lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Lynda Botez) (11/10/89)
Doug Gwyn writes: >>If [Apple] wanted 10 meg 65816's, they could get them. >How? Apple and Applied Engineering have both stated that they are unable >to get 10mhz 65816s in sufficient quantity to base a product on them. Oh, come on. Who cares about the 10 mhz chips? There are 100's of thousands of 6 and 7 mhz chips available right now; they are totally good enough to incorporate into a new, upgraded Apple II product. It's the old "chicken and egg" story. In order to develop the 10 mhz chips in sufficient quantities, at a reasonable price, you need to have a customer, or a large order. The reason there are insufficient quantities of 10 mhz chips is that there hasn't been enough interest in producing them. It turns out that 10 mhz is about the top speed for a IIGS with an 8-bit data bus, anyway. Anything faster than that actually slows the machine down. Six or 7 mhz would be totally sufficient. I'd like to see this speed as standard on the IIGS. Lynda UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez INET: lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (11/12/89)
In-Reply-To: message from gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hacgate!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu > Six or 7 mhz would be totally sufficient. I'd like to see this speed as > standard on the IIGS. I agree that six mhz would be an ideal speed for the IIGS, but it needs two things more: faster I/O, and faster video, both of which are stuck at the old 1 MHz of the ][+. Personally, I sold my last ][+ several years ago and I'm kind of tired of being hobbled today by its limitations. I don't really know that much about hardware design myself .. I'm just a mouthpiece for people who do know. But they all say that a IIGS operating around 6 MHz -- with 6 MHz video and faster I/O -- would be an ideal machine. In fact, the rumor mill has it that AIIDTS is holding discussions on this very undertaking. UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (11/13/89)
Joe Abernathy <jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com> writes: > > Six or 7 mhz would be totally sufficient. I'd like to see this speed as > > standard on the IIGS. > > I agree that six mhz would be an ideal speed for the IIGS, but it needs two > things more: faster I/O, and faster video, both of which are stuck at the old > 1 MHz of the ][+. Personally, I sold my last ][+ several years ago and I'm > kind of tired of being hobbled today by its limitations. Could it be possible to develop a video emulator for the GS? I/O is tuck where it is to support the original hardware hack that makes the Hires screen what it is. But since most people have RGB monitors anyway, couldn't NCSA support be pitched and a single VLSI chip developed to handle the video signals at whatever speed the processor is running? It's how every other machine handles it, and a few twists could mimic the odl hardware for compatiability. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | Jeremy Mereness | Support | Disclaimer: | | jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my | | r746jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | | a student at Carnegie Mellon U. | | Void where prohibited. | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (11/13/89)
In article <2473.cortland.info-apple@pro-houston> jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: > >I agree that six mhz would be an ideal speed for the IIGS, but it needs two >things more: faster I/O, and faster video, both of which are stuck at the old >1 MHz of the ][+. Personally, I sold my last ][+ several years ago and I'm >kind of tired of being hobbled today by its limitations. > Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Do you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give up their 5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, maybe their TransWarp cards, their parallel printer cards, their slot-based RAM cards, their IEEE-488 cards, and who knows what else? I have my doubts. >I don't really know that much about hardware design myself .. I'm just a >mouthpiece for people who do know. But they all say that a IIGS operating >around 6 MHz -- with 6 MHz video and faster I/O -- would be an ideal machine. >In fact, the rumor mill has it that AIIDTS is holding discussions on this very >undertaking. > Ahem...Joe, AIIDTS discusses more things on a daily basis than could possibly be summarized to the net. We're just like that - "tangent" is our middle name. However, if we were "holding" discussions (as in, inviting people from the outside in), I'm sure we would have announced it by now. >UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy >ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil >INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (11/13/89)
In article <36403@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >> >Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the >existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Do >you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give up their >5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, maybe their >TransWarp cards, their parallel printer cards, their slot-based RAM cards, >their IEEE-488 cards, and who knows what else? I have my doubts. Why not have both? Maybe you could have the existing slots and a few faster ones or perhaps a control panel setting that would let you set slots to fast or slow (normal in Control Panel parlance!). Then the user could configure the machine depending on wether a fast or slow card is being used. Hmmm... while we're brainstorming, the ROM on the card could determine its slot and set the Control Panel itself. This would be easier for users. Any comments folks? Rick rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
