Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

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

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

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 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".

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.

Charlie