sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") (11/04/88)
Attending college tends to make one think (at least it's supposed to). I
was looking at my GS, waiting for GS/OS to boot, thinking about slow computers
and upgrades and rumors. I thought about the prospect of Apple introducing a
low cost K-12 Macintosh (the Golden Gate project). If this project pans out,
where does it leave all of the Apple IIx users? And then I realized something:
Apple is the only computer company that strongly markets computers with two
different processors: the 68000 series, and the 6502 series. No other company
does this - I.B.M. computers are all in the 8080 family. Atari and Commodore
are also 68000. Where does this leave everyone? Apple has two distinct product
lines, and THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!!!! I have nothing against the
Mac. I just happened to start out with a IIe, and sold it and bought a IIGS
because I thought it was the FUTURE!!!!! Now Apple wants us to buy a Mac, and
run our IIx software on it??!!!! Consternation! Dismay!! Amazement!!!!!! The
6502 series is a considerably underdeveloped chip - the 65816 is only limited by
the design Apple implemented in the GS. I don't know specifics (that's why I'm
in college now). And then there's the 65832 - and something else (I forget what
its number is) that is a complete computer on the whole chip. If anyone reads
Open-Apple, you know what I'm talking about.
I think its comendable that Apple has decided to consolidate their product
line. This was the inevitable outcome (I think). I just get upset when I see
the 6502 series going by the wayside.
- the MAD scientist!
sk2f+@andrew.cmu.edurupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (11/11/88)
In article <IXQE0Qy00WAK80MF0d@andrew.cmu.edu> sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") writes: > > Attending college tends to make one think (at least it's supposed to). > ............ >different processors: the 68000 series, and the 6502 series. No other company >does this - I.B.M. computers are all in the 8080 family. Atari and Commodore >are also 68000. Where does this leave everyone? Apple has two distinct product >lines, and THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!!! I have nothing against the First, you are factually wrong on one point. Commodore and Tandy both sell computers using a variety of processors. Commodore sells the C-64 and C-128, which use the 6510, and IBM compatibles using Intel chips, in addition to the 68000-powered Amiga. Tandy sells Intel powered compatibles as well as the 6809-based Color Computer. On the future of the Apple IIGS (the IIe's, I feel won't be upgraded any more), I hope it does well, and feel that it can. I don't think it will ever be the hit the ][ ][+ and //e were, for many reasons. But it could thrive for a long while in education and the home market, *IF* enough GS-specific software arrives in the next year or so. Still, the Macintosh is where Apple's future lies. I know a lot of die-hard Apple ][+ & //e fans don't like this idea, but only 68020 and 68030 powered micros are going to be able to compete with the OS/2 Model 80's, NeXT's, and Sun's 5-10 years from now. Bill
ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (11/11/88)
In article <IXQE0Qy00WAK80MF0d@andrew.cmu.edu> sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") writes: >Apple is the only computer company that strongly markets computers with two >different processors: the 68000 series, and the 6502 series. No other company >does this - I.B.M. computers are all in the 8080 family. Atari and Commodore >are also 68000. Untrue, Atari and Commodore still sell 6502-based systems, and Commodore is in the PClone business. You could argue that the 68000 machines are more weakly marketed in either Atari or Commodore's case, though, but I don't want to start doing that here on info-apple. I won't even mention the IBM RT RISC coprocessor stuff. the c-128 even has CP/M capability, so Commodore supports about 4 processors these days. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius3.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA "You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)" --
hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (11/11/88)
In article <IXQE0Qy00WAK80MF0d@andrew.cmu.edu> sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") writes: >and upgrades and rumors. I thought about the prospect of Apple introducing a >low cost K-12 Macintosh (the Golden Gate project). If this project pans out, >where does it leave all of the Apple IIx users? And then I realized something: >6502 series is a considerably underdeveloped chip - the 65816 is only limited >the design Apple implemented in the GS. I don't know specifics (that's why I'm >in college now). And then there's the 65832 - and something else (I forget >its number is) that is a complete computer on the whole chip. If anyone reads >Open-Apple, you know what I'm talking about. > I think its comendable that Apple has decided to consolidate their product >line. This was the inevitable outcome (I think). I just get upset when I see >the 6502 series going by the wayside. > - the MAD scientist! AMEN!!! I know of people who consider Macintosh to be the company that puts out its little Apple line. Questions: is the 65832 good? is anyone