UD041948@VM1.NODAK.EDU (Joe Carlin) (11/13/89)
I sure hope so. It's about time they came out with a new Apple // CPU. Joe
mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (11/13/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com You write: > Do you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give > up there 5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, > maybe their TransWarp cards, . . . . I have my doubts. The whole basis behind the IIGS was to give enhanced computing power to the Apple II series in a handful of major hardware updates from the old IIe design. To continue this, I propose that Apple design their next II-series machine with the old 8-bit slots, the expansion RAM/ROM slot, and a couple of NuBus slots to give the system a real I/O bus wider than the choking 8-bits we've lived with since 1978. That way we don't have to give up anything. UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis ProLine: mdavis@pro-sol ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil MCI Mail: 137-6036 INET: mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com America Online, BIX: mdavis
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (11/13/89)
In article <4518@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: > >Why not have both? Maybe you could have the existing slots and a few faster >ones or perhaps a control panel setting that would let you set slots to fast >or slow (normal in Control Panel parlance!). Then the user could configure >the machine depending on wether a fast or slow card is being used. > This would be horribly confusing for most users, methinks. Mixing newer and older slots would only be OK if the old cards couldn't accidentally be plugged into the newer slots...but then, of course, the hardware manufacturers have to start building new types of cards for the new slots. A control panel setting for an existing slot opens everyone up to all kinds of problems. A user has an old Disk II card but he thinks it's too slow, so he quite naturally sets the control panel to make that slot "fast", which either makes the hardware stop working altogether or (worse) damages the card. >Hmmm... while we're brainstorming, the ROM on the card could determine its >slot and set the Control Panel itself. This would be easier for users. > No existing card could do this, and neither could the Control Panel unless it tried to know every peripheral ROM already in existance for ID purposes. There is an argument that some brand-new convention could be invented that existing cards couldn't possibly follow, but I'd have to see it to comment on it. >Rick >rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Collin Broadrick Douglas) (11/14/89)
In article <13523.apple.net@pro-sol> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com > >You write: >> Do you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give >> up there 5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, >> maybe their TransWarp cards, . . . . I have my doubts. > >The whole basis behind the IIGS was to give enhanced computing power to the >Apple II series in a handful of major hardware updates from the old IIe >design. To continue this, I propose that Apple design their next II-series >machine with the old 8-bit slots, the expansion RAM/ROM slot, and a couple of >NuBus slots to give the system a real I/O bus wider than the choking 8-bits >we've lived with since 1978. That way we don't have to give up anything. > >UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis ProLine: mdavis@pro-sol >ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil MCI Mail: 137-6036 >INET: mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com America Online, BIX: mdavis Or how about slots that are capable of using both. There are slots in the IBM (yuck but they are not by IBM) that can use 8 and 16 bit slots. I think they are called something like EISA or something like that. THAT would be nice don't you think? Collin Douglas cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/14/89)
In article <36403@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the >existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Do >you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give up their >5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, maybe their >TransWarp cards, their parallel printer cards, their slot-based RAM cards, >their IEEE-488 cards, and who knows what else? I have my doubts. There is precedent here. Remember the Apple //c subfamily; it might as well have had much faster I/O capabilities since they were all onboard. In fact the IIGS basic I/O support is all onboard, so slots could run at any arbitrary speed just so long as slot card firmware made no assumptions about CPU cycle rate. A bus line containing a universal reference oscillator tap (e.g. 1MHz, to pick a random number) would be better for such cards to use when they really needed an external timing reference.
gtolar@pro-europa.cts.com (Glynne Tolar) (11/15/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com From: mattd@apple.com (Matt Deatherage) >Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of >the existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Agreed, but how about some 16 bit slots of slot extensions. The answers to these problems are NOT easy. However I am confident that with some research and dedication it can be found. With little problems with compatability. Apple just does not feel like it! ---- UUCP: {nosc, nosc] ...!crash!pro-europa!gtolar ARPA: crash!pro-europa!gtolar@nosc.mil INET: gtolar@pro-europa.cts.com - BITNET: pro-europa.uucp!gtolar@psuvax1 ALPE: GlynneT CI$: 73557,2316 BBS: (713) 476-9998, User #2.
