In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>
>>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>>
>>>The Apple IIe could run all the operating systems of the II+,
>>>but with the 128k that it normally shipped with plus its
>>>improved capabilities,
>>
>> The only time the Apple IIe ever shipped with 128K was
>>in the case of the platinum/grey IIe model (January 1987+).
>>Otherwise, it always shipped from the factory with 64K and
>>it was up to you to purchase more RAM.
>
>Incorrect. Since 1984, Apple shipped the IIe in a
>package called "Apple IIe Professional." This included
>an extended 80 column card, a green phosphor Apple
>Monitor II, and a DuoDisk drive.
That was a package deal an authorized Apple dealer would
sell you, it still did not factory ship with that additional
memory pre-installed (you would get the Extended 80 Columns
Card in a box, and have to installed it yourself). You would
be correct to say 128K was the recommended standard, but not
that it automatically came shipped with that amount.
Is that any different from people who bought Apple IIgs's
in 1986 with 1 MB of RAM? (the dealer would sell you a card
and three 256K memory kits, and then install the chips).
>> Improved capabilities? :) For the most part, the IIe
>>*is* an Apple II Plus, only with the equivalent of a 16K
>>Language Card and lowercase support built-in. Plus a full
>>ASCII keyboard and a bank-switching auxiliary slot that
>>replaced Slot-0 (some tricks could be done with this,
>>such as generating 80 column text or a graphic mode with
>>double the resolution and colors).
>
>Bank-switching and mousetext (I'm thinking of the
>Apple IIe Professional) were in themselves improved
>capabilities, not to mention the importance of lower
>case.
The Apple II and II Plus supported bank-switching, using
a Language Card you could expand to 64K or even more in the
case of a few specialized slot-0 RAM cards. Technically, I'm
not sure how the auxiliary slot's method of bank-switching
differed from that of the II and II Plus (I do have a couple
guesses, but I'll let someone else step in rather than make
speculations. More specifically, I'm not sure why you could
mirror 64K on an IIe to get 80 columns and DHR, yet not do
the same on a II Plus. Perhaps its how they mapped memory?).
Mousetext did not appear until the enhanced IIe and while
lowercase support was significant, you could add that feature
to the Apple II Plus (I did to mine, and programs that used
lowercase displayed properly).
>>>It could also run MS-DOS and an early version of Windows with
>>>a coprocessor card called the PC Transporter.
>>
>> Saying the PC-Transporter could run Windows (it could,
>>but only Windows 3.0 in CGA mode, and did not support any
>>programs that ran in protected mode; plus less than 640K)
>
>It could, that's the point.
Yes, but you couldn't run any programs under it. It is a
novelty to run Windows on a PCT, there is no purpose beyond
just booting it up and staring at it. When you say "it could
run an early version of Windows" some people could mistakenly
think your referring to Windows 3.11 and with it, the ability
to run some older 16-bit GUI applications. It can do neither.
>> The PC-Transporter has a NEC V30, 640K and CGA graphics.
>>That is best suited running up to MS-DOS 6.22.
>
>Well sure, but it COULD run Windows 3.0. It might not
>have been pretty, but it COULD. That's all I said. ;-)
Well going by the same arguement, the Apple IIgs COULD run
MAME if someone took the effort to port it. It would be purely
for novelty value too--you could stare at it and pretty much
nothing more. :)
>> The Manager can support cooperative multitasking but
>>I believe *only* if a program is written to support it,
>>and essentially, Manager friendly/aware. If I remember
>>correctly, Bright Software's GSymbolix was one of the few
>>(only?) programs that could support multitasking with The
>>Manager.
>
>Archiver and Spectrum support it. I believe HyperCard
>and AppleWorks GS will support OTHER programs
>running it THEIR background even if they themselves
>would not run in OTHER programs' backgrounds. An
>extensive list was included with The Manager.
>
>I remember seeing quite a sizable number of programs
>that supported cooperative multitasking in SOME way
>(that is, at least allowed OTHER programs to run in the
>background).
Well I've seen some NDA's do cooperative multitasking,
GScii+ is one example, you can have it decode files while
you work on something in the foreground (you can even set
how much CPU time it uses). Still, I would not even begin
to compare the IIgs to multitasking machines such as the
Amiga or current day Windows 95/98/NT boxes. In fact, it
would be pushing things to even compare it to an old 386
running Windows 3.11 or a 68K/PPC Macintosh running the
current MacOS 8.5 (both the latter are cooperative).
>>>The cards use a standard called "Apple Bus" which has
>>
>> Is that the official name Apple gave to the 50-pin
>>slots? The name is vagely familiar (unless the name is
>>invoking thoughts about "Apple NuBus" or "Apple DeskTop
>>Bus") but I guess rarely used since there was only one
>>kind of slot on all Apple II's from 1977 until 1993
>>(excluding the auxiliary slot and GS memory slot).
>
>It is the official name of the 50-pin slots. Some places
>still have "Apple Bus" breadboards for rolling your
>own cards. I think DigiKey had them some time ago.
Certainly an interesting bit of trivia, though I think
an official name for Apple II slots is a tad bit superfluous
considering no slot evolution took place. Other than the IIe
Auxiliary slot (60-pin) and IIgs Memory Expansion slot (44-
pin) there has only ever been _one_ type of slot.
Had Apple continued the Apple II's evolution past the
IIgs, we might have seen something along the lines of a
16-bit ISA slot--a standard 50-pin slot with an extension
slot in front (an "Apple Bus II" slot perhaps).
>>>The IIGS can use the Mac monitor with an SVGA card
>>>called the Second Sight. It supports 1024x768 pixels at
>>>24 bit color.
>>
>> It may support 1024x768, but certainly *not* at 24-bit
>>color depth. [anti-Second Sight rhetoric snipped]
>
>Wrong Mitch. The Second Sight manual, page 18,
>clearly states:
>
>"Tru-color mode is similar, but each pixel can be
>any of 16.7M (million) colors" (the paragraphs
>before it detail the three color modes of the Second
>Sight card, indexed, hi-color, and tru-color in this
>paragraph).
>
>Checking with my calculator, 16.7M is 2 to the 24th
>power or 24-bit color!
You said the Second Sight supports 1024x768x16M above,
and that is *false*. It order to support that color depth
at such a high resolution, you would need *much* more than
merely 1 MB of RAM on the card. From my calculation, the
highest resolution to support 24-bit color is 640x480.
A second issue is whether the card will support 24-bit
color at any resolution. It is capable (it has enough RAM
and a bt481 RAMDAC, instead of the lesser bt478) but from
what I recall, the current firmware has a bug in it that
won't allow you to use any higher than 16-bit color depth
(I'll have to dig through my old e-mail to tell you what
the exact problem is).
>Don't knock it if you have never used it.
I'm not knocking it, I'm merely correcting your false
statement about being able to support 24-bit color at its
highest resolution. Unless you happen to know a way to
upgrade the card from 1 MB to somewhere in the 4 MB range.
Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca