Re: über IIgs

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

IceWeasel wrote:

> Looking at the "Apple II Accelerator Project" thread after writing my
> �ber-IIgs dream machine article got me thinking a bit philosophically about
> computer hardware.

For some, at least, it's like getting a classic car, restoring it, and then
modernizing it as much as possible, yet without ruining it's classic lines and
"interface" (dashboard, steering wheel, etc.) Or, for some it's like taking that
classic car, and making a hot rod out of it. Or, again, restoring that classic
car, and taking it out for a drive on a sunny Sunday afternoon, and enjoying the
ride. At any rate, emulators are like putting a VW steering wheel, gear shift
knob, and horn in a Saturn or Intrepid and calling it an emulated VW... at least
to me.


> It's  a common thing, esp. among classic computer
> devotees, to have a particular attachment to the hardware that comprises the
> computer.  With the A2 for instance, we could all be running 40MHz IIgs's
> via the Bernie II emulator.  But it wouldn't be the same.  My question here
> is: why?  Why is it not the same?  Where, in the bowels of a tricked-out
> computer, lies the heart of the machine?  What particular component
> comprises its soul?

No single component. A 6502 does not make a Commodore an Apple II.

>
>
> Start on the outside: it's not the case that matters.  See
> http://www.landfield.com/faqs/apple2/faq/part13/ - "How can I move my IIgs
> to a PC tower case?" for evidence.

This is the "hotrod" type, it seems to me.

>
>
> It's not strictly the processor, else the ZipGS and Transwarp wouldn't still
> enjoy popularity in this age of die-hards.  True, they're 65c816-based, but
> they weren't shipped in the original machine.  Similarly, it isn't the RAM
> or any peripheral.  PC joystick adapters, Mac enhanced keyboards and
> PC-based modems abound.  Peripherals are good; they enhance the capability
> of the machine without changing its essence.

But Mac keyboards are ADB keyboards, and ADB first appeared on the IIGS.

>
>
> I see two possibilites: the OS, and the motherboard.  Were it just the OS,
> GNOme probably wouldn't have been created, and emulators might be more
> popular.  But if it really is the motherboard, why am I left with the
> feeling that large numbers of people would happily consume a 65832-based,
> backward-compatible motherboard, were such a thing available?

By being backward-compatible, it's still an Apple II.

>

Roy