dkl@pro-houston.cts.com (David Karl Leikam) (11/15/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com In CS-ID: #2599.cortland/info-apple@pro-houston, mattd@apple.com (matt Deatherage) says > > Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the > existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Do > you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give up their > 5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, maybe their > TransWarp cards, their parallel printer cards, their slot-based RAM cards, > their IEEE-488 cards, and who knows what else? I have my doubts. > The point isn't unappreciated, but I do have a little trouble with the consistency. Hasn't Apple created exactly that incompatibility with the Mac line? I mean, the original Mac can't run most of today's software, the Plus can't use the SE's cards, the SE can't use Mac // cards, and so forth? I grant you the aggregate investment in peripheral cards for the Mac isn't as widespread as it is for the ][, but I betcha the typical dollar amounts are comparable - one mac peripheral card can easily cost as much as all the ][ cards I've got, put together. More to the point, the software obsolescence of the original mac, and to a lesser extent, the Fat mac, means a near-total writeoff of the original investment. I'm _not_ complaining. I'm saying that the organization has already bitten that bullet, in one place. Why not in all? I'd be perfectly willing to see a completely new 65xxx-based computer that doesn't attempt to be compatible with the ][+ or with Dos 3.3, or with p-System, or even CP/M. Let the //e and ProDos be the "bottom" for the next //. Let peripheral cards be discarded as they may. I don't think a misguided loyalty to Dos 3.3 ought to hold apple back, since many of the features of the //gs can't ever be used under 3.3. Let's let the //gs be the pinnacle of 3.3 hardware development, now and forever. It's more than plenty good-enough. Besides, if the //x can't run dos 3.3, it'll give those guys in Carrolton something to do besides trying to get their harder production-line under control... UUCP: crash!pro-houston!dkl ARPA: crash!pro-houston!dkl@nosc.mil INET: dkl@pro-houston.cts.com
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (11/16/89)
gtolar@pro-europa.cts.com (Glynne Tolar) writes: >Agreed, but how about some 16 bit slots of slot extensions. The answers to >these problems are NOT easy. However I am confident that with some research >and dedication it can be found. With little problems with compatability. >Apple just does not feel like it! >---- >UUCP: {nosc, nosc] ...!crash!pro-europa!gtolar >ARPA: crash!pro-europa!gtolar@nosc.mil >INET: gtolar@pro-europa.cts.com - BITNET: pro-europa.uucp!gtolar@psuvax1 >ALPE: GlynneT CI$: 73557,2316 BBS: (713) 476-9998, User #2. "Objection, your honor. The witness is being asked to draw conclusions on Apple's state of mind, of which she has no inside knowledge." :) <-- See? I'm smiling. What can I say? I know that you're wrong, Glynne, but those little things known as "confidential information" and "trade secrets" prevent me from proving it to your satisfaction. I want to object, but I can't. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (11/16/89)
In-Reply-To: message from dkl@pro-houston.cts.com > Besides, if the //x can't run dos 3.3, it'll give those guys in Carrolton > something to do besides trying to get their harder production-line under > control. ... Now that you mention it, I've got a two-month-old, 100 MB, $1,800 Vulcan that suddenly has started sounding worse than my two-year-old CMS 60 that's run continuously for all the time I've had it. On investigation, it turns out that the Vulcan features a plastic fan mounted on what apparently are substandard bearings. It rattles like a playing card in the spokes of a bicycle wheel. Every now and then I pop the top to give it whack and it shuts up for awhile. ... Yeah, so sue me .. I'm not backed up. Yet. UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com America Online: JOEA17, First Word Direct: Pro-Houston, (713) 526-9607, 3-2400 bps
lunatic@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Lunatic) (11/16/89)
. ][ know that this is another subject that has been beaten to death, but I have a suggestion that no one else has as yet come up with, and perhaps we could have some discussion of it. |) |)ut first, just for the heck of it, I think I'll add Matt's most recent oft-quoted line: In article <36403@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: (: Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the (: existing peripheral cards for the Apple II would work in such a new IIgs. Do (: you think all people who would want a new IIgs would be ready to give up their (: 5.25" disk cards, their Video Overlay cards, their FPE cards, maybe their (: TransWarp cards, their parallel printer cards, their slot-based RAM cards, (: their IEEE-488 cards, and who knows what else? I have my doubts. (I'm always smiling. :) |\|ow, my proposal: _ (_,ive the next IIGS a few slots that can work with both 8 and 16 bit cards. You've heard this before, you say? Well, this is how I think it could be done: add 16 to 20 pins to the existing slots and separate them from the other pins by a divider in the female connector. The existing cards would only fit in the regular 50 pins of the connector, and the new cards would fit the whole slot by having a notch in their edge connector just past those 50 original pins. The extra 16 or 20 lines could now be used to exchange data exclusively at high speeds, while the older 50 lines could still be used for control and power supply. See the diagram for a pictoral representation. Diagram. ------------------------- |:::::::::::::::::::::::::| Old Expansion slot connector ------------------------- ------------------------------------ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::| New Expansion slot connector ------------------------------------ One needn't worry about the new cards not working in older Apples, since if they are