ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (12/01/90)
There is no particular problem with either the 6502 or the 65816. Sure it would be nice to have more general purpose registers (my personal favorite is the 88000), but so what? It is not the processor that is important, it is the system. The GS as a system is the best on the market for home use. It was years ahead in 1986, although only really practical in 1989 with system 5.0. What do MIPS really mean anyhow? Will Mathematica on a 20 MIPS machine really balance your checkbook any better than Appleworks on a .35 MIPS machine? If your new machine requires a hardware emulator for II compatibility and that is all that it is used for, then why bother with a different processor at all? IF you use a software emulator then how well will a 20 MIPS processor emulate a .35MIPS processor? DO you really gain anything for the extra cost? Remeber that the new system will have zero software available initially and will only run II software. How many 'named' companies are going to support yet another system? If you want a non-apple II that emulates an Apple II then get the Mac LC or a DOS Box and the Trackstar board or a UNIX Box with the IIe emulator. Why even bother redesigning the same wheel that others have already built, assuming you want this kind of wheel. I like the GS as is. It should have more motherboard speed, better graphics modes, and just a little support, but otherwise the design is perfectly valid for what I want in a computer. Dammit, there is nothing wrong with the GS today that will not be automatically be wrong with whatever system gets designed as a replacement by the time it is in production. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (12/04/90)
|There is no particular problem with either the 6502 or the 65816. Sure it There is a problem with the 6502/65816...its old, or at least its viewed as old. BTW, what other computer on the market uses a processor without multiply and divide instructions. |would be nice to have more general purpose registers (my personal favorite is |the 88000), but so what? It is not the processor that is important, it is the |system. The GS as a system is the best on the market for home use. It was |years ahead in 1986, although only really practical in 1989 with system 5.0. Yeah, I like the 88000 too...but it's too expensive for what I had in mind. An low cost embedded RISC like the VLSI VL86C020 (the ARM), an AMD 29000/ or 29050, or the Inmos T400 are all cheap (<$100) and very very powerful. The GS was trailing edge in 1986, and little has changed to the hardware since then...Two basic facts: (1) The Apple II needs a major upgrade NOW, (2) If the II gets that long overdue upgrade, it won't be Apple Inc. doing it. It'll take more than marketing to get the II back on track. It will take an upgraded design AND a long term commitment to the II to make software publishers come back. Apple is going to move heaven and earth to get II users to go to the Mac LC...its a more marketable computer. If Apple came out with a new Apple II this late in the game, they would incur the wrath of the computer reporting media (I can see it now, on the cover of BYTE: "Apple goes backwards") Apple is depending on the II educational base being converted to the Mac...'cause it can't convince business users to buy the Mac. |What do MIPS really mean anyhow? Will Mathematica on a 20 MIPS machine really |balance your checkbook any better than Appleworks on a .35 MIPS machine? If MIPS mean a great deal to us. The point is we don't have Mathematica. And all the letter writing campaigns you can devise won't change that until there is a change in the IIs hardware, and a commitment from its manufacturer. Besides, the IIgs couldn't handle Mathematica, even with a Zip GS built in and the bottlenecks removed. Mathematica is also a graphic program, and the IIgs's graphics are so out of date it's not even funny. Don't tell me about assembly language speed...it's extremely inconvienent for software publishers to have to work in a specific processors instruction set. You can bet that PC, UNIX, and Mac versions of Mathematica aren't written on the metal. |your new machine requires a hardware emulator for II compatibility and that is |all that it is used for, then why bother with a different processor at all? IF |you use a software emulator then how well will a 20 MIPS processor emulate a |.35MIPS processor? DO you really gain anything for the extra cost? I don't want to emulate any more than we have to. My idea is to use BOTH the '816 and a RISC. The '816 should handle serial I/O, keyboard/joystick/mouse inputs (can't do ADB), floppy disks (can't do Smartport), and MIDI (can't be run from serial ports). It would communicate with the RISC using an area of dual-ported RAMs (and mabye some (or all) of the '816s address space could be mapped, not to mention possibly some mutual DMA-access). The '816 would handle IIe emulation (built in) and IIgs emulation (public domain program containing the GS ROM images, like the UNIX //e emulator with hardware support) The RISC side could assist the IIe/IIgs side by doing the graphics, sound and acting as a math booster (like the FPE or AE Fastmath), and