Re: Commodore 64 kills APPLE II

[Roger Johnstone <rojaws@es.co.nz>]

Dave Althoff Jr wrote:

> Martin (martinf@ot.com.au) wrote:
>
> : (2) Disk drives. The apple disk drives beat the commodore range
> hands down ! : I have numerous Commodore drives at home (1541, 1571,
> 1581) for my C64s and : 128s and everything I have available for my
> apples (Duo Disk on the IIe and : 5.25" & 3.5" Apple drives on the
> IIgs) is much faster and more compact than : the commodore beasts !
>
> Yeah, but how many Apple drives are progrmmable?  8-)
>
> --Dave Althoff, ][.  <- You can see where my biases are...
>

The Apple UniDisk 3.5 is programmable. It has it's own processor and
enough RAM to hold a program sent to it from the host computer.

The Apple IIgs is fast enough to control the 3.5" disk drive directly,
so the Apple 3.5 Drive doesn't have a processor. However, the IIgs can
store the same routines in it's own memory and run them in the same way
as the processor in the UniDisk 3.5 does.

That said, does anyone know if any software used this ability, rather
than just using the routines in ROM? Copy protection schemes perhaps?

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
________________________________________________________________________
From Blake's 7
  Villa: I'm entitled to my opinion.
  Avon:  It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that
         is irritating.