Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Bryan Parkoff" <nospam@nospam.com>]

Hello,

    I agreed with all posts.  The assembly programmer claims that C++ and 
other languages are the wrong language for Apple II Family.  The programmers 
should concentrate in 6502 / 65816 assembly language so they can develop 
optimized and efficieny code and the software can run at same speed.  It 
always save unused RAM for important functions like ROMs.
    Can't you imagine that Windows XP and other operating systems take too 
much RAM which they don't use all of them.  Often, they load duplicated 
functions that looks like DLL etc.  I probably claim that DirectX is bad 
code for games.
    Please do not make me wrong, but I try to express that we should stick 
with Apple II Family so we can write better software for code rather than 
Windows XP or other operating system codes.  What do you think?
    It is a big pain that operating system with 64 Bits take 2 TB RAM.  Will 
Apple Computer, Inc comply to do this?
    If we stay with 6502 CPU and expand to 32 Bits, 6502 instructions can 
work for best performance.  I would predict that 6502 CPU can run at 2GHz 
which it would be much faster than Intel Pentium 2GHz and other processors 
because 6502 is only focused in the cycle performance.  I would claim that 
6502 CPU is the best design with clever optimization however Intel always 
does not do their good job for CPU design.  It is shameful for Intel.  We 
have to honor 6502 CPU and keep it alive forever.

Bryan Parkoff


"Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message 
news:42264543$1_2@news.vic.com...
> We do agree on 1 thing. Programmers have gotten very, very sloppy with 
> their
> larger RAM and faster CPUs. Look at Windows for instance. Why the hell 
> does
> it take a new PC to run the next version of Windows at the same speed as 
> the
> previous version on hardware 1/10 the power? Yeesh!
>
> I don't think this trend is the result of the changes in hardware though. 
> I
> think the new generation of programmers are being innundated by the "just
> get it done" mindset. They don't care much for efficiency and creativity 
> in
> trying to make their code as small and clean as possible like we used to 
> do
> with our Apples. Today's programmers are simply comparatively either lazy 
> or
> sloppy. I don't know how many times I've cringed at the memory 
> requirements
> to run an application I've written. I look at a memory manager and watch 
> it
> take up 8 megs trying to run a 256K application that only allocates 512K 
> of
> memory for itself. The rest of the memory is being chewed up by libraries 
> I
> needed and Windows management code. Ridiculous!
>
> What makes things even worse is that hardware designers are following the
> same sloppy trends with their component designs. Yeesh!
>
> I still think that there's a way. If the simplicity of an Apple were to be
> applied to a 32 bit machine and developed by people who want to squeeze 
> the
> most out of the system, we could see some highly efficient and creative
> programs appearing for it. Such programmers still exist, even among newer
> developers. Look at game developers. They have to do exactly that on a 
> daily
> basis. So the possibility still exists.
>
> R.
>
>
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> 9_-dnZ6HxJg1VrnfRVn-2A@comcast.com">news:9_-dnZ6HxJg1VrnfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion.
>>
>> My point is that the finely crafted code you and I both so admire
>> using, reading, and writing, becomes a "waste of programmer's time"
>> on a machine that has just an order of magnitude more speed and linear
>> RAM.
>>
>> When you don't have much speed and space, you always wish that you
>> had more; but if you get it, all hell breaks loose--in the form
>> of lost discipline.
>>
>> In the area of programming craft, we have seen that high speed and
>> large space result in the widespread proliferation of:
>>
>> -sloppy algorithms,
>> -sloppy compilers,
>> -sloppy libraries,
>> -sloppy interfaces, and, ultimately,
>> -sloppy programmers.
>>
>> I still adhere to the principles of economy and synergy that guided
>> Woz and so many other great designers.  I find that there is such
>> a thing as _too much_ memory and speed for one's programming integrity.
>>
>> -michael
>>
>> New Applesoft BASIC interface for NadaNet networking!
>> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
>
>