provide access to the extra instructions, registers, and memory. This system would be like an Apple II with a coprocessor card built in (like the Saybrooks and PDQ IIs of the saintly days of yore) and could boost Applesoft (or applesoft clone) performance (just like those 68k cards did). In addition, a new dual-processor system monitor would be built in. When you typed the equivalent of call-151 you'd get a new monitor that could 'flip' back and forth between the RISC and the '816, along with routines that could fetch data from each others address spaces. A new 32-bit RISC BASIC would also be included, with full access to system resources (like GS BASIC was meant to be). You see, it's what's in the ROMs that make this new system every bit an Apple II. |Remeber that the new system will have zero software available initially and |will only run II software. How many 'named' companies are going to support yet |another system? Add UNIX support as an option and price it reasonably and you'll get plenty. Though a low cost RISC computer, with FutureBus+, and with those ROM extensions should generate enough interest to sell them. I thought of many possible case designs (i.e. Cube shaped card cage, tower, Mac IIsi style-box) but it might pay us to put it in an old Apple II (or Franklin) style case (at least for the low cost model) |If you want a non-apple II that emulates an Apple II then get the Mac LC or a |DOS Box and the Trackstar board or a UNIX Box with the IIe emulator. Why even |bother redesigning the same wheel that others have already built, assuming you |want this kind of wheel. Because those systems aren't Apple IIs. This is an extension of the basic design. Essentially a coprocessor and bus built on top of the old system. It's open like a II, its accessable and hackable like a II, runs all IIe and most IIgs software. Apple is designing RISC based computers to replace the Mac. Lets beat 'em to the punch. What more glorious way of extending the life of the II line can there be. |I like the GS as is. It should have more motherboard speed, better graphics |modes, and just a little support, but otherwise the design is perfectly valid |for what I want in a computer. Dammit, there is nothing wrong with the GS |today that will not be automatically be wrong with whatever system gets |designed as a replacement by the time it is in production. Step into the '90s. The GS hasn't changed in four years and is way behind its competition. Systems selling for less (i.e. PC clones) are faster, and have much better graphics...that combined with the lack of support is murdering the II. Someone posted that Sierra has released a new version of Stellar-7 and asked when a GS version would be written. It'll never be written. The GS cant do what that program needs it to do. Stellar-7 uses VGA (640x480 graphics) with 256 colors; the GS cant do 640x480 and cant do 256 colors in its highest (640) mode. |UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg |INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com ---------------------------------- | MARK A. ORR | | $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | | @ LSUVM.BITNET | ----------------------------------
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (12/07/90)
> Someone posted that Sierra has released a new version of Stellar-7 and > asked when a GS version would be written. It'll never be written. The GS > cant do what that program needs it to do. Stellar-7 uses VGA (640x480 > graphics) with 256 colors; the GS cant do 640x480 and cant do 256 colors > in its highest (640) mode. I hope your way of thinking does not reach Sierra! The original Stellar-7 on the Apple II ran in hi-res graphics (280x192) in monochrome. It was an excellent game. What's wrong with Stellar-7 running on a GS in 320x200 mode? Fill-mode graphics and hidden-line removal is old hat now (i.e.: various FTA demos, Polyognia, etc, etc) Add really powerful stereo sound effects to it, and it would rival (and surpass) the VGA version. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
joe@hcrlgw.crl.hitachi.co.JP (Dwight Joe) (12/13/90)
Motivation: What I find really vexing about the NeXTstation and the Amiga 3000 is that they are great machines _and_ that they are both at least $3000.00. Most college students can't afford that prices, never minding the $6000.00 price tag of the NeXTcube. If there is a major market among college students for machines in that price range, then we might as well admit that Edward Bennett, the former secretary of education, was right; he claimed that most students have got more than enough money to go to college and are even spending excess money on stereos and slick new automobiles. Let's face it. Most students are going to a state-supported university, the primary reasoning being that it is cheap. At one such school in the south, the students were complaining--loudly-- that tuition and miscellaneous fees were rising from about ~$400 to ~$600. Most people--most people not reading the USENET--cannot afford $3000 for a slick hi-tech NeXTstation or an Amiga 3000. Despite all the complaints about the MAC classic, which costs $750 at educational pricing, it's consumer demand far exceeds the supply. Do