Re: What if we designed and built a "32bit" Apple II?

["Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com>]

Michael,

Your opinion is, as always, well stated and very much a valid point....
BUT...

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
20040908202328.13199.00000292@mb-m28.aol.com">news:20040908202328.13199.00000292@mb-m28.aol.com...
> John Van Winkle wrote:
>
<snipped>
> What I don't understand is wholesale changes to the memory
> map or video interface, since, to the extent that it does not
> implement the standard Apple II, the machine is without software.
>
> That means that it would be years of dedicated software creation
> effort (yeah, sure) before anyone derived benefit from the "enhanced"
> machine except for its "Transwarp-like" (transparent) processor
> acceleration.

Think about the IIgs for a moment. It's memory map and video interface are
defintiely "wholesale changes" compared to the older II series units. Yet
people love their IIgs machines. Think of the evolution of the clumsy but
venerable IBM PC. Each new machine didn't completely discard the older
interfaces, but rather added something new, something that EVENTUALY
replaced the older interfaces. If Intel had've ditched it's old 16bit
processor mode with the introduction of the 80386 processor, all of PC
history would have been vastly different since the industry as a whole would
have likely rejected the chip for compatibility reasons.

Just try to consider this concept an attempt to see what might have been if
Apple Computers had've evolved the II series the way many of us wish they
had, instead of taking the disasterous Mac/Lisa route.

> We must all observe the fact that the Apple II line--in any style
> or configuration--no longer commands any significant software
> development effort.  By that I mean that there are less than a
> dozen major applications released per year, right?

Your point? The goal here isn't to create a commercially viable machine. If
that were the case, we'd already be a decade late and 1/2 a billion dollars
short. No. The goal here is just the fun of development and dreaming,
carrying on the spirit of open simplicity that was the halmark of the II
series.

> We are now, and have been for a decade, in the mode of enjoying
> what software exists, and the few snippets of code that enthusiasts
> make available on a somewhat random basis.  Ditto for the few
> hardware enhancements that make it to market.
>
> This is reality.  This is not going to improve significantly.
> Good grief!--get used to it!

Yes, this is reality, and in this reality, there's not that significant a
difference between wire-wrapping a prototype slot card and wire-wrapping a
prototype PC... assuming the components are simple enough.

> People will continue to "discover" the Apple II line at a low,
> relatively constant rate, and some will be drawn to its simple,
> graceful technology as a hobby, or even an artform.  But there
> is no coming resurgence in Apple II hardware or software, or,
> most crucially, interest.
>
> We, and a few who continue to join us, are _it_.
>
> I expect that the current "accretion" rate is pretty similar to
> the "depletion" rate of the community, so it would not surprise
> me to find that the number of Apple II enthusiasts is at equilibrium.
>
> -michael

It seems to me that you think this little idea is about creating a new
viable market and/or user base for this machine. No. The original group of
Apple Computer users were computer hobbyists, doing then exactly what we
today are doing now, toying around with what used to be, and dreaming of
ways to improve on what was a good idea then, possibly making something real
from those ideas.

If you would kindly step away from whatever commercial viability opinions
you may be harboring and review the idea again as the hobbyist that I know
you to be, then maybe your view of this project might change.

R.


> Check out parallel computing for 8-bit Apples on my
> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/