Re: What if we designed and built a "32bit" Apple II?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Ranando King replied:

>Your opinion is, as always, well stated and very much a valid point....
>BUT...

I appreciate your points, as well.  ;-)

>"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
>20040908202328.13199.00000292@mb-m28.aol.com">news:20040908202328.13199.00000292@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> John Van Winkle wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>> What I don't understand is wholesale changes to the memory
>> map or video interface, since, to the extent that it does not
>> implement the standard Apple II, the machine is without software.
>>
>> That means that it would be years of dedicated software creation
>> effort (yeah, sure) before anyone derived benefit from the "enhanced"
>> machine except for its "Transwarp-like" (transparent) processor
>> acceleration.
>
>Think about the IIgs for a moment. It's memory map and video interface are
>defintiely "wholesale changes" compared to the older II series units. Yet
>people love their IIgs machines. Think of the evolution of the clumsy but
>venerable IBM PC. Each new machine didn't completely discard the older
>interfaces, but rather added something new, something that EVENTUALY
>replaced the older interfaces. If Intel had've ditched it's old 16bit
>processor mode with the introduction of the 80386 processor, all of PC
>history would have been vastly different since the industry as a whole would
>have likely rejected the chip for compatibility reasons.
>
>Just try to consider this concept an attempt to see what might have been if
>Apple Computers had've evolved the II series the way many of us wish they
>had, instead of taking the disasterous Mac/Lisa route.

I understand where you're coming from.  But you must see the
_extremely_ different context of the developments you cite and
the one you are proposing.

The PC evolution and even, to a lesser extent, the Apple II to IIgs
evolution, was driven by major manufacturers in a marketplace
that was exploding (or merely growing, in the case of the IIgs).

This caused the evolved machines to quickly accumulate an
installed base of millions (or hundreds of thousands in the case
of the IIgs), which created an attractive market for software
development.

The result is that software _was_ developed (eventually) that
exploited the enhanced characteristics of these evolved machines,
even beyond the point of "critical mass", where enough software
functionality exists that a "typical" user would be satisfied.

(It should be noted that the 32-bit extensions to the hardware of
the PC platform went virtually unused for many years, even
though they had become almost pervasive in the marketplace,
because of the limited ablility of DOS to exploit it.  It was not
until the Win32 extensions that the 32-bit capability actually
became useful.)

The development you are proposing would occur in an
environment in which new platforms are decidedly _not_
welcomed by the marketplace, and even the Mac merely
hangs on by its toenails.

The "best case" scenario for an evolved Apple II platform
is no more than hundreds of machines, and the pool of 
programmers who would exploit it is no more than dozens.

This is not a recipe for success.

Remember, I do not disagree that such an evolution is
technically possible, only that it cannot result in significant
new _exploited_ capability, simply because the people to
create that exploitation do not exist and are not motivated
to exist.

Evolving a platform on the "backside" of its acceptance
curve--and surely the Apple II is two decades into the
backside of _its_ acceptance curve--does not work because
there is no market pull to support its proliferation and, most
critically, a proliferation of software to exploit it.

>> We must all observe the fact that the Apple II line--in any style
>> or configuration--no longer commands any significant software
>> development effort.  By that I mean that there are less than a
>> dozen major applications released per year, right?
>
>Your point? The goal here isn't to create a commercially viable machine. If
>that were the case, we'd already be a decade late and 1/2 a billion dollars
>short. No. The goal here is just the fun of development and dreaming,
>carrying on the spirit of open simplicity that was the halmark of the II
>series.

Dreaming is cheap.  Dream on.

Developing is expensive of time and effort, if not money.

That is why I said that if you love doing this development, go for it.
But if your satisfaction requires dozens of others to hop on the
bandwagon, then you will be disappointed.