you why? Most students cannot afford to shell out more than $1000 for that slick NeXTstation, Amiga 3000, Mac II, etc. The other thing that I find really vexing is that some people seem to think that more processing power can be over-kill. They even think that the 6502 is just plain great. The trouble is that, if you ever decide that you want to do anything more than BASIC programming and very simple wordprocessing, then you can't. Why? Because running an FFT program, playing an elaborate video/arcade game with hundreds of moving features on the screen, and wordstar 4.0 will require significantly more processing power. In other words, regardless of how clever a programmer you might be, the hardware defines the upper limit of what you can do. I can assure you that wordstar 4.0 written for, say, a 4004 will be painfully slow regardless of how clever you might be as a programmer. Proposal: What I'm venturing is the following proposal for a new computer. First, it should use, within a given price range, the most powerful microprocessor available. Second, the total price for a system with CRT (preferably flat-panel), disk drive (preferably a micro-floppy drive), and main unit should be less than $1000. Let's keep, in mind, the fact that our target market is students. We've got to keep the price down on everything: hardward _and_ software. So, we'd like our system to be as compatible with current systems as possible to ease the transition of software packages from those systems to our new system. That means that the operating system should be UNIX, MS-DOS, OS/2, or compatible operating systems. Don't forget that writing completely new software packages for our system will force those packages to be highly priced because (1) the installed base of machines will be smaller than for a main-stream machine like PC clone and (2) a high ransom must be paid to Microsoft to bear the risk for writing to that smaller base, in addition to the expense of training people to operate on a new platform. Keeping that in mind, we should select a standard microprocessor. The 80486 and 68040 are out of the question. They are too expensive. I recommend the Sparc chip. Its specs can be licensed from Sun which has generously supported an open architecture. From those specs, we can design a cheap-o (Don't forget that we are building this system for students, most of whom are _poor_) RISC processor--no superscalar features and no branch-prediction. Heck, we can even use larger feature sizes, like 1.5 micron, to increase the yield and further reduce the price. Now, piece that together with 1 plain-vanilla 3.5" microfloppy drive, maybe 1 megabyte of memory, a keyboard, a UNIX disk, a C (not C++) programming language, a MAC Classic-like window system, a 640 X 400 pixel video black-and-white (color = too expensive) circuits, and plain CRT (preferably flat-panel). Yeah. It is very plain, but it is very cheap and _VERY_ powerful. If this sounds like a MAC Classic, upgraded to a RISC chip and UNIX, you're right in thinking that. I fail to see why the MAC Classic-type personal computer can't be upgraded to a RISC system. The el-cheapo Sparc chip, which we build with big feature sizes, should be even cheaper than a 68000, which requires even more transistors than a Sparc chip. The main memory should be fairly cheap by the time that the system is actually assembled. The price of 1 megabit chips is declining as 4 M and 16 M chips increase their market share. How about it Apple? Well, actually, how about it Sun (since Apple has already committed to the MAC Classic)? For $1500, a color system is available. (If anyone responds, please set their distribution to "global". Otherwise, I definitely won't be able to read the responses. Then again, I may not be able to read the responses anyhow due to a policy of censorship at my site. Don't ask me. I don't make the policy.)
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/15/90)
Edward Bennet... This man sounds like a fool. I'm a college student, and so I know a LOT of college students -- but I don't know ANY that have any excess money. College is QUITE expensive, but I think a computer even costing up to 1500 or $2000 would be acceptable to many Although he's probably on the right track, I disagree with one point (off the top of my head). Nobody (I MEAN NOBODY) wants a flat-panel BW monitor. Even if I didn't have too much money (which I don't), I'd be willing to pay a LITTLE more for a color monitor... I don't like little LCD screens. They're always hard to read. Otherwise, there's some good ideas.
ronl@pnet91.cts.com (Ron Lewin) (12/15/90)
Hmmmm.... it sounds to me that what you are talking about is a 286 clone with
something like Coherent (inexpensive Unix). For under $1000, you can get a
286 with a hard drive, monochrome, and coherent. Plus, there's scads of
MS-DOS software and hardware available for it - cheap. Now, I know as well as
you that this isn't a particularly elegant solution, but hey, you set the
criteria... cheap, and compatible with other major O/S's. Why re-invent the
wheel? Sure, I'd like to design a spectacular low-cost student workhorse, but
I honestly believe it would be difficult to be competitive with the above
setup.
