Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com>]

I understand and agree with your objection... to a point.

The IIgs is indeed a model-T with a hotrod engine. That is one of its
appeals. As for what I was saying before, consider this:

Programming the IIgs is more complicated than programming the older IIs
because of all the efforts to keep things backwards compatible with the II
series. While that's more of a benefit than a hinderance, it's not what I
was talking about. I mean to keep the programming simplicity of the 8-bit II
series, if not improve on it by making some things even more simple. I by no
means miss the limitations of the II series, just as I don't miss dealing
with 16bit DOS.

I miss the simple "disconnect everything except the monitor and power, and
you can still use it" interface. I miss the built in monitor that allowed
you to code an entire OS without the need for an existing OS. I miss being
able to do in 256 bytes of assembly what takes 256 kilobytes on a PC. These
are the things that I considered to be the essence of Apple II programming.
This is what I meant by Apple II-like.

I was thinking that a 32bit version of the 6502 would include a single
instruction for switching the address mode back & forth between 16 & 32 bit
and the register mode back & forth between 8 & 16 bit. This command would be
setting/clearing bits in an extended status register area. That way the
program would be able to look at all of memory as either 1 big flat space or
as a set of 65,535 swapable 64K blocks. A 3rd bit could be used for II-like
I/O if desired, but emulating the II would be a mere bonus. That would mean
a 4th bit would have to control speed if real II hardware was to be used.
The last 64K block is where I'd put the peripheral I/O and ROM in
non-emulation mode.

R.


"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.  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/