wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/29/90)
It occurs to me that we may possibly be panicking too soon on the subject of the Apple II's "death." After all, whether Macintosh Inc. discontinues the Apple II or not, my trusty Apple II will remain on my desk. Nothing Scully can do can make it disappear. And I think software vendors can see that. I mean, we say that there is no new software for the II, but is this really true? Appleworks is up to version 3.0 now. Several new GS games just came out. You can get a scanner for the II line that (on a GS) will do high speed Optical Character Recognition. Third party hardware companies are still developing stuff (RamFast SCSI, Zip chips, AE stuff) to enhance already existing systems. All we have to do is to vote with our dollars (ie. buy some of the stuff) in order to make sure it keeps coming. In fact, I like it this way. I don't want an Apple IIgs+, because if one came out, it would I would probably not be able to upgrade my current system a (a ROM 01 GS). I would much rather AE or a similar company come out with a better video card, etc., which will work with my machine. But this kind of thing can only happen if we express our willingness to buy stuff. So what we should do (IMHO) is stop harassing Apple so much about a decision that I suspect (fatalistic me) is irreversible and instead work on making sure that third party software/hardware producers know that there is still money to be made catering to our needs. Or that's how it seems to me, circa 1:52 a.m. 'night Bill Gulstad
noahm@pro-freedom.cts.com (Noah Magram) (10/29/90)
In-Reply-To: message from wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
True, True!!!! THE APPLE ][e WILL NEVER DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apple
doesn't control Apple computers in the world. If Apple drops support, SO
WHAT?!?!? Apple service has been terrible, they've hardly made more than about
2% of the software on the market, and all they do is wait while people on the
other end of the HOLD collect dust. The Apple is controlled by US, no one
else, just US, the Apple owners. WE keep the Apple ][ ALIVE. Screw Apple, what
good have they done us, no one should care if Apple drops out. Sure, if Apple
drops support for the ][ a few bussnisses will die, BUT THE MAJIORTITY IS
STILL THERE!!! If we give up the Apple, the Apple dies. If Apple drops the ][
hardly any damage is done.
Apple
/ /
/ /
/ / EEEE
/ / E
/ / EE
/ / E
/ / EEEE
*********
*FOREVER*
*********
----
ProLine: noahm@pro-freedom
Internet: noahm@pro-freedom.cts.com
UUCP: clark!pro-freedom!noahm
ARPA: clark!pro-freedom!noahm@nosc.mil$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (10/29/90)
>In fact, I like it this way. I don't want an Apple IIgs+, because if one came >out, it would I would probably not be able to upgrade my current system a >(a ROM 01 GS). I would much rather AE or a similar company come out with a >better video card, etc., which will work with my machine. But this kind of >thing can only happen if we express our willingness to buy stuff. > >So what we should do (IMHO) is stop harassing Apple so much about a decision >that I suspect (fatalistic me) is irreversible and instead work on making >sure that third party software/hardware producers know that there is still >money to be made catering to our needs. Question: aren't you a little tired of having a machine that is strictly second banana in the eyes of its manufacturer (or in the case of the II, more like 13th banana). I imagine there are people out there that still get a lot of use out of their TRS-80s. If you want the II to die that way, fine... Apple will be glad to oblige. But when you go to a software store and see all that new software that your computer won't run...then you'll know what a mistake that would be. Even if there were a IIgs+ (which there won't be) no one would make you buy it. No one is saying that you have to buy the latest thing (even though most computer ads these days make it look that way), but the standards for computing (i.e. average systems) are changing and improving (i.e. almost all PC clones are now sold with VGA cards, hard disks, some kind of graphic user interface, and even improved sound capabilities - at prices that are hard to ignore). Either you grow or you die. Three possiblities for allieviating this situation: (1) Take what Apple gives you (i.e. Mac LC) (2) Buy an entirely different computer (i.e. PC, Amiga, NeXT) (3) Fight like hell It's a total myth that we cannot do anything. If Apple won't produce a new IIgs. Mabye Laser could...Perhaps we should be writing to them instead of the deaf ears at Apple. >Or that's how it seems to me, circa 1:52 a.m. > >'night >Bill Gulstad ---------------------------- Mark Orr ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ----------------------------
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (10/30/90)
In article <139800045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >It occurs to me that we may possibly be panicking too soon on the subject >of the Apple II's "death." After all, whether Macintosh Inc. discontinues I haven't heard anything concrete about the II's demise, so I'm going to keep plugging along. (Maybe not just "plugging" along--there's a whole bunch of stuff I'd like to get.) >came out. You can get a scanner for the II line that (on a GS) will do high >speed Optical Character Recognition. Third party hardware companies are still So far as I know, the OCR software is still in beta-test. The "Vitesse ambassador" in our local user group was going to demonstrate the software at the last meeting, but he wasn't able to attend. BTW, the software is supposed to be able to work on the IIe, as well--same as the Quickie, for which 8-bit software was