Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Mitchell Spector wrote:
> In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...
> 
> >:     Why do you have the notion the Apple IIgs design, as-is from 1986,
> >: is the most the machine could have ever been? Do you actually believe
> >: Apple pushed the envelope on the technology as much they could when it
> >: was originally released? Is this the reason why the most Apple did to
> >: the IIgs in its 6 year run was to fatten its memory, add more ROM space
> >: and add a removable clock-battery?
> >
> >They did do some good things in the system software over the years.
> 
>     System Software support is essential, but you can only stretch a
> computer so far with software if you do not update the hardware. You
> need to do both.

Yep.  GS/OS is probably one of the most optimized GUI OS's ever
developed.  One can only imagine how great it would have worked
on a 24-bit color 640x480 screen with an at least 8MHz motherboard
and a 16MHz CPU.

If it were not for the smooth OS, or if AmigaDOS was more slick,
and the Ensoniq wasn't present, I'd probably given up on the GS
rather than the Amiga. (Looking back now, wasn't much of a choice,
both computers were doomed, one by neglect and the other by
bungling of their respective parent companies.)
 
> >:     Please, I think a 5th grade student could come up with better ideas
> >: for improving the Apple IIgs than the engineering department at Apple
> >: Computer (mind you, I'm sure they had lots of ideas, just the heads at
> >: Apple would not allow them to act on them). It is completely ludicrous
> >: and short sighted to believe that the ROM 3 represented the _most_ the
> >: Apple IIgs could evolve!
> >
> >With no successor to the 65816, I can't think of anything they could have
> >added which couldn't have been put on a card compatible with all IIgses.
> 
>     I disagree. They could have stuck in faster 65C816 (at least 8 MHz),
> redesigned parts of the motherboard to get around the 1 MHz bus speed,
> updated the VGC to support 256 colors per scanline and a 640x400 video
> mode. They also could have put in 2 MB standard with SIMM connectors to
> make memory easier to add. Full I/O to the Ensoniq could have been done,
> with stereo through the headphone jack and a 1/8" microphone input. Not
> too mention doubling the DOC-RAM from 64K up to 128K. They could have
> replaced the IWM with a SWIM for High Density floppy support, even
> squeezed in an internal 3.5 drive. SCSI support could have been built-in,
> with an internal hardrive squeezed in as well. That is just for starters.

In otherwords, they could have put in what they left out to make
the Mac look better.  :)

Absolutely, I agree.  These were parts that were out there and
real.  Little Commodore started out with the A1000 that was
equipped not unlike the GS was, but even they with their limited
resources could evolve the Amiga to some extent.  Think of what
R&D rich Apple could have done had they given the GS half a chance.
Steve Wozniak himself said the Apple II had as much potential
as the Mac in a 1988 InCider interview and that its future could
be secure with an upgrade path at least as strong as the Mac if
the right people (Apple II supporters) were in key positions in
management.

> 
>     There was nothing to stop them from doing all or most of the above
> sometime around the time of the ROM 3. There was still a market for the
> machine back then too, and it would have sold quite well.
> 
> Mitchell Spector
> spec@vax2.concordia.ca

Exactly.

-Scott G.