Re: über IIgs

[The Nigerian Farmer <**nospam@nospam.zed**>]

I think it's all of this and more.  For me, it's not just the idea of making
something out of the old machine.  It's the idea that it's _still useful_.  After
years of neglect by their parent company, the Apple II series is still a viable
machine for both serious and gaming use; some of the best games were made only for
the Apple II.  There are scientific labs around the world which still run
time-honored scientific-sampling programs on their trusty Apple II's.  Perhaps the
best indicator of the machine's enduring versatility is their continued use by
Elementary to High Schools accross the country along-side modern Mac's and PC's.
The Apple II has the legacy of being one of the most popular microcomputers ever and
probably always will.  In fact, judging by the number of users-groups, newsgroups,
and so forth, it will continue to be a fairly common sight for many more years to
come.

Finally, perhaps the most attractive feature of the Apple II is it's stability.
Modern microcomputers are pitifully unstable (UNIX and OS/2 excepted).  However, I
cannot recall a SINGLE incident where either of my Apple's (a ][+ and a gray //e),
or any other II-series machine, has EVER crashed.  Imagine that:  I can use either
of them without the fear of having to reboot to correct OS-related fatal errors --
consistently, no less.  Beat that Bill!

--The Nigerian Farmer


> Subject:
>             Re: ber IIgs
>        Date:
>             Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:34:15 GMT
>        From:
>             dev.null@personal.information.com
>  Newsgroups:
>             comp.sys.apple2
>   References:
>             1
>
>
>
>
> I think the difference between emulation and hardware is that, by using the
> original hardware, we are making something of the old machine.  You can not
> say the same thing about emulation because the only piece of that machine
> which you are still using is the software.
>
> Even an older Macintosh, with its IIgs style serial and ADB ports, (maybe
> even a floppy port), does not support the cranky 5.25" floppies nor the
> peripheral cards which have been developed over the years.
>
> But even if the Mac supported everything an Apple II supported, it still
> would not be the same.  A continually updated Apple II would be no differnt
> from the Macintosh or Intel boxes which we use today.  Those machines are
> common stock, and you can do pretty much anything which can be done on
> computers today.  It is not as challenging, and it is not as fun, to do
> things which come too easily.  (Easily, sure.  But too easily?)
>
> At least that is a bit of the reason that I think I like my Apple II's.
>
> Have a great Chrismas,
> Byron.
>
Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> 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