Re: Second Sight

["vector" <root@localhost>]

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
pan.2003.06.02.04.11.56.167701@yahoo.com">news:pan.2003.06.02.04.11.56.167701@yahoo.com...
> One problem with all this is that these really are things
> that a IIgs can't do. With the hypothetical card, it would
> be the card doing these things. In fact, it would seem kind
> of silly to write 65816 code to do this stuff when it's just
> being emulated (although quickly). Seems like it would be
> better to just let the Xscale handle this stuff natively.
>
> I do think the project would be interesting, but I have to
> agree with Michael's observation that the Apple II is more of
> a peripherhal for the card than the other way around.

This conversation reminds me of another old thread, where it was asked
"wherein does a machine's soul lie?"  Is it the CPU?  The operating system?
The particular configuration of parts on the motherboard?

I've finally come up with my answer for that question.  For me, if a machine
can run GS/OS or ProDOS without another OS underneath providing an emulation
layer, then that machine is a IIgs, no matter how weird its specs are.  To
put it another way: I understand that another CPU emulating a 65816 is still
a type of emulator, but if the only way to get that processor to do anything
is to program against it as if it were a 65816, then it IS a 65816 from the
standpoint of the software developer, no matter how strange the system
architecture may be.

And therein lies the key difference in how you and Michael see this project
versus how I see it.  You both seem to me to be Hardware Guys, whereas I'm a
professional programmer.  I don't think much in terms of hardware.  To me,
if it looks like a duck and hacks like a duck, then it's a duck.  Or an
'816.