Of course, you are free to do that as well.  ;-)

If you want to _promote_ open simplicity, then that will have
the best chance of success pursued as a _software_ project
on, for example, a bare PC--the kind that is being thrown away
by the truckload all over the country, if not the world.  Any of 
these is perfectly capable of running a simple OS with a simple
BASIC interpreter (or whatever you think will appeal to kids),
and is as readily available as water.

(Of course, if you want to attach a USB printer, then the software
to do that will be ten times as complex as all the rest of the
system combined... ;-)

I find that the spirit of the Apple II can be carried on in my own
mind, not by changing it, but by celebrating it--by writing code
and developing simple hardware that continues to extend its
capabilities and amaze those willing to see.

If you think that the 1MHz, 64KB Apple II has already done all
it can do, then you need to enlarge your thinking.  It is capable
of much more than has already been done with it, solely by the
application of imagination and skill--just what Woz had in mind.

>> We are now, and have been for a decade, in the mode of enjoying
>> what software exists, and the few snippets of code that enthusiasts
>> make available on a somewhat random basis.  Ditto for the few
>> hardware enhancements that make it to market.
>>
>> This is reality.  This is not going to improve significantly.
>> Good grief!--get used to it!
>
>Yes, this is reality, and in this reality, there's not that significant a
>difference between wire-wrapping a prototype slot card and wire-wrapping a
>prototype PC... assuming the components are simple enough.

Aside from the ubiquitous TTL glue logic, there are no "simple"
chips anymore!  Everything is either a microcontroller or a
system on a chip.  It is no longer economical to make chips
(except the high-volume peanut parts) that are not "solutions"
to problems.  Cost = chip count, and any design with more
than a handful of chips--at least one of them very complex--
will not be a viable solution, and therefore will not be made.

>> People will continue to "discover" the Apple II line at a low,
>> relatively constant rate, and some will be drawn to its simple,
>> graceful technology as a hobby, or even an artform.  But there
>> is no coming resurgence in Apple II hardware or software, or,
>> most crucially, interest.
>>
>> We, and a few who continue to join us, are _it_.
>>
>> I expect that the current "accretion" rate is pretty similar to
>> the "depletion" rate of the community, so it would not surprise
>> me to find that the number of Apple II enthusiasts is at equilibrium.
>>
>> -michael
>
>It seems to me that you think this little idea is about creating a new
>viable market and/or user base for this machine. No. The original group of
>Apple Computer users were computer hobbyists, doing then exactly what we
>today are doing now, toying around with what used to be, and dreaming of
>ways to improve on what was a good idea then, possibly making something real
>from those ideas.
>
>If you would kindly step away from whatever commercial viability opinions
>you may be harboring and review the idea again as the hobbyist that I know
>you to be, then maybe your view of this project might change.

Ranando, I am, and have always been, an electronic, software, and Apple II
hobbyist.  I understand the hobbyist mentality very well.

If you wish to tinker with fanciful extensions to the Apple II architecture,
more power to you, as I have said before.  If your efforts come to some
demonstrable fruition, outstanding--we'd all love to hear about it!

But what I have witnessed in this forum in several cycles over the last
decade is the puffery of "dreaming" about an extension that "could"
exist, followed by flurries of breathless "yeah, wow, and _this_, too!"
replies, dwindling to silence and no net contribution--unless we count
it in the bad fantasy and science fiction column.

At the outset of this thread, I remarked that I felt some hesitation in
replying with my opinions.  It's just that I've seen it all before--the
assumption that something that is technically possible is actually
of value to someone besides the proposer--and felt an emotional
need to administer smelling salts.

I guess you could characterize my position as:  "Sober up, there's
useful work to be done!"  Of course, if a private fantasy is more
fun, so be it.

This is a public forum.  Feel free to use it in any way that amuses
you.  I'd just rather see it used to promote the use of wonderful,
_real_ hardware and software for a great "bicycle for the mind".

By taking this approach, the efforts of the (relatively few) remaining
Apple II enthusiasts can provide potential benefits to most of the
Apple II community, instead of a small subset.

-michael

Check out parallel computing for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/