developing it? is there any stuff on approval/disapproval of this new paradigm of assembly? Orphans we may become as Apple's head swells further. I used to be a radical Apple man but Job's ideas couldn't float so now were stuck with BIG RED. Commodore now seems to be the 'new' wild line (they've always made good hardware but @$@#@# software and storage) but *we* will still be left. I think there are too many apple users to abandon economically but, there may be too many other kinds of users. I think the Apple ideal should be extended (software control of near-everything, near-limitless expandibility, decent graphics .. I/O , and general *versitility*) (a programmer's paradise! <sigh>) In general the above 'must' fit more into today's speeds/memory/storage standards and even with new advents (imagine a separate *equal* processor for o/s stuff and maybe graphics etc..) to break beyond the current fads. (i.e. bigger programs, MORE Mhz <they love that<, and HUMUNGOUS o/s's with too much mem/too much time taken away) ^^^debatible^^^^^ I know I may sound like an end-of-the-worlder but these things will put us in a fix. Unless Apple acknowledges another line somehow, ours will become a smaller group (still big though!). Still big though, and apple should retain a pioneer spirit and experiment with the Apple II line. While businessmen shirk at the 'unsoundness' of new possibs a whole new generation could be built for micros in general, to even outmode the Mac!!! (it could forge ahead on connectivity (phone nets) / parallelism etc...) Things are possible to change but things also can fade away ###### C. H. ######
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (11/11/88)
I would hope that Apple begins to support the 65832, or atleast faster 65816's. This would bring a better incentive for programmers. I also feel that the // series is a more comfortable programming environment. And despite the added features of the 68000 series (8 address registers, 8 data registers, 24bit address space) most programming for it, because of the Macs implementation, is done using high level compilers whose code is hardly optimized in the end. // code is generally cleaner and more efficient. Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu
steve@pnet51.cts.com (Steve Yelvington) (11/28/88)
sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") writes: > >Apple is the only computer company that strongly markets computers with two >different processors: the 68000 series, and the 6502 series. No other company >does this - I.B.M. computers are all in the 8080 family. Atari and Commodore >are also 68000. Where does this leave everyone? Apple has two distinct product >lines, and THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!!!! I have nothing against the Perhaps "strongly" is the key word here, but I must point out that Atari and Commodore also still have 6502-based computers on the market: the 65XE, XEGS (game system) and 130XE in Atari's case; the C64 and C128 in Commodore's case. Neither company has any plans to move those systems up to more powerful but compatible CPUs, but that's simply a recognition that the 6502 architecture is no longer in the mainstream. On the other hand, those product lines continue to be money-makers and (rumors aside) continue to be supported. Since Thanksgiving, the local computer retailers have been pushing the IIGS pretty heavily in newspaper advertising. Since there are so many in the schools, I expect they'll sell quite a few -- but I sure wouldn't shell out the rather substantial prices they're charging for a machine whose future strikes me as dismal. (My ST may have a dismal future too, but it was cheap. ... :-) UUCP: {rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!steve ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!steve@nosc.mil INET: steve@pnet51.cts.com ----------- -or- stag!thelake!steve@pwcs.StPaul.GOV "A member of STdNET -- the ST Developers' Network"
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (11/28/88)
In article <307@orbit.UUCP> steve@pnet51.cts.com (Steve Yelvington) writes: -sk2f+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Seth D. Kadesh") writes: ->Apple is the only computer company that strongly markets computers with two ->different processors: the 68000 series, and the 6502 series. No other company ->does this - I.B.M. computers are all in the 8080 family. Strange that you didn't also respond to the ludicrous claim that all IBM processors have the same architecture.
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John M. Adams) (11/29/88)
The C128 also has a z80 in it, doesn't it? So, Commodore actually has
three microprocessors out on the market...
--
Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu | John M. Adams ///
UUCP: {codas|gatech}!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!jma | University ///
"Risk. Risk is our business!" - Kirk | of Florida \\\///
------------------------------------------------------------------------------shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (12/01/88)
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John M. Adams) writes: >The C128 also has a z80 in it, doesn't it? So, Commodore actually has >three microprocessors out on the market... But it's used for CP/M... hehe... UUCP: {rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com