Please send all replies to:
INet: zoo.toronto.edu!generic!pnet91!ronl
or
: ronl@pnet91.cts.comrlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/17/90)
In article <9012130536.AA19123@hcrlgw.crl.hitachi.co.jp>, joe@hcrlgw.crl.hitachi.co.JP (Dwight Joe) writes: > Motivation: [Reasons about why a cheap computer system should be made deleted] > Proposal: > > What I'm venturing is the following proposal for a new > computer. First, it should use, within a given price range, > the most powerful microprocessor available. Second, the > total price for a system with CRT (preferably flat-panel), > disk drive (preferably a micro-floppy drive), and main unit > should be less than $1000. Whoa, this sounds a lot like a Atari 1040STe. > Let's keep, in mind, the fact that our target market > is students. We've got to keep the price down on everything: > hardward _and_ software. So, we'd like our system to be > as compatible with current systems as possible to ease > the transition of software packages from those systems to > our new system. That means that the operating system should > be UNIX, MS-DOS, OS/2, or compatible operating systems. > Don't forget that writing completely new software packages > for our system will force those packages to be highly priced > because (1) the installed base of machines will be smaller > than for a main-stream machine like PC clone and (2) a > high ransom must be paid to Microsoft to bear the risk for > writing to that smaller base, in addition to the expense > of training people to operate on a new platform. None of these operating systems would be a viable alternative: 1. UNIX - would never be able to run without a hardrive, which would add $300 dollars to the final package, excluding any liscencing fees. You would also have to add some memory to the final machine. 2. MS-DOS - Why don't you buy one of the many laptops out there if you want to run this. The Radio Shack 1100FD for only $700. MS-DOS and Deskmate in ROM, and protability to boot. 3. OS/2 - for the same reasons as UNIX. > Keeping that in mind, we should select a standard > microprocessor. The 80486 and 68040 are out of the question. > They are too expensive. I recommend the Sparc chip. > Its specs can be licensed from Sun which has generously > supported an open architecture. From those specs, we can > design a cheap-o (Don't forget that we are building > this system for students, most of whom are _poor_) RISC > processor--no superscalar features and no branch-prediction. > Heck, we can even use larger feature sizes, like 1.5 micron, > to increase the yield and further reduce the price. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use a CPU that is already out there and that is really cheap, like a 68000? > Now, piece that together with 1 plain-vanilla > 3.5" microfloppy drive, maybe 1 megabyte of memory, a > keyboard, a UNIX disk, a C (not C++) programming language, > a MAC Classic-like window system, a 640 X 400 pixel video > black-and-white (color = too expensive) circuits, and > plain CRT (preferably flat-panel). Yeah. It is very > plain, but it is very cheap and _VERY_ powerful. If > this sounds like a MAC Classic, upgraded to a > RISC chip and UNIX, you're right in thinking that. These specs sound exactly like the Atari 1040STe, with the exception of the UNIX operating system. Plus you have a windowing OS much like the Mac or GS. > How about it Apple? Well, actually, how about it Sun (since > Apple has already committed to the MAC Classic)? > > For $1500, a color system is available. For under a $1100 you can have a Atari 1040STe with color. Here are the specs: 1040STe 68000 Running at 8 MHz. 3 1/2 MS-DOS compatible floppy. Graphics: 640X400 with 2 colors (Only black and white) 640X200 with 4 colors (All colors are out of 4096) 320X200 with 16 colors Windowing OS. Sound: Stereo sound capable of play digitized samples at 44.1 KHz in stereo. Ports: Midi: in and out, Two mouse/joystick ports, monitor port, second floppy port, DMA port, Centronics printer port, RS232 serial port. All for $600 dollars brand new. Add $150 for a mono monitor, or 300 for color, or $450 for a multisync that can display the color and mono resolutions. As for software, you really don't need the real thing, only something that can read/write compatable files for the prg at school. A spreadsheet that produces Lotus 123 comp worksheets, or a database that creates Dbase IV comp files. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~