designed for the GS, what use do older Apples have for them? For instance, GS specific SCSI cards, accelerators and coprocessors that would like to transfer data in 16 bits, instead of 8. In fact, having GS specific cards unable to fit at all into older Apples would be an asset, since ignorant users could tell that the card just isn't compatible, and wouldn't risk damaging the card or the computer by trying to plug it in, anyway. Above all, you wouldn't have to give up all your existing cards! (Gee, I guess there WAS a reason I put Matt's oft-quoted line up there.) (Oh, and don't ask me how this all came out justified. I don't know. :) >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome >Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that >Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its >ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, >ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." >Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________ ARPA: lunatic@uscsb.UCSC.EDU / ________/ Internet: lunatic%ucscb@ucscc.edu / ____// _ ___ _ UUCP: ...!ucscc!ucscb!lunatic / ___///__ {_} |\| /-\ | ][ {_ GEnie: L.BRUCE (Lunatic Bruce) / __________________________________________________________________/ (:
rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) (11/16/89)
In article <5816@lindy.Stanford.EDU> lunatic@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Lunatic) writes: >could be done: add 16 to 20 pins to the existing slots and separate them >from the other pins by a divider in the female connector. The existing >cards would only fit in the regular 50 pins of the connector, and the new >cards would fit the whole slot by having a notch in their edge connector >just past those 50 original pins. ... > Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. However, I would probably recommend a setup like this: ------------------------- |:::::::::::::::::::::::::| Old Expansion slot connector B ------------------------- A FRONT---> C ------------------------------------ K |::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::| New Expansion slot connector ------------------------------------ Card connector would look like this: ___________________ |_____________________________________| ||||||||||^||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||| This way, some of the stupider users couldn't accidently plug a 16 bit IIGS card into an 8 bit slot on a IIe by having the extra pins hanging outside the slot. There appears to be enough room in the IIGS case for an 8 bit card to set in the extra inch or so. Ray --- Ray Rankins | (518) 387-7340 | INTERNET: rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com 2 Moonglow Rd. | (518) 583-3320 | COMPUSERVE: 71131,3236 Gansevoort, NY 12831 | | AmericaOnline: RayRankins <insert standard disclaimer here>
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (11/17/89)
In article <3876@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) writes: >This way, some of the stupider users couldn't accidently plug a 16 bit IIGS >card into an 8 bit slot on a IIe by having the extra pins hanging outside the >slot. There appears to be enough room in the IIGS case for an 8 bit card >to set in the extra inch or so. Wait a second -- why do we need another incompatible bus architecture? What could be done to bring something akin to nubus to the Apple II? I thought nubus supported some type of "master/slave" architecture that would be beneficial in a situation like this. Does anyone know anything about nubus and its possible integration with a II cpu? Any of the apple guys? andy -- Andy Nicholas InterNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College uucp: rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit Bethlehem, PA 18018 GEnie & AM-Online: shrinkit
lunatic@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Lunatic) (11/19/89)
In article <632@batman.moravian.EDU> nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: >Wait a second -- why do we need another incompatible bus architecture? What >could be done to bring something akin to nubus to the Apple II? I thought >nubus supported some type of "master/slave" architecture that would be >beneficial in a situation like this. Does anyone know anything about >nubus and its possible integration with a II cpu? Any of the apple guys? > \/\/e need another incompatible bus standard because even if it IS possible to adapt NuBus to the Apple II, I'm sure it would involve a lot of time, effort, money, etc. The solution I presented and rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) expanded upon is simple (compared to adapting NuBus), a lot less expensive, realizeable in a much shorter period of time, *AND* fully compatible with all the hardware existing for the ][+, IIe and IIGS today! There would be no need for two types of slots, a (much) larger case, or anything. As to adapting NuBus, do you seriously think that Apple would be willing to put that much more into hardware development just for the IIGS? (I'm thinking about the bottom line, here.) >andy > >-- >Andy Nicholas InterNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu >Box 435, Moravian College uucp: rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit >Bethlehem, PA 18018 GEnie & AM-Online: shrinkit -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________ ARPA: lunatic@uscsb.UCSC.EDU / ________/ Internet: lunatic%ucscb@ucscc.edu / ____// _ ___ _ UUCP: ...!ucscc!ucscb!lunatic / ___///__ {_} |\| /-\ | ][ {_ GEnie: L.BRUCE (Lunatic Bruce) / __________________________________________________________________/ (:
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/21/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com There is an Apple supplied ID byte on every card that tells, in general terms, what that card does. 4 bits are reserved (I think) or another byte adjacent, what ever, if most manufacturers respected this ( who am I kidding?) then the reserved bits or bytes could be used to determine speed. Query: Is this technical or non-technical?
