Re: the new Apple II - if it exists

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article dempson@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) writes...
>
>In article <4mlmac$1mri@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
>Kenneth C. Richardson <kcr103@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>> We all know that an Apple II updated a bit would probably find a niche
>> market.  I would be drooling if someone released an Apple II with a 32
>> bit data bus running at 10 MHz (or more).  One thing is for certain,
>> the Apple II name will not be used.  Why would Apple open that can of
>> worms again involving Apple Core records.
> 
>There is no can of worms.  Apple Computer was originally allowed to
>use the name "Apple" as long it was not associated with musical
>instruments (or related areas).  The IIgs was a violation of this, due
>to its Ensoniq DOC chip.  There was at least a brief flurry of
>lawyers, and may have been a lawsuit, but it must have been sorted
>out by now - current Macs can do far more than the IIgs in this area.

	I wouldn't be so sure. While current Macintosh systems do 
surpass the IIgs for digitial sample recording and playback (16-bit
resolution, where as it is 8-bit resolution on a GS) what of actual
music synthesis? With the expection of the DSP equipped Macs, to my
knowledge there is _no_ form of synthesis capabilities on the Macintosh.
The Ensoniq 5503 in the IIgs provides wavetable synthesis. The Mac,
unless there's been a recent change, doesn't even support something
as basic as FM-synthesis. Basically it's like a digital tape recorder,
the reason most Mac games have looped digitized musical scores for 
games. (This is why I complained about PuyoPuyo on the GS :)

>David Empson
>dempson@actrix.gen.nz
>Snail mail: P.O. Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca