Re: Modern A2 successor

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

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
3985E3F1.C9531F3E@inetnebr.com">news:3985E3F1.C9531F3E@inetnebr.com...
> Arkain wrote:
>
> > Alright...
> >
> > I've read every post in this thread since the last time I posted, and
you
> > know what? You've managed to frustrate me to the point of...
> >
> > <flame on>
>
> I always did like the Human Torch, go for it big guy :-)

..thinking about the Fantastic 5 cartoon.

> >
> >
> > 1) While I did say that it may have the "potential" for reclaiming some
of
> > the Apple 2 market, I *NEVER* said that I would sell it. This is my
project,
> > and I thought I was sharing it with a few nostalgic people who would
like to
> > hear about new A2 ideas.
>
> Your ideas aren't all that new. I've seen them before.

I would imagine you have since it IS a good idea.

> > Instead, all I find is a pack of f@#king nay-sayers
> > trying to compare my idea with what's currently on the market. Go jump!
You
> > decide where...
>
> It's your project, have fun with it. But don't flame out just because
someone
> else has a different vision. You were quite happy to criticize Bill's
design, I
> have the right to say what and why I disagree with yours. For the record,
no one
> has compared your idea with what is currently on the market, but I did
suggest
> what I thought would be needed to bring a new motherboard up to 1996
standards,
> ten years after the IIGS.

I didn't criticize his design. I just said that I want a new system instead
of another card for the old one. His idea has it's applications just as does
mine. My problem is with the people who are essentially trying to tell me
that I'm wasting my time even thinking about building a new system...
primarily you. Bottom Line: I don't care if it never sees the light of day,
I still plan to build it, and I came to this group looking for ideas.

The only reason I even said anything about Bill's idea is because someone
mentioned it in lieu of my idea. 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. Adding a card to the
old II/IIGS system will not do that for me.

> >
> >
> > 2) Why the hell would I wan't PCI slots in a machine that's supposed to
be
> > "simple"? Do any of you have any idea of the complexities of the PCI
> > architecture??? That costs money, and I be a f@#king idiot to try and
add
> > them in!
>
> I certainly don't. But why? I've already answered that one in above
posts -
> Apple has adopted PC technologies like PCI and IDE, because it allows them
to
> ride the larger marketplace on some items and put their advanced
technology
> dollars where they think they can get the biggest bang for the buck. If
you
> don't want PCI, or can't do it, that's no skin off my nose.

Weren't you listening??? I said that I don't give a rats ass about selling
this system. Given that, then why would I put PCI slots in this system?
Answer: I WOULDN'T. They're too complicated and require relatively expensive
bus controllers to manage. I'd rather find a good solution to extending the
Apple slots, and I think I've already got that.

> >
> >
> > 3) I never said that this was supposed to be another Apple 2. That just
> > isn't possible!!! I said that this is an Apple 2 ***SUCCESSOR***. Get
the
> > message? No one can replace the original A2 line. Not even Woz himself.
The
> > best that any of us can hope for is a new system compatible with the
old,
> > but more powerful in all respects.
>
> I disagree with you on the Woz replacement. As for an Apple II successor,
there
> have already been several: the ///, Lisa, Mac, and the IIGS. As for being
more
> powerful, well, you'd need a more powerful CPU, and there isn't one that
is
> compatible with the 65816.

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 /// 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. 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. They are a completely different system
altogeher with no attempts made toward backwards compatibility or the ease
of use/modification that were the trademarks of the A2 series. The IIGS was
the only worthy successor to the A2 that Apple ever built, but Apple starved
it to death. I want a system that would represent my idea of what Apple
Computer might be selling if they had've continued the II series into the
mid 90's.

> >
> >
> > <flame off>
> >
> > Look... let me try to make this plain and clear. This is my project. I
have
> > many others, some of which will be used to make me a profit. This is not
one
> > of them. If anyone else ever becomes interested in it, it'll be
something of
> > a surprise to me,
>
> I'm interested in it. Have fun. But if you don't want people to comment on
it,
> then don't tell about it.

Go ahead an comment on it, but if all you're going to say is "It'll never
work" or "Nobody will want to buy it" or "It's not worth building" or any
other such statement then please hold your tongue. I want comments from
people who are willing to help me refine the idea... not destroy it.

