mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (02/02/90)
In article <4822.feeds.info-apple@pro-tcc> lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from girardin@acsu.buffalo.edu > >The rom 03 features are NOT available thru software. At least, not the >keyboard driven mouse features, the smart shift keying and the more flexible >slot/port access. Nor is the redesigned music chip hardware, which eliminates >noise, available in software. Finally, the 1 meg on the motherboard is >obviously not available in software :-) . Basically, the only thing >'available in software' is the latest set of tools - and even that is not >available in software on the MOTHERBOARD - ie ROM 03 tools are in ROM and thus >do not have to be loaded at boot time. > >Basically, NOTHING from ROM 03 machine is available in software. > I can easily assure you that at least 75% of the engineering time that went into the ROM 03 IIgs (and it was a lot of engineering time; these things aren't as easy as some people would like you to believe) went into the newer and faster tools included in the ROM. You obviously can't have ROM 03 features on a ROM 01 machine if those features can't be patched. The most significant features *can* be patched on ROM 01, and in fact are. You've just gotten so used to the idea of updatable system software through ROM patches that it doesn't seem that remarkable to you that all the engineering that went into the new ROM could benefit older ROM users as well. It can and it does. > >Basically, NOTHING from ROM 03 machine is available in software. > Totally, patently and absurdly false. >There are ways to inferiorly simulate a tiny few of the ROM 03 features. > There are ways to inferiorly simluate logic in a flame, as well. But that's a different discussion. >Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden >674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet >Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN > CIS: 75046,606 -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (02/03/90)
From article <4822.feeds.info-apple@pro-tcc>, by lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden): > > Basically, NOTHING from ROM 03 machine is available in software. > There are ways to inferiorly simulate a tiny few of the ROM 03 features. > > Larry W. Virden I think we are missing the point here. Apple knows what it's plans are for the future, but wants to keep their options open for as long as possible, so they try not to let out what future products are comming. They felt they needed to do something for the Apple II educational market last fall or they were going to loose out BIG. So they came out with ROM 03. They however, were working on ROM 04 at the time and didn't provide an upgrade path to ROM 03 because ROM 04 would be out "soon". If someone had paid $200+ for an upgrade to ROM 03 and then six months later had to pay another $200+ for an upgrade to ROM 04, they would be ticked off. So, better to put up with complaints for a short time now and have everybody happy when ROM 04 comes out (WITH an upgrade policy) than to offer it twice and have them more upset at the second offer. This makes sense to me. (IMHO) DISCLAIMER: I have no direct connection to Apple so the previous is purely conceptual. +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |If my IIgs 'll just hold out for a few more months 'til GS+...| | Phil Lindberg snail mail: 13845 S.E. 131 ST | | UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!prl3546 Renton, WA 98056 | | Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer (and I not | | sure they even know I exist....) | +--------------------------------------------------------------+
dale@pro-colony.cts.com (System Operator) (02/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@Apple.COM
Matt, I feel for you, I really do. I used to be in a similar position having
to try and explain things to people that either don't know or don't want to
know what they are talking about.
Re: Apple should have released a faster machine 3 years ago.
Well, folks, where would Apple have gotten the chips? Since WDC seems to
have a problem supplying enough7 mhz chips for one or two companys that can't
be selling the same number of products that Apple would be selling where would
these chips come from?
Yes, there are a number of things that I would like to see changed or improved
in the Apple II line, but lets be reasonable! I don't expect to run software
for the IIGS on my Apple II+ or my Apple /// (yes I do own many Apple
computers, and they all have their place). I have seen some pretty amazing
software running many different Apple II computers, much of which 'wasn't
possible' according to 'experts'.
I run a ProLine BBS and you should see the reaction of all the people I know
that program in unix, C or have ms-dos based machines when they see how FAST
and POWERFUL ProLine is and that it only requires a 64k Apple II+ to run on!
