Re: Modern A2 successor

[Phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com>]

> I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but the fact of the matter
> is that any small-market item (meaning fewer than a million units
> per year) like a new Apple II is going to have absolutely no
> economies of scale, and therefore will likely be even higher cost
> (per performance) than the Mac, which benefits to some extent from
> Motorola's embedded PowerPC processors and IBM's Power line. Linux
> on Intel rides the same wave as Windows.

Quite probably, esp' since nothing else has been considered yet, such
as case, monitor etc... Plus the cost of licensing the II rom code
which would be needed. However, if the design were created using the
least amount of hardware necessary, it still might have a chance. You
have to dream big and think big to make any project happen. Where
would we be if Woz and Jobs had listened to others and decided not to
make the Apple computer?

It would need to use some of the current PC peripherals since these
can be bought reasonably cheap. It might also be designed to use a
real Apple rom (copied to ram for speed) to avoid purchasing the
rights to use Apple's code (but that may limit the quantity of
systems which could be built.) If a person (group) were to build
such a system, all they need to supply is the base cpu system and
let the customer decide what hardware they want to add. This is very
similar to the e-machine also, which is sold as a base unit and the
other necessary peripherals need to be added. There may be variances
in the way the different distributors market them but there is almost
always something that needs to be added. That is assuming that these
people who buy such systems intend on using it or just want to say
they own a computer.

People tend to think about computers in the whole sense. IE cpu,
monitor, drives et al. but this is only the base unit. Selling it
buy itself would help both sides. It allows the seller to keep cost
as low as possible and users can select peripherals as their budget
allows. This is very similar to the way Apple and IBM sold their
computers.

> There is no shortage of old Apple II hardware for people who like
> to use it, in addition to emulators for people who want to run
> software.

Of course, but a new system with it's own OS and 'tons' of hardware
possibilities which can also run the Apple II software would still be
attractive to a larger group of people than you think. After all,
there is a whole world of people and more are beginning to use
computers every day. If we do not dream big and stay within the
current boundaries, civilization will never advance but only stagnate
and die. This has been proven throughout our history by a variety of
civilizations.

> Keep in mind that there were several companies that made clones and
> expansion hardware for the old Apple II's, who could have easily
> picked up the slack when Apple axed the II line. They didn't,
> likely because there was no viable market 10 years ago. I don't
> really see how the Apple II market has grown since then.

As I mentioned to Roy, it is not an Apple II, no matter what anyone
thinks. It would be a computer which could run Apple II software
at the hardware level. Based on my understanding of the system as
described, there are a variety of options which the user (which
includes the possibility of scientist or other uses) can take 
advantage of.

At the time, the A2 clones could not compete against the PC market
for obvious reasons. No 'clone' could since there would be nothing
unique about it. Besides, many people were very upset with Apple Inc.
for the way they had treated the II series and opted to join the PC
band wagon.

I know the computer might not be a market killer. That doesn't mean
it won't be a success at some level. As the computer market expands
throughout the world, it allows for a better chance of this success.

> The only real prospect that I could see is to build robust Apple II
> emulation on a Linux substrate, as an upgrade path for schools
> which still use Apple IIgs software, plus *possibly* some optional
> network hardware to facilitate the transfer of data from the legacy
> system. I don't think this is likely to make anyone enough money to
> make it worth while, but it is probably the best chance.

This is certainly one way to go as I have mentioned before in another
thread, but there are people who would shy away from the 'emulator'
part. Probably because it isn't really part of the hardware they are
putting their hard earned income into. The problem with your (and
Roy's) comments, IMHO, they are stuck in the 'clone only' category
and see no other possibilities for this system.

I agree with the emulator idea as another option. In fact, I agree
with this idea so much that I have customized my PC to do something
very similar.

On my system, I can run Linux/X plus Basilisk plus Win98 plus Dos
plus DOS/ApplePC and Linux-X/Kegs all at the same time and each
has their own resolution. I can easily switch between these modes
with a three or four key combination such as <ALT><CONTROL><F1>.
Keep in mind that I don't normally run my system this way, but it's
cool that I can should I want to. Normally I only use a few of these
systems at a time, like X & Win98 & Kegs (and/or ApplePC). 

