Re: Modern A2 successor

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
3986009C.C758781C@inetnebr.com">news:3986009C.C758781C@inetnebr.com...
> Arkain wrote:
>
> I'm going to snip out most of your post and my post and your original
post -
> it's getting clumsy.
>
> >
> > > I always did like the Human Torch, go for it big guy :-)
> >
> > ..thinking about the Fantastic 5 cartoon.
> >
>
> Ummm, when I read comic books, it was the Fantastic 4... have things
changed
> since I grew up?

It was the Fantastic 4. I was thinking about something else and got the
thought mixed up with what I was writing...

<snipped>
> > He's got a good idea and will probably sell
> > a few of it. I just want a new system instead of another patch to an old
> > system. I want to see if the ideology of the old Apple computers can be
> > successfully applied to more modern systems. I want to know if the
concept
> > of building a computer simple enough for anyone to learn yet powerful
enough
> > to do what you want is an out-dated, outmoded concept.
>
> Well, perhaps the issue to debate is "What is the ideology of the Apple
II?"
> From the various things I've read, it could be said to be a totally open
> computer, that Woz sought to do the most with the least possible (because
of his
> limited resources.) Woz has said that what he did was create a computer
that he
> wanted to play with.

This is where we need to go. I really what to know how people defined their
Apple experience(s). Since I cannot see the world as they do, I need to hear
what made Apple 2 so special for them. I've already designed in what made it
special for me.

<snipped>
> Fine, don't put PCI slots in. Yes, I was listening, but I'm not so sure
that you
> were listening to why PCI is a good idea, if it is cheap/easy enough. The
point
> of the above is that you get to use cool new cards and have Wintel and Mac
> people design them for the new II, that makes the machine more usable,
more
> expandable, and more likely to be expanded. Whether you sell it or not.

I heard you quite clearly. You would like to take advantage of the large
supply of existing PCI cards. The core of the problem is that I don't know
any hobbyist with the skill set required to design and build their own,
custom PCI card. For me, that was a big part of the warm-fuzzy... Given that
PCI has gone through several revisions, even some commercial cards on the
market will not successfully run correctly in all PCI systems. Compound this
with the fact that since a) all PCI cards will need a new ROM for the new
65832 based machine, and b) somce manufacturers will not release the info on
how their cards work so we can build customization kits, the vast majority
of the PCI card market suddenly becomes inert. That is the second reason why
I won't use PCI. I've already explained the first...

<snipped>
> > I'd rather find a good solution to extending the
> > Apple slots, and I think I've already got that.
> >
> >
> >
> > While a new system built by Woz would be instantly accepted as the
successor
> > to the A2 series, I'm left with the impression that he is under so many
> > limiting agreements with Apple that if he even tried, he'd have the
> > underwear sued off of him by Apple legal. That eliminates him.
>
> The presupposition was that Apple would release to him the patents and
> copyrights to a machine they no longer sell, service, or support. Some of
those
> might start becoming public domain soon anyway (how long are patents
good?) Then
> he would have to want to do something, because he loved his creation
enough to
> want to do it.

Under those conditions, then I have to agree...

> > The /// was a
> > successor to the A2, but definitely unworthy due to all of the built-in
> > limiters to make it difficult to manage backward compatibility, not to
> > mention the fact that it flopped.
>
> But much of the file://e's enhanced technology came from the ///. ProDOS,
according
> to Apple's own literature, is a cut down version of SOS.

I already knew that. Unlike the Apple ///, which was Apple's 1st attempt at
ridding themselves of the Apple II line, the Apple IIe was built from the
beginning to be an "Enhanced Apple II". That they borrowed technology from
the /// was a good thing, but that they made A2 compatible without
restrictions was an even better thing.

> > Lisa/Mac, both born of the same twisted
> > notion that the Apple 2 was slated to die in the market, doesn't even
come
> > close to being an A2 successor.
>
> Some of the Mac creator's had been with the early II team, and for them,
the
> first Mac was the II again. One interesting point is that Jobs didn't want
slots
> on the II, and he got his way on the Mac.

The lack of upgrade slots was the first sign that it was no longer an A2.
The 10"(?) B&W monitor was the second sign. The lack of A2 compatibiliy only
verified the suspicions even more. As of the Macintosh, the entire A2
library was defunct. It would've been different if the Mac would have been
designed with the ability to run the wealth of legacy software that existed,
but that's water under the bridge now.

>
> I think I was that person. I wasn't against slots, I was merely pointing
out the
> limitations of the II bus, and that rather than try to widen it or speed
it up,
> that removing some of them and adding a few slots (like PCI) that are
currently
> supported in the wider industry would make it more likely to have cards to
put
> in those slots.

Not really, but if you've read this far, then you already understand why PCI
wouldn't suit. The II bus does have it's limitations, but the extension I
will make will overcome all of them. Each slot will also have a buffered
latch on it so that it can still support the older 1Mhz cards. That means
that it'll support the old Apple card base, a new card base, and the ability
for the average Apple techie to design custom cards. This is the effect i
want.

> >
> > I originally started out with a PPC chip and a 65816 coprocessor for
> > backward compatibility. Someone said that that design was too clumsy. I
> > agreed and changed to a PPC with a ROM to emulate the older 65xxx series
> > processors. Someone suggested 4 65816's to do the work since they didn't
> > like the idea of software emulation in the system.
>
> Well, you can't please everybody. Do what makes sense to you. The PPC, or
> Pentium makes sense to me, because there are IIGS emulators now, and just
> emulating the 65816 would be easier than the whole computer. Multiple fast
816s
> would be interesting, but a system software nightmare, I would think.

The only way I can think of to make that work would be to use a token-ring
style setup so that each processor is accessed in turn. The processor
controller would have to be able to buffer as many data fragments and
request fragments as there are processors. That get's tricky really quick.
It shouldn't be too hard, but a PGA is a better idea, IMHO.

> I like both - SCSI for using older disk drives, IDE so you can use cheap
fast
> new harddrives.

You can always use a SCSI card...

Do you see the difference between this and the past few posts? In this one
you told me what you'd like to see. That I can handle. In the others, you
told me that my idea was non-viable for whatever reason. That I can't
handle. It would be different if the idea were ready to go to the prototype
stage, but right now it's just an idea for which viability is not a concern.

Arkain