scott@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (02/01/89)
What I don't understand is why Apple went with the IIgs design they did.
As I understand it, the 65816 is a more expensive processor than the 68000.
Why? because it had to be backward compatible with the 6502.
Granted I've very little experience in circuit design, but it seems to me
that it would have been more economical (and easier) to design a 680x0
based machine with a 6502 as a co-processor. A Mac with a // inside,
essentially.
Looking at the internals of GS/OS, you can see a lot of structure to
support things Apple II's have never dreamed of. This is a real Disk
OS. I think Apple some people at Apple are definitely committed to the
IIgs, but it *is* a painful machine to program for. That is why there
are still bugs in the tools and GS/OS. That's what makes it frustrating
for developers. That doesn't mean it should be abandoned.
I, too, would like to see a faster GS, with more vertical resolutiong.
Maybe, some day... But the machine of here & now *does* have potential.
Ya just gotta work at it.
--
Scott Lindsey, wombat | UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!scott
Product Development | Internet: scott@claris.com | AppleLink: LINDSEY1
Claris Corp. | Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of Claris,
(415) 960-4070 | Apple, the author, or anyone else living or dead.gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (02/02/89)
In article <8552@claris.com> scott@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) writes: >I think Apple some people at Apple are definitely committed to the >IIgs, but it *is* a painful machine to program for. Just like the Macintosh! By the way the Mac SE/30 is really neat but it needs more memory (just as the base IIGS does). If it had reasonable Apple II emulation I would probably buy one and give up on the 65*-based machines.