Re: Building the Modern Apple IIGS

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <20030312011611.09624.00000207@mb-cf.aol.com>,
Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> wrote:
>Marsha <menacechgo@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"desiv" <desiv@attbi.com> wrote in news:csPaa.24745$L1.4570@sccrnsc02:
>>
>>> A Model T with parts from the present would, in my view, be relating
>>> to the present; and therefor a Modern Model T.
>>
>>But then there is the question, after replacing X percentage of an item is 
>>it no longer the same item?
>
>Just like a modern Mac retains basically nothing of the first
>Mac.  CPU is completely different architecture.  Modern
>Mac can't run first Mac software.  But modern Mac is a Mac.

That's only because it's named so.  A classic Mac has much more in
common with Lisa than with a modern Mac.  It's probably somewhat
confusing to give such widely different computers the same name.
It's a little bit as if a modern PC was called "Apple II": after
all they both have open architectures, expansion slots, etc.....

>I'm not a Mac fan but I don't fault Apple for calling the
>PowerPC units Macs just like the old 68k architecture ones.
>
>>Apple 6502 based
>
>Same idea.  Like the Mac is no longer 68k based so a
>modern IIGS could very likely be using an Athlon XP.  At
>some point there would have to have been an architecture
>shift.
>
>>Apple II, II+, //e 6502 based, DOS, ProDOS support slot architecture the 
>>same
>
>I remember the old NuBus slots Macs had.  Now Macs
>have AGP and PCI slots.
>
>>Apple //c, //c+ 6502 based, DOS, ProDOS support
>
>Can't run early MacOS on new Macs.  Newest Macs
>will no longer be able to run MacOS 9 even.
>
>>Apple IIgs all levels 65816(6502 based) based, slot arch. same as older 
>>models, DOS, ProDOS support
>
>Apple IIGS was the last of the old architecture like the
>Quadras were the powerhouse of the old 68k Mac
>architecture.  At some point, that architecture had to
>be left behind.
>
>>Supertimer's Modern Apple IIgs
>>Only hardware from Apple is the case, no 65816, different slot arch., 
>>direct software support very questionable.
>>Therefore in my opinion NOT any sort of Apple IIgs
>
>Not any sort of original IIGS, agreed.  But a modern IIGS,
>had the evolution of the computer continued, I believed
>would have ended up very similar to the nForce2
>platform.
>
>No doubt the demo scene would have gone from FTA
>and NinjaForce to 3DMark.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se
WWW:     http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
         http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/