Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Sean Fahey wrote:
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> EcSdneQFtKEK57rfRVn-tg@comcast.com">news:EcSdneQFtKEK57rfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
>
> > Yes, but with very small discontinuities until the IIgs, which was
> > a _major_ addition to the original Apple II design.
>
>
> I don't see how that couldn't have happened any other way, considering the
> competition at the time. The next generation Apple II that became the Apple
> IIGS was going up against the Amiga, which wasn't backwards compatible with
> the 64/128, and the Atari ST, not compatible with the 400/800... and Tandy
> was jumping to the PC architecture. That Apple went to such pains to make
> the GS so backwards compatible was it's greatest asset, and probably it's
> achillies heal. So many people and school districts especially, just kept
> using their GS's as if it was a fast //e.

True, market forces had much to do with the IIgs.  Of course,
for people with limited budgets, the software they run must be
the software they already have...

The IIgs might have turned out differently if Apple had provided--
or even given away--a killer application that exploited the IIgs
like Appleworks exploited the //e.  But they didn't.

And market forces had practically nothing to do with the Apple II!
Woz just did what turned him on, and it was great.

(This is, perhaps, a comment about committee design versus
design by an inspired individual.)

> > Woz's participation in the IIgs was, I think, more symbolic than
> > substantial, given when it was done and what he was doing.
>
>
> Not according to Woz. I'm at work, so I can't pull quotes from various
> articles I've read but he claims he himself pushed for the backwards
> compatibility. Just because he lobbied, gave input doesn't marginalize his
> role as merely symbolic. He laid the foundation on which the GS was
> realized.

OK, so his substantial input was to preserve the "Apple II-ness"
of the IIgs--not the numerous add-ons.  A quite reasonable (and
obvious) position for anyone who understands the values of the
installed base--and who was the inventor of the "backward-
compatible" functionality.  ;-)

I stand by my statement that Woz's biggest contributions to the
IIgs were its "Apple II compatibility" and his signature on some
early cases.  (BTW, there were others involved in the early
Apple II who _were_ deeply involved in the design of the IIgs--
they would have to be to get good compatibility--but Woz
wasn't "deeply involved" with anything at Apple by that time.

> > And the "hacker spirit" I think of in the context of the IIgs
> > is the FTA...not exactly what Apple had in mind.  ;-)
>
>
> You can't say that the GS is any less open, documented and by extension
> "hackable" than any other Apple II.

There is no dispute that the documentation is available--just that
its quantity and complexity is itself a formidable barrier to hacking
in comparison with the earlier Apple II models.

Ever try to sit down with the mini-assembler and key in a little
routine to play with the DOC?  ;-)

For me, and for many, "hackability" is in large part the possibility
of trying out the outline of a new idea before lunch.

> > Again, by the time he said this, he was using the //c rather than
> > extending or creating with it.  He liked it for the convenience of
> > its physical package, and the fact that he could still run Apple II
> > programs on it.
>
>
> He said it at KFest 2003, on the patio outside the Avila cafeteria. I was
> there. (Got the autographed Red Book and T-Shirt to prove it)

Cool.  I guess Woz has turned his attention to other things
than hacking these days.  (I wonder how long it will be until
he begins to think of his Apple II fans in the same way that
ex-Star Trek stars think of Trekkers?  ;-)

> > On a broader scale, it is sad that what passes for noteworthy
> > innovation in the computer business today is coming up with a
> > stylish new case design, rather than anything substantial.
>
>
> Eh, I don't see how that applies to the GS.

No (which is why I said "on a broader scale"), but it certainly
applies to Apple Computer (and others, of course).

-michael

New Applesoft BASIC interface for NadaNet networking!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/