FLAME OFF --
Dale
______________________________________________________________________________
proline: dale@pro-colony
uucp : crash!pnet01!pro-colony!dale pro-colony
inet : crash!dale@pro-colony.cts.com 214/625-7056
arpa : crash!pnet01!pro-colony!dale@nosc.millbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (02/12/90)
In-Reply-To: message from dale@pro-colony.cts.com Dale @ pro-colony writes (in reply to the following outburst): >>Apple should have released a faster machine 3 years ago. >Well, folks, where would Apple have gotten the chips? Since WDC seems to >have a problem supplying enough 7 mhz chips for one or two companies that >can't be selling the same number of products that Apple would be selling >where would these chips come from? hummmm. I dunno, but I've had a 11 mhz chip in my transwarp for some time now, and while it can't run much faster than 9mhz due to limitations, it really wasn't that difficult to acuire. I'd imagine if you would call Western Design and order about 10 of them that you could get them in a couple of days. >From my understanding (but correct me if I'm wrong), Western Design is more involved in designing the chip (Research); and not involved in mass producing the chips (development). Apple usually purchases its chips from some Taiwan chip manufacturer. I would imagine that a 5 to 6 mhz 65816 chip would be available in quantities; it's the 9 to 11 mhz variety that seems to be difficult to acquire in large numbers (100,000's). A 6 mhz chip can be pushed up to 7 mhz... (actually, the original chip in my Transwarp GS is a 6 mhz chip with a 28 mhz crystal which runs at 7 mhz). Increasing the cache on the card can make it run even faster, I've been told. Lynda
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/12/90)
In article <16573.apple.net@pro-sol> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >hummmm. I dunno, but I've had a 11 mhz chip in my transwarp for some time >now, and while it can't run much faster than 9mhz due to limitations, it >really wasn't that difficult to acuire. I'd imagine if you would call >Western Design and order about 10 of them that you could get them in a couple Small quantities are OK. Apple won't commit to a faster GS because WDC can't supply the volume that Apple would buy in (10000 at a time). In the same article, dale@pro-colony.cts.com is quoted: >>From my understanding (but correct me if I'm wrong), Western Design is more >>involved in designing the chip (Research); and not involved in mass producing >>the chips (development). Apple usually purchases its chips from some Taiwan >>chip manufacturer. Apple may buy logic chips and ROMs in Taiwan or some place like it, but the processors used in Apple computers are made in the USA. Probably 99% of the processors in the world are made in the USA. People may complain that the Japanese, for example, are stomping us with RAM chips, but RAMs are useless without the processors--and our technology in microprocessor design is unequalled. Unless the Japanese also pick up on this area, we shouldn't have too much to fear as long as we keep feeding the world our processors, which are the chips that make computers run. Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple IIe: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (02/12/90)
In article <1990Feb12.004805.1894@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: >... Probably 99% of the processors in the world are made in the USA. Not quite. NEC has a significant portion of the 80XXX market as a second source (I even remember reading a few years back that Intel was worried about NEC moving ahead of Intel in microprocessor sales). That's probably why Intel doesn't have second sourcing for its newer chips. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/12/90)
In article <57973@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: >Not quite. >NEC has a significant portion of the 80XXX market as a second source (I even >remember reading a few years back that Intel was worried about NEC moving ahead >of Intel in microprocessor sales). That's probably why Intel doesn't have >second sourcing for its newer chips. So the Japanese don't know any better and are cloning the most brain-dead series of microprocessors ever made. I don't think anyone outside the USA makes 65- or 68-series processors. The Japanese can have the 80 series; I'd never own a computer that uses one of those retarded 80x86 processors. Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple IIe: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (02/13/90)
In article <1990Feb12.060242.17837@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: #In article <57973@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: ##Not quite. ##NEC has a significant portion of the 80XXX market as a second source (I even ##remember reading a few years back that Intel was worried about NEC moving ahead ##of Intel in microprocessor sales). That's probably why Intel doesn't have ##second sourcing for its newer chips. # #So the Japanese don't know any better and are cloning the most brain-dead #series of microprocessors ever made. I don't think anyone outside the USA #makes 65- or 68-series processors. The Japanese can have the 80 series; I'd #never own a computer that uses one of those retarded 80x86 processors. As much as I hate to admit it, it's probably more because NEC is smart enough to spend money only cloning the chips with the largest market, like the 80XXX's. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (02/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from dale@pro-colony.cts.com > Re: Apple should have released a faster machine 3 years ago. > > Well, folks, where would Apple have gotten the chips? Since WDC seems to Hold on for a moment. Take the lid off your IIgs. You'll see a GTE 65816-part rated at 4 Mhz. Why couldn't the IIgs have been at some 'nice' frequency (more than 2.8 Mhz).. say 3.58 Mhz. I don't think that would be too hard to syncronize with the FPI. No, we got 2.8. And I'm impressed. Actually, closer to 2.5 Mhz. I don't expect to run UNIX on my Apple IIgs. I don't expect to have 12 Apple IIe's with Workstation cards all using my IIgs as a fileserver. And finally, I don't expect instant fractals, lightning ray tracing, or favourable benchmarks against a Mac IIcx+++2+e/gsi or whatever new flavour of Mac they will bring out tomorrow. I do expect reasonable 'bang' for the buck. And frankly I don't think we got it with the IIgs. I love my IIgs and its relatives. But not too many people (other than in schools) will find out about the IIgs because they're just not worth it. Apple: Make my day: prove me wrong! (I dare you!!) ------------------------------------------ ProLine: sb@pro-generic ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-generic!sb ------------------------------------------ I can't stop you from flaming me. But don't expect me to stand idle and not flame back. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/15/90)
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from dale@pro-colony.cts.com >> Re: Apple should have released a faster machine 3 years ago. >> >> Well, folks, where would Apple have gotten the chips? Since WDC seems to >Hold on for a moment. Take the lid off your IIgs. You'll see a GTE 65816-part >rated at 4 Mhz. Why couldn't the IIgs have been at some 'nice' frequency >(more than 2.8 Mhz).. say 3.58 Mhz. I don't think that would be too hard to >syncronize with the FPI. Not hard at all; in fact it would drastically improve performance when dealing with the slow side of the machine. Add some other minor improvements, and you wouldn't believe how much better the //gs could have been. >I do expect reasonable 'bang' for the buck. And frankly I don't think we got >it with the IIgs. I love my IIgs and its relatives. But not too many people >(other than in schools) will find out about the IIgs because they're just not >worth it. Precisely my point in other posts. I can fully back the statement that the //gs was artificially limited, or at least could have been improved drastically within a year or two after its release. ROM 03 was the valiant attempt of the Apple // group to give it what they could with the miserable funding that Apple management gives them. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu