[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

Charlie wrote:

"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 agree that the logical complexity of the hardware is incremental
with respect to the classic Apple II.

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  ;-).


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. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.  ;-)

-michael

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