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/21/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com I can't see any reason to include NuBus slots. they're 32 bits wide, 10MHz Bus mastering, multiprocessor slots. Thhis is fine, but they won't fit in a GS case and the cost is prohibitive, about $500/slot + $500 for the silicon to implement them. This immediately doubles the cost of the GS without providing anything useful (the device drivers are written for 68020+ hosts). 16 bit slots for a 65832 ( 32 for that matter) would be useful though.
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (11/22/89)
In article <7543.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.COM (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >There is an Apple supplied ID byte on every card that tells, in general terms, >what that card does. 4 bits are reserved (I think) or another byte adjacent, >what ever, if most manufacturers respected this ( who am I kidding?) then the >reserved bits or bytes could be used to determine speed. > I believe you're referring to the "Vendor ID" listed in the Pascal 1.1 protocol for devices. This is no longer supported by most third-party developers *or* by Apple, since it only allows for 16 different peripherals of any of the generic classes. See Apple II Miscellaneous Technical Note #8. >Query: Is this technical or non-technical? I would classify this as technical. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (11/27/89)
In article <5891@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, lunatic@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Lunatic) writes: > \/\/e need another incompatible bus standard because even if it IS > possible to adapt NuBus to the Apple II, I'm sure it would involve a > lot of time, effort, money, etc. The solution I presented and > rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) expanded upon is simple > (compared to adapting NuBus), a lot less expensive, realizeable in a > much shorter period of time, *AND* fully compatible with all the > hardware existing for the ][+, IIe and IIGS today! There would be no > need for two types of slots, a (much) larger case, or anything. That'd be a kind of interesting way of doing things because you could get around the "slow slot i/o" problem by running the second "slot" in front of the older slot at the full speed of the machine and just tell designers to design cards that will work right at the full speed of the machine. I had thought that another good idea for getting around the slot i/o problem would be to have an ID word which would make force the card into "FAST" slot mode; however, I think that your idea is probably better for making a practical solution. You could have the new "slot" for accessing the fast side of the system.. hmmm.. you really wouldn't even need to run some lines to that slot because they'd be duplicates of the first (like you could suck power from the first part like cards like the twgs do now). Hmmm... now, if they would only move the 8530 serial i/o locations out of the i/o locations, we'd be in business.. :-) andy -- Andy Nicholas GEnie, AM-Online: shrinkit Box 435, Moravian College CompuServe: 70771,2615 Bethlehem, PA 18018 InterNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (11/28/89)
In article <4518@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >In article <36403@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >>> >>Faster video is one thing, but faster I/O could very well mean that none of the >Why not have both? Maybe you could have the existing slots and a few faster >ones or perhaps a control panel setting that would let you set slots to fast >or slow (normal in Control Panel parlance!). Then the user could configure >the machine depending on wether a fast or slow card is being used. It wouldn't allow old cards to work if they had to have the speed coded in ROM. Having the machine just slow down for accesses to the hardware page is easy enough, use some 74121s as timer delays to impose wait states using the rdy line. Then the selection of the 74121s could easily be controlled from the control panel by gating the address request with the state of a flip flop.
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (12/01/89)
In-Reply-To: message from nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU Why not have the initialization ROMS in new cards set the slot speed themselves? Old cards wouldn't do this and if the default were slow then compatbility would remain. I suppose if the card were to initialize to fast and then be pulled and replaced by a slow card things would be bad, in more ways than one. Control Panel option could be set (similar to the Zip Chip initialization), but not put into battery backed RAM for the aforementioned reason.