Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Ranando King wrote:
> How can you call yourself a programmer when you're going to let what other
> people think they want stop you from doing something potentially fun for
> you? ;-)

Absolutely!

> Frankly, I think it would be an interesting thing to do, to see if a 32bit
> extension to the 6502 series of processors could be used in Apple II-like
> systems while maintaining the same feel and ease of use as the venerable
> Apple II itself.

Ironically, the most immediate impact of creating a 32-bit "mode"
would be to permit linear addressing of very large RAM sizes, which
is completely antithetical to the Apple II.

The Apple II and its software universe are inherently a creation of the
strict space and speed restrictions imposed by its 8 bit processor.
(And note that bank-switched RAM does not _really_ relax the space
restriction much for a programmer.)

If you need any proof of this, look at the IIgs and GSOS, which is so
much more like a Mac than an Apple II in resource consumption and in
programming complexity that there is no comparison to close-to-the-metal
Apple II programming.

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.  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).  ;-)

And, I should point out, I have nothing against transparent
accelerators, like the Zip Chip, which were never popular enough
to be part of the requirements for any Apple II software, but
which now make Applesoft tolerable for many uses that would have
been unresponsive without acceleration.

-michael

New Applesoft BASIC interface for NadaNet networking!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/