My default X 	= 1280x1024
Mac emulator 	= 800x600 full screen.
Win98		= 1024x768 full screen
Dos 		= standard text and (s)vga modes
Dos/ApplePC 	= Standard PC mode, full screen
Kegs		= 720x540 (custom mode based on my video hardware
			   which allows Kegs to cover most of the
			   screen with the stat window viewable)

This setup is reasonably easy for any user with average skills to
setup and use. A new computer user might be frustrated at first,
since they have to change consoles for the various systems as well as
configure things to work in this way. It would be better for many if
the system supported this configuration at the hardware level along
with it's own high end GUI.

> Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to make them upgrade. If you
> are fanatical about stability, a Linux distribution or
> Solaris/Intel run basically non-stop. If you are upgrading because
> you need compatibility for the latest-and-...uhh...-greatest?
> Office release,

Yes, but to run a reasonably fast MS oriented system, you do need
a more than average computer for any real performance. Sure, the
software will run on most basic units, but many just don't have the
power for heavier apps like MS Office or Internet access.

Yes, Linux squeezes out more performance from these systems, which is
obvious from my setup, but even then there are limitations in user
software. Maybe soon Linux will be more user oriented but it ain't
quite there yet. Many programs and hardware still require some
technical experience on the user's part or at least access to a Linux
guru.

Advertisers are very skilled at making people want something they
may not need. Add to this the fact that we are a technology oriented
society and many people will 'need' to buy the latest and greatest.
This sort of hype has been around since the early Apple II days. It
is what helped and maybe caused the personal computer platform to
succeed, in spite of some idiot choices from the corporate types in
control.

> you won't get that in an Apple II compatible. If one needs to run
> IIgs software faster, use an emulator, and if you need to run IIgs
> hardware faster, you can't get faster plug-in cards anyway, unless
> you make them yourself.

I think that is the reason for adding alternate slot types. The older
II cards would be for the Apple II modes. That doesn't mean the
system can't be designed to access them though, it just may require
a buffer or other chips to allow this at higher speeds.

> Most "middle class users" go to a superstore and ask for the one
> that runs "Microsoft." If they add hardware, they add a USB
> scanner, color printer, and digital camera so they can send
> vacation pictures to all their family members. If they are cost
> sensitive, they get an e-machines CPU for $400. That low cost is
> possible only because of massive economies of scale.

You don't think much of us middle class users. Primarily we buy the
Wintel systems because there is very little choice. Besides the Mac,
what other options do you see in most superstores or chain
electronics store? Marketing has done their job well. There is no
longer the variety of system like there were in the early II era of
the 80's.

I suppose I might not be considered middle class user since I build
all my systems, excluding II's which just get peripherals. I do have
a good grasp on the current PC market and what many people are
looking for.

The $400 'e-machines' are mostly so cheap because of the low end
hardware used in many of them. They are also very restricted based
on hardware included with the system compared to the average PC such
as Dell or Gateway systems. IMHO, they aren't worth buying and
usually end up being sold to people who have no idea how to expand
it's capabilities. I will allow that they make decent Linux boxes,
esp' if they are networked and are running software on a high end
server.

> The proposed alternative is a necessarily expensive machine that
> taps a software market that has been moribund for the last 10
> years, and was basically incompatible with the PC world *then*, and
> has only gotten *more* incompatible since, as the Windows world has
> moved toward wherever it is going.

Yes, but not all of us are happy in the PC or Mac world. This is why
I like Linux so much. I have the ability again to do what I want
with my system and do it the way I want it done.

I get the impression that you think the market couldn't support a
different computer model. With the proper design for it's native
mode, whatever that may be plus the ability to run II and GS software
at the hardware level, you offer a unique system which could meet
today's needs plus adds compatibility for some old favorites.

> This project will cost anyone who attempts it as much money as they
> are willing to lose, and will result in basically zero financial
> gain. As you point out, though, Woz wasn't in it for the money.
> Nevertheless, no Jobs and Markulla will show up to make it
> profitable.

I'm not arguing whether the system will be a major success but it is
possible that it might be a minor success which could grow into a
better success as time goes by. In this case, a little optimism is
required for anyone who gets involved.

Of course, this is just my opinion of this possible machine. As yet,
it is only an idea shared with CSA2 readers. But I truly believe that
there are always possibilities. If a person doesn't take a chance
they may never know what those possibilities are.

-- 

Thank you for your time and interest. I hope it was helpful
or at least interesting.

Phoenyx,

Apple2 user since March 1984

Links to Phoenyx's pages:
preferred..... http://zip.to/Phoenyx_A2
alternate..... http://www.tinyangeldesigns.com/Apple2