ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (05/20/86)
[from delphi mac digest] >From: MOUSEKETEER (8207) >Subject: Cortland??? >Date: 15-MAY 20:24 Hardware & Peripherals > >(from Computer+Software News, May 12 issue) > >Apple's 4 1/4 Mbyte Cortland to be most powerful pc yet > >Apple's long awaited IIx, the vendor's most powerful pc, is set to >debut this fall with a suggested retail of $1,600, Apple sources >revealed. The unit, along with the Mac Plus, one of six CPU's Apple is >expected to introduce this year, will pave the way for price cuts on >the IIc and IIe, allowing Apple to dominate this year's Christmas >selling season, dealers maintain. The IIx, code-named Rambo by Apple >insiders, is better known as "Cortland" to domestic third-party >developers and "Zeus" to international developers, sources said. The >Cortland features 256K RAM, expandable to 4 1/4 Mbytes....features an >upgraded 65C02 chip, the 16-bit 65816, enabling the unit to run three >times faster than the IIc or IIe at 3.6 Mhz....built in networking and >Appletalk, a detachable keyboard, four expansion slots and built-in >color graphics like the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga.&.impressive >sound. The machine will reportedly be sold with unbundled drives, >allowing users to configure units with hard disk drives. The article >goes on to describe other Apple introductions expected in the next 12 >months, including an open-architecture Mac and VLSI IIe, the latter to >be priced as low as $500 to schools. Two other CPU's are still under >development, it continues. Compatibility or a "bridge" between the >Cortland and Mac has not been decided, according to the story. It >appears that while a "bridge" between the Cortland and Mac already >exists at Apple (as a 3.5" disk drive and converter box) it may not be >marketed if Apple believes it's release would strip market sales from >the Mac (though the article states that if Apple doesn't market the >bridge, a third-party developer probably would). Also, an IBM bridge >is in the works for Cortland via a "small computer interface port". >"Cortland was always intended to be Apple's most powerful product, >insiders claim. It has been upgraded and redesigned three times over >the past three years. The original machine and two of it's revisions >are said to be the brainchild of Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. The >first unit was shown to dealers in 1983, as an 8-bit machine. Then, in >April 1984, it was upgraded to a 16-bit, 256K RAM expandable to 1 >Mbyte - then to be the industry's first 1-Mbyte machine. However, the >unit never made it to market, allegedly triggering Wozniak's departure >from Apple." > >Alf > Sounds like an interesting machine, hopefully there will be a Mac-like University discount program - I can get a Mac+ for $1500 and it includes a monitor and disk drive. Speed seems comparable to the current machines equipped with 'accelerator' (6502C or 65C02C) cards. Slots: ------ I could live with only four slots if the machine already has 2 serial ports, real-time clock, and mouse interface built in. Otherwise they're going to need more slots. Here's how I'd use the four slots: 1) Expansion memory/bus expansion/experimentation 2) Mass Storage: SCSI/CBUS/floppy controller 3) 80286 coprocessor 4) 68020 coprocessor IBM did the 'right' thing for the AT bus with regard to PC compatibility. Apple could do the same thing and put the extra signals for the //x (8 more address lines, etc) on an edge connector next to the Apple ][ bus connector. =//x portion of bus= ==Apple ][ bus (50 pin)=== (4 of these?) This will cause mechanical problems with some cards, especially the PCPI AppliCard. One can use the same solution for //e auxiliary cards. =//e auxiliary slot (62 pin)== ==//x appendage== Of course, this could get ridiculous if Apple comes out with a 32bit // and uses a 32bit bus. I expect future development will concentrate on merging Apple ][ and Mac product lines. (Ever heard of the 310434 processor? [equals 65816+64180+68020+80386+32032]:-) Software: --------- No mention of multitasking - even something as crude as using each 64K bank for an exising 'well-behaved' application would be useful. This machine will have problems unless it is almost totally compatible with the ][+ and //e. If Apple can combine Apple ][ compatibility, good graphics, multitasking, and the potential for Mac and PC emulation (presumably with 68020 and 80[23]86 co-processors) then nothing will stop it. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS
kamath@reed.UUCP (05/22/86)
In article <346@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: >[from delphi mac digest] > > [deleted] > >Sounds like an interesting machine, hopefully there will be a Mac-like >University discount program - I can get a Mac+ for $1500 and it includes >a monitor and disk drive. Speed seems comparable to the current machines >equipped with 'accelerator' (6502C or 65C02C) cards. > >Slots: >------ >I could live with only four slots if the machine already has 2 serial ports, >real-time clock, and mouse interface built in. Otherwise they're going >to need more slots. Here's how I'd use the four slots: >1) Expansion memory/bus expansion/experimentation >2) Mass Storage: SCSI/CBUS/floppy controller >3) 80286 coprocessor >4) 68020 coprocessor > > [more stuff about what's 'right'...] > >This machine will have problems unless it is almost totally compatible with >the ][+ and //e. If Apple can combine Apple ][ compatibility, good graphics, >multitasking, and the potential for Mac and PC emulation (presumably with >68020 and 80[23]86 co-processors) then nothing will stop it. >-- > - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. > >Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS Now I don't mean to demean the author of this article, but I feel some things need to be said. For one thing, why have 2 coprocessor cards? Leave only one slot for expansion/interfacing? No way. Apple should stick with at least 6 slots. I use all of them, with a couple of cards having to swap every now and then, since the third slot has problems. I agree that it will have serious problems unless it's close to completely compatable. But why have Mac emulation? Who WANTS to deal with either MS-DOS or the like? Frankly, ProDOS was close enough for me. I get so sick of people comparing the new //x or any other ][ to a Mac. They are not meant to be the same machine. Like that Mr. Dvorak said. He feels that the //x is going to be nothing but a Mac clone. Bull. How could it be? If all that the //x is going to have going for it over a Mac is color, then Apple would make a color Mac. The basic idealogical differences between the Mac and the ][ line is that one is ment to be used, the other to be worked on. i.e. the Mac is for non-technically oriented people to work with, either word-proccessing or desktop publishing and the like, the ]['s are for programming, learning, expiremental interfaceing, etc. Have you every tried to hook a Mac up to the outside world? The world is NOT serial, and it can be one hell of a bitch to have to convert EVERYTHING to serial so that the Mac can even look at it. I mean, even getting the mac to work in color takes another $2000 computer and a dedicated software program. I for one don't want to have to wait for my computer to boot up, then wait for an application to load in order for me to plot a simple graph, or make some noise, or even call up the VAX and get going. Try that with a Mac. Turn it on. What can you do? Enjoy that question mark. Apple can't get away from the ease of use of the Mac, granted, but they still have to put things in for the programmers. Have you ever hit the 'interrupt' switch on a Mac+? You get an interger prompt. Then type "DM". It dumps memory. Type "G" to continue. A friend of mine sunk his teeth into this, and found out that if you can find the pointers to the finder, put them in the right place, you can return to the finder even if a program crashes. Then you might be able to save some of it. Anyone who programs in machine language on a ][ knows that it is very easy to recover a lot of a text file or other data when the machine bombs, and usually you can get back into the application. No stupid dialog box. It's so frustrating to see that "continue" button and not be able to click on it. Have you ever tried to recover a disk for the Mac? I do all the time (my job). It's a pain in the butt! On a ][ give me ten minutes and I can recover everything recoverable... Anyway, enough about why I hate Macs. Apple shouldn't try to make a Mac out of a ][. It won't work. It won't sell. I realize right along with everyone else that the Apple //e is due for some revamping and increased power. But the way some people talk, you'd think they'd be satisfied with nothing less than a MicroVax. It won't happen guys. You can't buy a $500 '67 Chevy and turn it into a $100,000 Masarati. Not for anything less than $200,000. You can come close, but why bother? I agree, the ][ line is not the most powerful every concieved, but it's not supposed to be. Sure, I often have to use, horror or horrors, line numbers when I program. Yeah, I don't have octuple precision numbers. But so what? I don't want Maclike windows. I hate them. I don't want to have to rely on the mouse to get stuff into the computer, or to select options. Despite what whatshisface (was it that pinhead Dvorak again?) said in MacUser about "FKeys", which he described as any key typed in conjuction with the "command" key (or contol for us old-time folks), I feel that it is impossible to display every option of a program through those idiotic pull doen or pull up menus. I mean, it's a real pain to have to pull down one menu, let alone to have to pull own a menu, select another menu, then make the choice, as in MS Word (to select Formats and then set tabs, etc.). He kept asying that Mac users don't want these, and that Programmers are ruling us all by forcing the issue. Well, whoever you are (I can't find the MacUser right now), if teh programmer wants something in his or her program, they're going to put it in, no matter what you say. They may add things they don't want, but they ain't gonna take out something they want in. Well, I just reread all this, and I haven't really said a whole lot except I hate Macs. I have left out a lot of the pro side of macs, like graphics and animation (when done correctly, not sloppily). I just wish people would stop comparing the Mac to the //x. Windows are alright in certain applications, but not all the time. Mice are fine for certain applications, but not all the time. I don't need desk accesories. I hope the people at Apple realize that not everyone yearns for Maclike capabilities on Apple ]['s. send flames to: Sean Kamath UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,hplabs,ucbcad}!tektronix!reed!kamath US Snail: Box 395 Reed College Portland, OR 97202 Phone: (503) 239-7458 p.s. Sorry it was so long, I just get into these moods...
