elegant code of programmers like yourself, I believe
that is more a reflection of your talent than the constraints of the
original Apple II.  I love programming (as a hobby) and did so on an Apple
II+ from 1980 to 1987 for more hours than I would like to admit, but I'm
still a mediocre programmer.  I think more people fall into this catagory
and therefore more addressable memory is a blessing.  I loved my Apple II+
but when I got my IIgs in 1987 I felt like I died and went to heaven.  I
still think that a IIgs is the best Apple II to buy. Of course at today's
prices why not get one of each. <grin>

> > I think maybe your dislike of the Apple IIgs has more to do with the
> > GSOS/GUI part.
> > It is certainly true that writing a GUI program that conforms to the
Apple
> > guidelines and uses GSOS is complex and by its nature uses more memory
but
> > GSOS is just a program running on an Apple IIgs.  You can still use an
> > Apple IIgs in 8-bit or 16-bit (or even mixed) modes and anything you
can do
> > with GSOS and the Toolbox you can also do without them.  Of course
you'll
> > have to "roll your own".
>
> You are correct.  I lay much of the blame for complexity in programming
> the IIgs at the feet of GSOS.
>
> Again, don't get me wrong--as GUIs go, GSOS is wonderfully simple and
> clean.  But _all_ GUIs shift the programmers concerns from 90% function
> and 10% interface to 90% interface and 10% function.  (A bit like
> WYSIWYG editors, which cause memo writers to spend 1 minute on content
> and 10 minutes picking fonts. ;-)

I have found this to be true mostly when a person first programs in a GUI
environment or for that matter uses a WYSIWYG editor.  Its the Wow! factor
(Wow! Look what I can do).  For most people though the novelty wears off
and after a while the memo writers pick a font they like and stick with it
and the programmers write a reusable skeleton program to which they "plug
in" their real function code.

>
> When GSOS was produced, GUIs were thought to be superior to command line
> interfaces in every way.  Most programmers, though, continue to use a
> command line interface while developing, because it's easier to do
> exactly what you want, and programming is mostly text entry anyway.

GUI verses command line has been an argument for some time and as you may
have guessed I prefer a GUI environment for programming.  The main reason
for me is the ease of disk/file functions.

> I don't dismiss GSOS entirely as Mac envy, but if you consider the
> embattled atmosphere of the tiny Apple II division when it was created,
> you know that it must have had a lot of "so there" motivation.

Probably true.

> Of course, all this happened long past the point where there was
> any real chance of the IIgs becoming a mass-market platform.  The
> personal computer industry/market had moved on, never to return.
>
> While I'm on the subject, I really like the fact that the Apple II
> is not the "computer for the rest of us".  I cherish the fact that
> it is a computer created by and for hobbyists, not "end users".
>
> Of course, Apple wanted to sell _lots_, so they encouraged lots of
> mass-appeal, eye candy applications for the Apple II, but, at its core,
> it remains a hacker's machine.

In general I agree with you but I would like to add that some hobbyists
actually like to see their creations used by non-hobbyists. <grin>

> As the community of Apple II enthusiasts ages (and I sense that it is),
> it is returning, proportionately, to its hobbyist roots.  I relish that,
> not just for noatalgia's sake, but for the craft involved.
>
> > As a person who has owned and used both an original Apple II (OK, an
Apple
> > II+) and an Apple IIgs ROM 01 I will agree that the original is an
> > excellant machine in which to learn programming as well as computer
> > hardware architecture but I also feel the IIgs retains most of that
while
> > providing a logical 16-bit extension and some very nice extra features.
> >
> >
> >>As I have said
> >>before, I regard it as a Model T (a wonderful classic) fitted with a
> >>high-compression V8 engine and tailfins.  A fine "hotrod", but neither
> >>truly classic (too many mods) nor truly modern (still has running
> >>boards).  ;-)
> >
> >
> > The analogy with cars doesn't work well with me.  I believe all Apple
II
> > models are classics.
>
> Ah, but some classics are more classic than others.  ;-)

I agree but I suspect we disagree on which one is the more classic. <grin>

Charlie