Re: Of course we can trust Apple for our next OS!

[xmikex@eyrie.org (XmikeX)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) said :
 
>Not all.  The Apple IIe had 80 columns and 128k standard as well
>as much faster floppy drives.  It was expandable to 1MB and beyond.
>I think the Apple IIe/IIc was more similar to the Commodore 128.
 
The stock Apple IIe did not have what you say.  It matters little that to
get those 80 columns and 128k "standard", you required an add-on card?
And what if Apple itself had placed the add-on card for you?  If CBM had
placed an expander board, 80 column cartridge, and a ram expansion of
128k or more on the C64 (all of which were available) then I would be able
to say C64 = C128?   You can!, if you are a cynical Commodore user!
 
The Apple IIc (i think) had the 2 mhz and the 128k on the motherboard, 
and was released later than the IIe as you know.  Yes, I can see this
machine as a C128 minus the "excitement" (heh).
 
The C128, Apple IIGS, Atari 130XE, CoCo 3, were part of the bastardized
"throw them a bone and see if they will shut up" machines of the 1985-86
period.  In each case, management for their parent companies was looking
beyond to other computers in their arsenal.  These machines are temporal
contemporaries (a fact you cannot change) and have generally been seen
as "similar" in prowess.  That part is opinion, although I personally
believe the IIGS was the most advanced of this group.  Of course, it was 
released almost a -year- later than the rest.
 
>What the Apple IIe lacked was a sound chip and sprites.  It was
>a much inferior a graphics and sound machine to the C64...but
 
The VIC-II chip in the C64 is a lot more than just "sprites" but remember, 
all you need is to insert the Supertimer IIe gfx card and suddenly,
Apple IIe = Alpha 21264/800 mhz rendering monster!  ;)
 
>I looked up the C65...a very impressive computer.  The screen
>resultions were superior to the Atari ST, Amiga, and Apple IIGS.
>However, it lacked the 4096 color 12-bit palette of these three
>computers.  Atari, Amiga, or GS graphics would have had better
>color, even if less resolution.  Of course the GS' 15 voice, 32
>channel sound chip gave it superior sound.
 
The C65...a very impressive prototype...  You are comparing its gfx abilities
with the earlier Amigas, I see.  I would not doubt if the C65 served as a
test-bed of some sort of the AGA Amigas of 1992 (A1200/A4000).  These machines
would have eaten the C65 for breakfast, and all Amigas would have nuked it
(as they do the stock original IIGS) in the speed department.  The C65 may
have been the epitome' of 6502-class computers, only 10 years after most
home computer manufacturers moved on to other cpu's.
 
 
>This would be how I would classify the analogy:
>
>C64 = Apple II+ (enhanced with a Phasor 12-voice FM sound card)
 
My C64 has a DigiMAX 4 channel, stereo 8-bit DAC on it and I hacked another
SID sound chip to the motherboard.  Should I include these?  Nooo.
 
 
>Apple IIe/IIc = Commodore 128
>Apple IIGS = Amiga
 
My view :
 
C64  = Apple II+, IIe but with "excitement" and "fun"
C128 = Apple IIc (if the IIc had 128k and 2mhz in stock motherboard).
       but with "excitement" and "fun"
Apple IIGS - finally, an apple ii with decent sound and gfx built-in
             "excitement" somewhere between C128 and Amiga
Amiga = Macintosh
 
 
Popular view of the time :  "Throw them a bone" machines
in N. America
 
C128 - Atari130XE - CoCo 3 - Apple IIGS

(And I don't need to be lectured on what these machines can or can't do 
in -stock- form, as I have owned them at one time or another).
 
XmX
-- 
...the Ark did thusly meander about, rocked by the waves, the gentle
oscillations of 1541 drive-knock on its bow...  MG