curry@nsc.UUCP (Ray Curry) (05/24/86)
Actually I had to put in 1.5 cents worth. I won't speculate on the new machine other than to say there is some truth and some untruths in the news. The point about Woz and the II x is a little off base. Two years ago, the IIx was planned based upon a 6 month first silicon working super chip that was both 6502 and 68000. Management and surely Woz himself had a very optimistic outlook on life. The realization that working on such a project at that time was premature is what killed the IIx. That could have contributed to Woz's departure even from just the standpoint of there not being anything to do until such a chip was really available. Disclaimer: I know nothing... I see nothing...
julerio1@polyob.UUCP (A1 jose ulerio1 ) (05/27/86)
I myself don't really hate Macs, they do have their place, but not on MY desk. The Macintosh was birthed more from the ego of Steven Jobs rather than from a need to compete with IBM in the big business market, in my opinion. But let me express a point I'd like to make before the assembled flames of netdom descend upon me... Steve Wozniak is reputed to have been the chief guiding force behind the //x (as well as chief designer & guru), which makes me just a bit optimistic about it. Actually, more than that, quite enthused. Why? Let your mind drift back to the days of the first home micros, when IMSAIs and Altairs roamed the land. Woz designed the II more as a hobbyist's tool than anything else. He wanted it to have more built-in features and flexibility than anything else on the market. And this he did quite sucesssfully. The ][, in its Integer and ][+ configurations knocked the socks off of anything else currently available then. He gave the micro owner hi-res graphics with control from Basic, the first home disk operating system, and near unlimited expandability and direct access to the system bus. At that time, about the only things arond that came close were PETs and Model I's with text graphics. Disk drives were mystical devices that previously only cohabitated with mainframes, and no one else even thought about expansion past that of main memory, and maybe an RS-232. To paraphrase Don Lancaster, the ][ series was (and still is in my opinion) the "DC-3's" of computerdom. Now just imagine, the same guy capable of giving you HGR stuff with $1.97 in extra chips instead of a costly graphics coprocessor, behind the design of a 16-bit micro for today. Who knows what he's managed to cobble into the ][ this time? The man is an EE genius. So, I sit and wait patiently for the first units to arrive in the stores and for Apple to raise its self-imposed gag on //x propoganda, but for a good cause. I'm not expecting something an Amiga in a // case, but whatever's in there should be more than adequate for most people's purposes. Jose M. Ulerio Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering Polytechnic University, Bklyn, NY -> philabs!ron1!polyof!polyob!julerio1
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (05/30/86)
In article <3511@reed.UUCP> kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) writes: >In article <346@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: >>to need more slots. Here's how I'd use the four slots: >>1) Expansion memory/bus expansion/experimentation >>2) Mass Storage: SCSI/CBUS/floppy controller >>3) 80286 coprocessor >>4) 68020 coprocessor >> >> [more stuff about what's 'right'...] >> >>This machine will have problems unless it is almost totally compatible with >>the ][+ and //e. If Apple can combine Apple ][ compatibility, good graphics, >>multitasking, and the potential for Mac and PC emulation (presumably with >>68020 and 80[23]86 co-processors) then nothing will stop it. >>-- >> - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. >> >>Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS > >Now I don't mean to demean the author of this article, but I feel some >things need to be said. For one thing, why have 2 coprocessor cards? >Leave only one slot for expansion/interfacing? No way. Apple should >stick with at least 6 slots. I use all of them, with a couple of cards >having to swap every now and then, since the third slot has problems. >I agree that it will have serious problems unless