mrush@csuchico.edu (Matt "C P." Rush) (09/04/90)
In article <2178@bambam.UUCP> pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) writes: [Good idea about encouraging SoftPC port to Amiga deleted] > >In addition, Apple is busily working on producing an Apple II on a card for >their Mac's. The idea is that they are going to upgrade all the schools to >Mac's without losing the Apple education platform. WHAT IF Commodore >contacted Laser about licensing their Apple II compatible ROMS and then How compatible were Laser's ROMs? Since ROM jumping was a standard programming practice on the Apple ][ I wouldn't expect anything to run on less than the REAL ROMs. I always figured that Laser was just buying ROMs from Apple (or making the buyer get his own)... >produced a II emulator as well. Its almost scary to think about how >Apple's rug could be pulled out from underneath them. The big problem with this is that you can buy a really NICELY LOADED Apple ][ system used for well under $300. So such an emulator is really only going to make it if they can have it run a the FULL speed of an Apple ][, include TWO disk drives (5.25") and do LANGUGE CARD emulation for a similar under-$300 price. It would be a FUN toy, but not a sound product idea (of course the BridgeCard sold....). I don't think this is any too likely from CBM (maybe Apple since they own the ROMs already). Besides, with the advent of the A3000 (and the popularity of accelrators for the 500/1000/2000) SOFTWARE emulation works within acceptable limits for most non-game Apple Programs (though multitasking goes out the window with the idle-looping inherent in the Apple :-(. > >() () -=Adolescent Deformed Karate Lobsters!=- " >( " ) - 'Like Linguini, where's my house slippers?' / ( ) > ( ) 'I thot I tol you to shaddup, Ricotta!!' () () > /|\ Pete Ashdown pashdown@esunix.es.com ...utah-cs!esunix!pashdown /|\ -- Matt *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* % "Progress is an up-hill battle % mrush@csuchico.edu % % against backwards compatibility." % mrush@cscihp.UUCP % % -- me % % Now: mrush@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu % *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* This is a SCHOOL! Do you think they even CARE about MY opinions?!
pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) (09/05/90)
mrush@csuchico.edu (Matt "C P." Rush) writes: > How compatible were Laser's ROMs? Since ROM jumping was a standard >programming practice on the Apple ][ I wouldn't expect anything to run on >less than the REAL ROMs. I always figured that Laser was just buying ROMs >from Apple (or making the buyer get his own)... They were about 99.9% compatible. I didn't own a Laser, but my friend (blgardne@esunix) was a dealer for them. IMHO, the Laser ROMs were BETTER than what Apple produced for their //c's. More features and the like. Laser wrote their OWN ROMs in conjunction with Franklin after Apple sued Franklin over the ROM issue. I would imagine that their sales right now are highly questionable, thus they'd probably jump at the chance to sell the ROMs (and screw Apple further :-)). >>produced a II emulator as well. Its almost scary to think about how >>Apple's rug could be pulled out from underneath them. > The big problem with this is that you can buy a really NICELY LOADED >Apple ][ system used for well under $300. So such an emulator is really only >going to make it if they can have it run a the FULL speed of an Apple ][, >include TWO disk drives (5.25") and do LANGUGE CARD emulation for a similar >under-$300 price. It would be a FUN toy, but not a sound product idea (of >course the BridgeCard sold....). You've got to realize that what Apple is trying to do is to sell Mac II's with the Apple II card installed as a "logical upgrade" for schools. Full speed SOFTWARE emulation of a <1mhz Apple IIe would be quite easy on an Amiga 3000. You KNOW that would be a cheaper solution than what Apple is offering. The Apple IIgs could be fully emulated as well (except for the sound) for it only runs at 2 mhz. However, Laser doesn't make IIgs ROMs and Apple isn't about to license them. >within acceptable limits for most non-game Apple Programs (though multitasking >goes out the window with the idle-looping inherent in the Apple :-(. Bologna, the emulator itself wouldn't require a whole lot of processor time. If they can run II-In-A-Mac under MultiFinder, we can easily multitask during Apple II emulation. > -- Matt > % Now: mrush@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu % () () -=Adolescent Deformed Karate Lobsters!=- " ( " ) - 'Like Linguini, where's my house slippers?' / ( ) ( ) 'I thot I tol you to shaddup, Ricotta!!' () () /|\ Pete Ashdown pashdown@esunix.es.com ...utah-cs!esunix!pashdown /|\
blgardne@suns.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (09/06/90)
pashdown@shotput.es.com (Pete Ashdown)@bambam.UUCP writes: >mrush@csuchico.edu (Matt "C P." Rush) writes: >> How compatible were Laser's ROMs? Since ROM jumping was a standard >>programming practice on the Apple ][ I wouldn't expect anything to run on >>less than the REAL ROMs. I always figured that Laser was just buying ROMs >>from Apple (or making the buyer get his own)... >They were about 99.9% compatible. I didn't own a Laser, but my friend >(blgardne@esunix) was a dealer for them. IMHO, the Laser ROMs were BETTER >than what Apple produced for their //c's. More features and the like. Laser >wrote their OWN ROMs in conjunction with Franklin after Apple sued Franklin >over the ROM issue. Hmmm, I thought my ears were burning. Actually I'd peg compatibility for the Laser 128 at about 95-98%. Some of the really old stuff didn't run, but almost everything important did. And there were regular ROM revisions to improve compatibility (every 2-4 months or so). It's been several years since I really dealt with the Lasers, so I'm not sure what things are like today. The ROMs were actually written by a subsidiary of Central Point Software (Copy ][+, Copy IIPC, PC Tools, etc.) for the maker of the Laser 128. And if I rememeber correctly, they also wrote the original Franklin ROMs, so they were in a perfect position to know what Apple considered infringement. Since PC Tools is one of the most popular MS-DOS software packages, and since they ported Copy II to everything BUT the Amiga, I don't think they'd have a whole lot of interest in doing anything with as limited a market as an Apple II emulator for the Amiga. Why go to all that effort and expense when you're making a fortune in the MS-DOS software market? Personally, my Apple II emulation needs were fulfilled by seeing "II in a Mac" running on the Amiga under Amax. Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@esunix.UUCP BIX: blaine_g {decwrl, utah-cs}!esunix!blgardne DoD #0046 The Borg killed Laura Palmer!