Re: Apple ///?

[shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford)]

In article <bjbear-ya023680000304970710400001@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>,
B.J. Major & Dennis J. Gorin <bjbear@ibm.net> wrote:

[snip]

>> First of all, if Apple had continued improving the IIgs, do you
>> honestly think it would have remained an 8/16 computer?  Think
>> about this for a minute.  The Apple IIgs had a processor that was
>> 16 bits internally with an 8-bit bus, but it had a 24 bit memory
>> address (16MB of memory addressable).  The PC started off with an
>> 8/16 processor, but only got 24 bit addressing with the '286.  The
>> point is that from that era, the PC has evolved into the Pentium.
>> What's to have kept the IIgs from doing the same?

WDC never put out the 65832, let alone anything newer. Kind of puts the 
kibosh on making a '90s vintage 6500 processor. Now before some nincompoop
starts up that "WDC needed Apple to make new chips, and Apple rooked 'em"
blather, keep in mind that 6500 chips are in everything from microwaves
to SNES boxes to pacemakers, so they could have made new chips anyway.
Computers are built on processors, not the reverse.

>Once you're leaving 8/16 bit, it would no longer be an Apple 2 anymore from
>where I sit...yes, I guess Apple could have evolved it into infinity if
>they wanted to, but the architecture/design of the machine is still 1970s
>and is now out of date for more "modern" purposes.  There is more to
>consider than the "bit-ness" of the CPU!!! (This is NOT a slam, I'm just
>stating the facts....)

There was a story going around that there would be a PPC chip with an
intel compatible instruction set on board. It was to be the 615 I think.
It must be dead since I haven't heard more about it. Just as well. Why
would you want to make such a thing rather than use software emulation
or a coprocessor? Nonetheless, such a hybrid would be the only way to
modernize a 6500 series processor.

>> Second, you might say, well the PC evolved into a Pentium, but the
>> II evolved into a Mac?  Wrong.  The fastest Pentium Pro can run the
>> software of the lowly 8088.  The fastest Pentium Pro logic boards
>> still have a couple of 8-bit ISA slots for your old hardware.

And intel is paying for having that hardware compatibility. You've heard
that there will be no Pentiums faster than 233 mHz right? There will be
500 mHz+ PPC chips before the year is out. I really think Apple had the 
right idea when they chose software emulation of 68K for Powermacs.

>I don't like comparing anything Apple makes to the Wintel world, sorry. 
>I'm just not comfortable with that.  Your last sentence may be correct, but
>there is no way to run Windows '95 on a 386 or 286, which makes what
>hardware is inside a moot point.

Whereas MacOS 7.5.5 runs quite well on a Mac Plus.

>> BTW, have you seen a computer lab in a school in the past decade?
>> Apple's tactic of trying to force II users to buy more new computers
>> by making the incompatible Mac failed.  The majority went PC instead.
>
>Not the majority I know of.  Most high schools I am connected with have
>Wintel machines IN ADDITION to the Macs in their labs--not a replacement
>issue there.

Take a look at this URL:

http://
product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1997/q2/970324.pr.rel.schools.html

>> Think about this for a moment: if I had lots of Apple II computers
>> and a mouse and GUI based GS came along, I'd get the GS.  But if I
>> were forced to part with my II software for either a GUI Mac or a
>> GUI PC, I'd go with the PC.  The PC is cheaper and works just as well,
>> if not better, than the Mac (although the Mac's GUI still has a slight
>> edge...something that the GS had too when you compare it with the
>> Mac Plus, its contemporary).
>
>I disagree that the PC "works just as well" as Mac.  Totally.  I work on
>PCs all day long and I KNOW the difference.  It's a relief to come home to
>my Macs and Apple //'s.

Preach on Brother Beavis. I sit in front of a Win95 box all day and can't
wait to fire up an Apple box when I get home.

>> His statement was in reply to your comment that a modernized GS would
>> not be a GS anymore, which is like saying a Pentium is not a PC.  The
>> hardware may change.  New software will no longer run on old hardware,
>> BUT _OLD_ software will still run on the _NEW_ hardware.

I can run //e software on my Quadra via software emulation. Does that make it
a modern Apple II?

>That is what is wrong with almost every modern OS out there.  Companies are
>so worried about backward compatibility that it is crippling future
>development.  At some point, you HAVE to cut it off and start fresh.

You can have it both ways, as in 68K emulation on Powermacs. You just gotta
do it right. It'll get even better when you run a totally up to date OS in 
Rhapsody's yellow box and your old stuff in the blue box.
-- 
Randy Shackelford                                 
shack@frii.com