it's close to >completely compatable. But why have Mac emulation? Who WANTS to deal >with either MS-DOS or the like? Frankly, ProDOS was close enough for >me. Fine, but you're not Apple's only customer. I want to run MS-DOS software like the Fido BBS system without having to buy another computer. I want to be able to run Mac software. If the Apple //x with coproessor cards is the best vehicle for this sort of activity why are you flaming me? I'd be happier if the next Apple ][ had more than 4 slots, but if that's what they're really offerring then I was just imagining how I'd like to use them. >I get so sick of people comparing the new //x or any other ][ to a Mac. >They are not meant to be the same machine. Like that Mr. Dvorak said. I wasn't comparing it to a Mac, but Apple needs to think about merging the Mac and Apple ][ product lines as well as living in a MS-DOS and Unix world. If they can do it with coprocessor boards in the //x then they can probably satisfy most people's needs. Sure there will be Mac-like software for the //x, but Apple's not going to prevent you from developing 'Apple ][-style' software if you want. The base machine will have a 65816, so Mac 'emulation' isn't something most people will think about. Credentials: I've got an Apple ][+ and an Apple //e, with 12 out of 14 slots utilized. Slot //e ][+ (BBS) 0/Aux. ext.80 col 16K ramcard (16K + RAMdisk card) 1 VersaCard(printer) -free- (AppleTalk card) 2 VersaCard(serial) Apple-Cat modem 3 mostly unusable 80-col card 4 VersaCard(clock) -free- (Checkmate Gambit Card?) 5 AppleMouse Apple-Cat 212 card (-free- if slot saver used) 6 UniDisk 3.5 controller Disk ][ controller 7 PCPI Applicard (CP/M) Echo ][ speech synthesizer(Lis'ner 1000) -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/31/86)
> > The point about Woz and the II x is a little off base. Two years ago, the > IIx was planned based upon a 6 month first silicon working super chip that > was both 6502 and 68000. Management and surely Woz himself had a very > optimistic outlook on life. ... 6502 and 68000 in one chip? You've GOT to be kidding! Even if you could find a silicon house with the rights to both processors, it would be so much simpler to have separate 6502 and 68000 processors on the board that you couldn't possibly justify the added expense of developing a dual part. Or look at it this way, 6502 family chips these days cost less than $1.00, and to hook one up to share a bus with a 68000 would require almost no glue logic. Anyway, its common knowledge that Apple has been looking at the 65C816 chip ever since Bill Mensch had prototypes which could barely run at 500KHz. The part has some problems, but its not an altogether bad chip, and its fast if you can afford fast enough memory. Besides, Apple only started looking at 68000 processors as part of the MAC project; they were originally looking at 6809 parts, which are pretty nice in themselves. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,inhp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "Let me control a planet's oxygen supply, and I don't care who makes the laws" -Great Culuthu's Starry Wisdom Band \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (06/01/86)
(Dave Haynie) writes: > >6502 and 68000 in one chip? You've GOT to be kidding! Even if you could >find a silicon house with the rights to both processors, it would be so much >simpler to have separate 6502 and 68000 processors on the board that you >couldn't possibly justify the added expense of developing a dual part. Or >look at it this way, 6502 family chips these days cost less than $1.00, and >to hook one up to share a bus with a 68000 would require almost no glue >logic. >[ notes about the desirability of the 65816] >-- >Dave Haynie {caip,inhp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh But gee, Dave, 6502 and 68k in the same box? Then we'd have the Ohio Scientific C-3 all over again, now wouldn't we? :-) -dave -- David Hsu (301) 454-1433 || -8798 "It was Dave, not me..honest!" -eneevax Communication & Signal Processing Lab / Engineering Computer Facility The University of Maryland -~- College Park, MD 20742 ARPA:hsu@eneevax.umd.edu UUCP:[seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Filmed on location in space"