brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (02/09/89)
education', 'slower than 80x86 machines', 'based on old technology'.
If the *opinion* of the II were higher, then perhaps designers of hardware and
software could meet Apple's potential. About the only things holding back better
acceptance of the Apple II is the general misconception of its capabilities.
Poorly written software that has stuck around too long and meaningless
comparisons of features like clock speed make the Apple _look_ like a wimp.
Below are some of my observations/opinions on these subjects.
It has been mentioned that the IIGS suffers because of it's attempts to
remain compatible with the original II line. What about how the entire family
of IBM compatibles suffers because they are based on a slow 8-bit machine? At
least the 16-bit GS has GS/OS that fully uses it's CPU. The crowd of oooos and
aaahhs about 80386 machines doesn't consider that there isn't a standard 32-bit
operating system yet to take full advantage of these _expensive_ machines.
OS/2 is only a 16-bit operating system but needs at least an IBM/AT type
machine. Most of the clones that are cheaper than an Apple IIGS won't even run
the 16-bit OS/2.
Another complaint about the II was the old 64K limit. The clones have long
had 640K, and now more. The result is now Apple code is short and optimized,
while PC code is large and cumbersome. Someone once said "any program expands
to fill all available memory". The result of this is a lack of interest in
size of PC programs. This wastes disk space and cost money in the form of
memory cards. OS/2 won't even run without 3Meg of memory! Now that the GS has
broken the 64K bank limit, only graphics programs are hungry for excess.
In article <25073@apple.Apple.COM> Keith Rollin <keith@Apple.com> writes:
> The first problem is due to the fact that the Apple II is
> based on the 6502 family. Trying to make this more powerful while maintaining
> compatibility is very difficult. True, there are faster processors for the
> Apple IIGS. Until Apple can get one of these built into the box, there are
> always third parties with upgrade boards.
The same type of problem has hurt the IBM clone market and Intel 80x86 design
team. Their solution is to run it faster and ignore inefficient code.
But given the choice, I prefer the innovative Apple II and await the 65C832. I
would like to see a TransWarp for the Apple II at 7.16MHz (twice the current
3.58MHz). The fastest 65C802 on my data sheets is rated at 8MHz.
Consider that the 4.77MHz IBM PC was outrun in certain benchmarks by the
1MHz Apple II, and then think about a 4MHz C Plus as ~19MHz 8088. By the way,
these benchmarks were mentioned by a friend, and I would like to know where
they were printed (he forgot). If you consider that the 8088 memory cycle is
4 clocks and the 6502 is only one, these ratings make since. I will allow
the 80386 a greater head start though, because it's pipelined memory accesses
approach 2 or even 1 cycle per memory access. So I really don't know how to
rate a 4MHz 6502 vs. a 25MHz 80386 (but who can afford the latter anyway!).
I don't have any complaints about speed. My 1MHz Apple II Plus can digitize
audio data at 40kHz (with custom wire wrapped boards I designed) and display
it in real time on the screen like a digital oscilloscope. With the AE
TransWarp card, my software runs 4 times faster: who could ask for much more?
Designing for the PC bus is much more expensive than for the well-thought-out
Apple II bus (fewer parts are needed, ever seen how big all the IBM PC cards
are?). Also, even with 4 instead of 3 internal registers, the 80x86 chip is
harder to program in assembly because of the segmentation (you never see the
true address in an instruction) than the 65xx series (which is more logically
designed).
> The second problem has to do with
> the fact that the Apple II never really had competition in the way that the
> IBM PC did with clones. Because of the ubiquitous clone market, parts and chips
> have come down drastically in price, making those computers simple and cheap
> to manufacture. Nothing like that has happened on the Apple II, so we don't
> have the cheap parts that other computer makers do.
>
I think the innovation of the II line is worth the extra money. The PC
clones are basically designed by the book (Intel's data books) and IBM can't
stop that. From the first design in 1975, the Woz put more function in the
Apple II (given the chip functions available) than any other computer (except
perhaps the Amiga video). Most PC's rely on already designed chips: you have
to buy custom cards for everything. The Apple II can't be cloned without
breaking The Woz's copyright on his ingenious design. This stops most cloning,
especially since the newer Apple's use custom chips available only from Apple.
Apple is still ahead of the times because they don't stop at what is
commercially available. 'simple and cheap' is the best description I know of
the PC clone market.gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (02/10/89)
In article <510@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: >The crowd of oooos and aaahhs about 80386 machines doesn't consider >that there isn't a standard 32-bit operating system yet to take full >advantage of these _expensive_ machines. Practically all the users of 80386s I know of run UNIX. (Note that it is meaningless to call UNIX an "n-bit" operating system.)
rat@madnix.UUCP (David Douthitt) (02/11/89)
In article <510@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: | It has been mentioned that the IIGS suffers because of it's attempts to | remain compatible with the original II line. What about how the entire family | of IBM compatibles suffers because they are based on a slow 8-bit machine? At | least the 16-bit GS has GS/OS that fully uses it's CPU. The crowd of oooos and | aaahhs about 80386 machines doesn't consider that there isn't a standard | 32-bit operating system yet to take full advantage of these _expensive_ | machines. OS/2 is only a 16-bit operating system but needs at least | an IBM/AT type machine. Most of the clones that are cheaper than an | Apple IIGS won't even run the 16-bit OS/2. Oh, but there ARE 32-bit OSes for the IBM AT family. For example, you can pick up uPort System V/386. I believe that there is also a 386 version of VPix and SCO XENIX. What I would like to see is a multiuser, multitasking environment for the Apple II -- something people actually USE. [david] -- ======== David Douthitt :::: Madison, WI :::: The Stainless Steel Rat ======== FidoNet: 1:121/1 or 1:121/2 {decvax|att}! UseNet: ...{rutgers|ucbvax|harvard}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!rat ArpaNet: madnix!rat@cs.wisc.edu {uunet|ncoast}!marque!