> > and I will welcome it.
> >
> > I thought that this was an idea that the Apple community would
welcome... a
> > way to preserve and advance an ancient but still viable system.
Aparently I
> > was wrong.
>
> Your error was in assuming that this idea is something that hasn't been
raised
> before, it has. You have some good ideas, but don't expect people to
instantly
> and totally agree with what you think needs to be done. Or, for that
matter,
> with your concept of what would make something an Apple II or not.

I never made that assumption at all. I don't expect people to agree with me
at all, but I do suspect that there are those of you who are even more
knowledgable than me in certain areas. I simply want to raise the question
for advisement. I considered all comments about the marketability of this
new system off-topic. So when someone comes along saying it'll never sell
because it doesn't meet this or that, and doesn't put in any *CONSTRUCTIVE*
ideas and advise, I tend to get irritated.

My concept of what an Apple 2 is? That's like trying to explain the color
blue to a blind person. Everyone will see the A2 series in a slightly
different light. No two people will define the important things about the A2
exactly the same way... and that's a good thing, but like I said before:
This is a modern successor to the A2 and not an A2 itself.


> > If this is going to be the result of sharing my ideas with the
> > community, then maybe I'd better just keep my ideas to myself.
> >
> > To those of you who think this is a waste of time because it's likely
> > non-marketable, you can kindly go take a long walk off a short diving
board
> > into the deep end of an empty pool for all I care.
>
> The only waste of time is IF you do think you're going to restart the
Apple II
> market, as you posted earlier. (or was that *****.*****?)

I stated that this kind of machine, as a hobbyist computer, may have the
*POTENTIAL* of recapturing the A2 market. I never stated that I'd try and
exploit that. I even stated that I doubted that this would ever happen.

> > You obvously don't get
> > what the Apple 2 is about. Sure the PC is an Apple 2 knock-off designed
to
> > support different hardware. Sure this II successor is a completely new
> > machine that if marketed, would have to compete with PC's. All that is
> > irrelevant. All I want is a new machine that keeps the spirit of the old
A2
> > series while adding more capabilities.
>
> That's probably all any of us would want. Why were you so negative about
another
> project that is also being worked on that does similar things in a
different
> way?  You should have applauded it instead of trying to trash it. It would
make
> far more sense for you and Bill to exchange ideas and answers to problems
then
> for you to just flame on. That way there is an increased chance that at
least
> one of you could actually produce a product. And if you both did, so much
the
> better.

Once again. I'm not downplaying Bill's idea. It's a good idea and actually
might sell, but it's an upgrade card for the old system, not a successor to
the old system. It is similar in many ways to the idea I have, and
definitely more practical. It is not the same though. If anybody took my
comments about Bill's card as an insult to the idea, then I appologize. That
was not my intent. I was trying to keep this thread about the very thing for
which I started it... my particular vision of a successor to the A2 series.

> > To those of you who offered suggestions to advance the idea... Thank
You.
>
> Hmmm, but you know, sometimes critical comments are suggestions. Listen to
those
> who don't buy in to your original vision, sometimes they are right. And
> sometimes they can help you improve what you wish to do while not buying
in to
> their way of doing things.

I did and I do, but when someone argues me to the floor that using slots is
unnecessary when everything it needs to run is already built-in.... Whether
or not it needs slots, I have designed them in for upgradeability sake. That
same person argued about the examples I gave as uses for the slots. THEY
WERE MERELY EXAMPLES!!! Who cares if the examples would ever be made. They
just expressed possibilities. Nothing more, nothing less.

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. I agreed about the
emulation but rejected the 4 65816's. Someone suggested a PLU programmed as
a new 65832. This I liked and decided to replace the PPC and ROM. Someone
suggested SCSI instead of IDE, but I rejected it since IDE is easier and
cheaper. Someone suggested PCI, but I have rejected it due to complexity.
Someone suggested using an old-style 486 case. I like that idea. Someone
suggested using the IIgs power supplies, but I was thinking about using the
more prolific PC power supplies. They're cheap enough.

I am listening to the ideas of those who are making valid suggestions
whether in favor or against the current design. It is the general "It'll
never fly" style comments that I want to see end.

Arkain