The Power Box option (Re: Problems in Modernizing a IIgs: Part3)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Melcher writes ...
> 
> ....
> On the other hand,  if someone was to create a GS upgrade.  For whatever
> proccessor we could come up with or design(here and now in 1997) would
> there really be a base of buyers willing to shell out the money to get the
> upgrade.  Isn't this the question we should be asking?  There are so many
> companies still designing software for the GS and hardware.  There should
> be an upgrade if there is a demand! ....
>

     This is csa2; so, naturally, we are interested in II series
upgrades. Whether or not this will constitute a "demand" depends upon
the upgrade, the price of the upgrade, and (for a major change) the
liklihood that the upgrade will be widely adopted.

     For example, there is a well-demonstrated interest in some way to
interface standard VGA and SVGA monitors to the GS. At, say, $30, there
might be a genuine demand for a module to perform this function.

     As upgrades go, being able to easily connect a larger, newer
monitor is a rather modest example. Cost is low and the upgrade would be
viable whether or not many other users adopted it.

     Everything changes when you talk about something like a new 1024 x
768 real-color display card or a 250MHz RISC processor board or adding
32MB of main RAM. Costs are higher; compatibility with existing
software, firmware, and hardware becomes an issue; and, wide acceptance
by users is an important consideration.

     In fact, once you look into the upgrade question, another major
factor surfaces: How will an upgrade in one area impact the liklihood of
upgrades in others? For example, were we to come up with 640 x 480
256-color VGA Slot card, how would a 250MHz RISC processor board utilize
it at anything like the speed required for high-quality animation?

     That there appears to be no good way to significantly upgrade the
GS on a piece-by-piece basis should come as no surprise. Even 2-year-old
PC's turn out to be un-upgradeable to current standards. Their
motherboards are too slow, lack sockets and/or power traces to handle
the new processors at full speed, lack sockets for SDRAM, lack sockets
for pipeline cache expansion, etc..

     So, one way or another, it seems that we are looking at a
comprehensive upgrade. This might take the form of a Card we plug into a
Slot, a motherboard replacement, or a "Power Box"-- a completely new
board with new Slots along with disk/CD-ROM drives in a separate box
using the current GS as a 'front end'.

     A plug-in card is the 'traditional' upgrade approach. In this case,
the fast microprocessor, 32MB of fast RAM, EEPROM, enhanced audio,
high-speed SVGA Video, high-speed serial I/O, and disk/CD-ROM
controllers would amount, practically, to a 'new computer'.

     Since the old motherboard is present, compatibility with old wares
is retained along with access to the old ROMs (which could be copied
into the EEPROMS and modified). If we go for something like a 25MHz
65C816 for the main uP, raw speed should be about three times the best
current accelerated GS's.

     Cost? Assuming an initial run of 1000 or so, a group of II users
might produce the card for a selling price around $600.


     A new motherboard with the above specs and with ROMs moved from an
old GS (for copying into EEPROM prior to adding patches) would have to
ditch built-in II+/IIe compatibility; but, this might be achieved via
software emulation. It could offer extended (2-section) Slots to
accommodate both old and new peripherals.

     Unlike the plug-in, a new mb would need to include KB, mouse, and
game I/O along with Slot and other sockets. These costs would be
somewhat offset by design simplicity-- i.e. we would not have to worry
about making the board fit-in with pre-existing hardware and firmware--
and, possibly, relying upon users to supply their own SCSI interface
card. Selling price for an initial run of 1000 should be around $700.

     Both of the above have the advantage of retaining close links to
the current II GS. Users would have significantly enhanced machines at a
reasonable price.

     The chief down-side for either of the above approaches is that
you're asking users to shell out a fairly hefty chunk of cash for
performance which does not challenge current PC's. If my estimates are
way off and someone says "Heck, I'll do the board for $400!" then it's a
different ballgame. Otherwise, we are probably looking at a very tough
sell.

     Another problem is that, as long as we settle for a board which
must go into a GS box and retain a high level of compatibility (e.g.
using the current ROMs), the effects will, largely, be limited to the
current user base. We are not likely to attract many new users or get
much support from major software producers.

           
     My preference is for the Power Box approach:

1. The design would not be compromised by needing to fit into the
current GS or by questions about ROM and OS copyrights. It could
emphasize performance (300MHz RISC, integrated Video and Sound, etc.). 

2. Since GS users would employ the current GS as a front-end, they would
retain use of current wares. In addition, current wares could be
modified to take advantage of PB capabilities. 

3. The Power Box would be an upgrade path for II+, IIe, and IIc users
who could use their machines as the front-end.

4. The Power Box would be an upgrade path for C-64/128, old-PC, Atari,
and Amiga owners.

5. Software developed for Power Box would be compatible across all
front-end platforms as well as whatever front-end the Power Box maker
might offer as an option.

6. Of the approaches which seem to be available, Power Box is the one
most likely to be taken up and implemented by a major manufacturer.

7. As a high-performance alternative to PC, Power Box is the upgrade
approach most likely to attract new users as well as support from major
software makers.

     Who would manufacture Power Box? While many computer, chip,
peripherals, and software makers have prospered during the PC era, quite
a few others would welcome a chance at a new start.

     Just one possible candidate is dear old Apple Computer. Consider
this scenario: A student comes home with a load of assignments and notes
on his/her Apple Scholar II Notebook, plugs in a cable to the Power Box,
and instantly has access to everything via the resources of a powerful
desktop computer.

     Apple would be able to sell lots of notebook computers to school
districts and lots of Power Boxes (complete with an optional PB
front-end KB & mouse interface) to home users. Apple would, also, have a
good shot at dictating Power Box's OS. (In fact, the possibility that a
desperate, ready-to-try-anything company might come up with a New II or
something like Power Box may have been Microsoft's chief motivation for
"helping" Apple earlier this year.)


     Anyway, it will be interesting to see what your survey shows. Good
luck!


Rubywand