Re: Super GS

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com> wrote:

>Now for the purist (like me) who think the hardware defines the
>system, I'd rather see an upgrade for the 8 bit systems. While I
>like the GS, I often think it was a departure from the Apple II.
>There are a great many possibilities in expanding the 8 bit II and
>the GS was only one of them. For one, a broader method of bank
>selection for accessing aux memory coupled with a memory manager
>and a new os which didn't try and follow (or lead) the Mac design
>would have put the II in a whole new league. Yet it still would
>have easily maintained compatibility while allowing users to
>upgrade to the newer hardware. It has already been proven that
>there are other (better?) methods of programming the GS than the
>toolbox method provided by Apple.

I can see the desire to paint Apple's tools and GS/OS in the
same light as Microsoft and Windows however in this case,
I think the analogy is flawed.  GS/OS was a triumpth for its
time and amazingly advanced.  Its concept of drivers, FSTs,
and modular expansion is not seen in any other OS with
the exception of UNIX variants (like Linux) but even then no
other OS integrates the conceptual modularity of these
features as well as GS/OS does.  That's because GS/OS
under Apple's System Software sets up each module as a
separate file with a separate icon.  Self contained functions
in self contained files in a GUI.  Take out a module (file) to
remove a function.  Drop in a module (file) to add a function.