Re: A universal 65C816-based computer?

["Ernest" <leucoplast@seanet.NOSPAM.com>]

"MikeC" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
vk5vek8tv30h6d@corp.supernews.com">news:vk5vek8tv30h6d@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first post in this newsgroup. Just to let you know, I still
> own a pair of Apple IIc's so I'm no stranger to Apple II's.
>
> Anyway, I've been following the message threads on comp.sys.cbm about
> the CommodoreOne (C-One) computer by Jeri Ellsworth. I noticed a similar
> discussion here under "20 MHz 65816."
>
> I was wondering, is any interest in a universal 65c816-based computer
> with it's own hardware specs, operating system and application software?
> I assume that a IIgs emulation mode would be available since they would
> share the same processor. However, would people here be at all
> interested in programming "native mode" applications on a system like
> the C-One?
>
> I guess if you've had some experience in programming a IIgs, how hard
> would programming on a C-One be?
>
> I welcome your feedback.

I think that the biggest reason that something like the C-One and the
Contiki ports are so enthusiastically embraced is because they don't try to
reinvent the wheel, so to speak. The try to make existing hardware and
software better. A new and improved Commodore 64 or Apple II would be a
great project but I can't think of a compelling reason to create a wholly
new platform based on older technologies when the same thing can be achieved
with newer chips which run faster and can do more. To build a new platform
based on an old CPU would be unnecessarily limiting. If you want to build an
improved motherboard with newer I/O ports and modern RAM support built
around a 65x processor, and make improvements to ProDos and Dos 3.3 so that
they can use the new hardware while still being able to run old Apple II
software, then I'm all for it.