Re: IIGS 6.0.1 Source Code

[David Schmenk <dschmenk@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2013 00:45:31 UTC-8, Michael J. Mahon  wrote:
> dagz <DagenBrock@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > So back to BLuRry's question, because I find it really interesting (sorry OP):
> 
> > 
> 
> > Is the Mark Twain a real IIgs that deserves implementation?  I thought it
> 
> > was more of a prototype, and not all Mark Twains may even be identical
> 
> > (likely not).  It was more of a incremental improvement to the IIgs than
> 
> > any real new ground being covered, as was the case with all the IIgs
> 
> > revisions.  But the reason I find it interesting as a philosophical
> 
> > question is because it leads me to wonder, "Where does it end?"  Should
> 
> > we be trying to extend the platform even further to hardware that
> 
> > conforms, but does not exist (like adding a new display card, for
> 
> > example) or go even further to make our own "new" Apple II that is
> 
> > loosely based on the platform, but allows any number of potential
> 
> > derivations (like adding a new display modes to the emulated VGC, for example)?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Yes, this is a loaded question.  I think we are a lot of purists, but I
> 
> > really do think it's interesting as a question.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Please Discuss.  :)
> 
> 
> 
> Over the years, possible extensions to the Apple II line have been proposed
> 
> often, and discussed to death. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can imagine a system, some can imagine one in great detail, but the
> 
> utility of a system in a community comes from relative ubiquity.  This
> 
> "primes the pump" for an ecosystem of compatible software and hardware,
> 
> enabling a virtuous cycle of implementation and use. 
> 
> 
> 
> We are now so far past the point of market critical mass for the Apple II
> 
> that any "evolution" of the system is destined to remain imaginary. 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the IIgs failed to achieve the market momentum of its predecessors,
> 
> not because it wasn't a useful evolution, but because it was introduced on
> 
> the backend of the Apple II sales curve. 
> 
> 
> 
> It is great fun to design and even implement new capabilities for older
> 
> machines, but unless they slip into the ecosystem by, in some sense,
> 
> "emulating" an already existing capability in a new way, they will be
> 
> largely unused except by their creator. 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the CFFA is a great "emulation" of a hard disk (and now
> 
> floppies, too). On the other hand, the SecondSight is virtually useless
> 
> except as an overpriced VGA card for standard text and graphics modes. 
> 
> 
> 
> -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon

This brings up an interesting point - at which point does this "emulation" evolve from hardware all the way into software.  In one sense, it started there with the software emulators beginning in the late '80s and even more prevalent today.  However, as retro enthusiasts that enjoy the "feel" of our old computers, we like to have that tactile and visual connection to the hardware.  We have begun enhancing the old hardware with new products and technologies to extend their (questionable) usefulness.  But what part of the old computers do we cherish?  As an exercise (I kid you not, I actually dreamed about this) I took a parted out IIc case and a gutted iBook G3 (broken LCD, composite out adapter) and blended.  The iBook was capable of running OSX 104.11 - the oldest version Sheppy's excellent Sweet16 still runs on.  The iBooks keyboard is slightly bigger than the Iic keyboard, but only slightly - it sits right in the indentation of the IIc case.  I shoe-horned the whole mess inside the IIc case, connected the composite out adapter to a Monitor ///, and turned it on.  Of course it boots to the OSX home screen, but by running Sweet16 in fill screen mode it transformed from a bizarre hack into a fast Apple IIgs running in a IIc case; an Apple IIgsc.  Firing up BASIC.SYSTEM left me staring at the AppleSoft prompt, almost in-differentiable from the real Apple II sitting underneath the monitor.  The fact that I was using a composite adapter for the iBook meant that there were going to be some artifacts (interlace, mostly) that aren't there in the real Apple II, but by using the Monitor /// with its long-persistance phosphor and high bandwidth helped.

So I was left feeling a little weird.  Probably due to dreaming about such things, but also because I'm no longer sure what part of the retro experience  defines it for me.  I have a Raspberry Pi showing up this week.  Like many of you, the first thing I will try is getting an Apple II emulator up and running.  If I can get an Apple IIc keyboard hooked up to the GPIO pins... But another experiment is to set up a "new" Apple II experience.  By that I mean no GUI, but an easy, simple environment to program the I/O, sound, and 2D/3D graphics.  Direct and to the point, no complex steps to obfuscate the process of accessing the "metal".

Back on topic, what does this say about improvements to the Apple II line, and even improvements to GS/OS?  Quite honestly, I was never a fan of the IIgs - it doesn't feel like an Apple II any more than running an emulator on a modern computer.  It has its place in my collection, mostly as a media converter - network <-> 3.5 floppy <-> 5 1/4 floppy.  For me, integration of an emulated IIgs' GS/OS with the host filesystem (similar to Virtual ][s mounting of OSX directories) would be the greatest improvement.  As for additional hardware features, I think I would rather go with a new platform that retains the feel of the Apple II, ala RPi.

Well, that's my take on it.  Always fun to discuss.

Dave...