Re: Those Apple ][ clones...

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

In article <20030311013754.26922.00000174@mb-fw.aol.com>, supertimer@aol.com
(Supertimer) writes:

>mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) wrote:
>
>>Supertimer wrote:
>>
>>>6. ROM:
>>>     192K -- This includes the only legal Apple compatible
>>>     ROM by 1988 (Apple lost a lawsuit challenging it) and
>>>     Microsoft BASIC (the Applesoft compatible version)
>>>     licensed from Microsoft.
>>
>>This is fascinating.  Is the BASIC a carbon copy of Applesoft
>>(including its bugs and omissions), or have some bugs been
>>fixed and, maybe, XPLOT added (it apparently lost out in a
>>ROM space war ;-).
>
>I was a light Applesoft user but to me it seemed identical
>to Applesoft BASIC.  I suppose Applesoft is just Microsoft
>BASIC of a certain flavor licensed to Apple.  You can,
>after all, see the Microsoft copyright on the ROM chip of
>Apple IIs.

Yes, but I was hoping against hope that they spent a few bucks
fixing some things and "completing" Applesoft.  Of course, with
a little more enthusiasm, they could have added DHR graphics.  ;-)

>>>11. Audio:
>>>     Simple beeper driven by the CPU.  Because the Laser's
>>>     motherboard operates at 3.6Mhz (notice that it requires
>>>     120ns or faster RAM), sound in programs designed for
>>>     earlier Apple IIs is often distorted.
>>
>>Do you know the source of the CPU acceleration technology?
>>Was it Zip Technology or AE?  The reason I ask, is that if it is
>>Zip-derived (like the //c+), then the standard Zip utilities can be
>>used to configure a "slowdown" on speaker accesses, restoring
>>normal sound.
>
>I would say it is more similar to AE.  The AE Transwarp took
>basically the entire memory space of the Apple II and put it
>on the card rather than a caching technology like the Zip.
>
>The difference is that the Laser's acceleration is better than
>the Transwarp.  Because the computer was built from the
>ground up, it actually ran at 3.6Mhz.  I'm sure parts of it were
>slow for compatibility but it had a true fast mode.  As true
>as the "fast" mode of the IIGS in IIe emulation at least.

Of course.  The "3.6MHz" should have clued me in that this was
a 3.5879545MHz synchronous design, similar to the IIgs.

I've been wondering for some time whether it would be possible to
further accelerate the //c+ by "overclocking" it.  The ease with which
Zip went from 4MHz to 8MHz is a strong argument that there is no
fundamental change in the ASIC required for higher speeds.  In this
case, I was hoping that the Laser might have helped shed some
light on the topic.

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/