released not too long ago. >So what we should do (IMHO) is stop harassing Apple so much about a decision >that I suspect (fatalistic me) is irreversible and instead work on making >sure that third party software/hardware producers know that there is still >money to be made catering to our needs. I just got a RamWorks III. Are any of the rest of you doing your part? :-) BTW, can I have somebody's opinion regarding the Zip Chip vs. TransWarp III? So far as I know, the Zip Chip doesn't take a slot, but reliability isn't what it could be. The TransWarp III takes a slot (though it's supposed to work in the otherwise useless slot 3), but can be expanded to go beyond its present (7-8 MHz) clock rate. It'll be a while before I get an accelerator (I need to let my credit card recover from the cost of the RamWorks :-) ), but I'll be in the market for an acelerator in the future. Also, I've seen an "InnerExpress" advertised that is supposed to increase the speed of Ingenuity's (ST-506) hard disks. Is this a new controller to replace the original? If it is, could you grab any issue of _Computer_Shopper_ and build an RLL or MFM (which one?) drive to plug into this card? It'd be a whole lot cheaper than SCSI, if it would work. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (10/30/90)
In article <9010291627.AA03471@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >It's a total myth that we cannot do anything. If Apple won't produce a new >IIgs. Mabye Laser could...Perhaps we should be writing to them instead of >the deaf ears at Apple. Laser gave up on trying to clone the GS. I think it's in the latest _A2-Central_ (if it isn't there, try the past few issues of _Nibble_; I don't recall offhand where I saw the article). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
nrunyon%barley.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Neil Runyon) (10/30/90)
In article <2219@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >In article <139800045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>It occurs to me that we may possibly be panicking too soon on the subject >>of the Apple II's "death." After all, whether Macintosh Inc. discontinues Well, are they not suppose to keep making II's, they just are not going to advertise them (make perfect sense to me (?)) Also, what about the article awhile back about Apple showing the IIgs off down under, any truths to that, and if so, why is Apple doing it? >"InnerExpress" advertised that is supposed to increase the speed of >Ingenuity's (ST-506) hard disks. Is this a new controller to replace >the original? If it is, could you grab any issue of >_Computer_Shopper_ and build an RLL or MFM (which one?) drive to plug >into this card? It'd be a whole lot cheaper than SCSI, if it would >work. Would it? I seem to recall being able to get either a MFM, RLL, or SCSI within about $20 of each other. Anyway, SCSI tends to be more reliable then RLL or MFM. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Scott Alfter Neil - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil M. Runyon |Apple IIgs ROM 1 Woz Machine, 1.75 Megs RAM, University of Utah - CS Dept | 62.5 Meg Hard Drive, 4 Speakers, and a Sony. nrunyon@peruvian.utah.edu |APPLE - A Plethera of Penis Licking Executives
markm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Miller) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.113155.24590@hellgate.utah.edu> nrunyon%barley.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Neil Runyon) writes:
<
<Well, are they not suppose to keep making II's, they just are not going to
<advertise them (make perfect sense to me (?))
<
<Also, what about the article awhile back about Apple showing the IIgs off
<down under, any truths to that, and if so, why is Apple doing it?
<
<
<Would it? I seem to recall being able to get either a MFM, RLL, or SCSI
<within about $20 of each other. Anyway, SCSI tends to be more reliable
<then RLL or MFM.
<
< Neil -
<
<-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Neil M. Runyon |Apple IIgs ROM 1 Woz Machine, 1.75 Megs RAM,
<University of Utah - CS Dept | 62.5 Meg Hard Drive, 4 Speakers, and a Sony.
<nrunyon@peruvian.utah.edu |APPLE - A Plethera of Penis Licking Executives
^^^^^^^^
Sorry to nit-pick...but it's 'Plethora'.
Just one of my habits!
Mark
--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
`,`,`Mark Miller`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`Ellie...Ellie...Boo...Bellie!`,`,
`,`,`markm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu,`,`Banana...Fanna...Foo...Fellie!,`,
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (10/30/90)
In article <2219@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >I just got a RamWorks III. Are any of the rest of you doing your >part? :-) BTW, can I have somebody's opinion regarding the Zip Chip >vs. TransWarp III? So far as I know, the Zip Chip doesn't take a I believe the Transwarp III was canned (reliability? limited market?). >slot, but reliability isn't what it could be. The TransWarp III takes >a slot (though it's supposed to work in the otherwise useless slot 3), >but can be expanded to go beyond its present (7-8 MHz) clock rate. >It'll be a while before I get an accelerator (I need to let my credit >card recover from the cost of the RamWorks :-) ), but I'll be in the >market for an acelerator in the future. Also, I've seen an >"InnerExpress" advertised that is supposed to increase the speed of >Ingenuity's (ST-506) hard disks. Is this a new controller to replace InnerExpress is evidently a new firmware chip for the controller. This product recieved the GS+ "Trash Can Award" for misleading advertising, poor product performance, and high cost ($129!!!). I would recommend you not get this. >the original? If it is, could you grab any issue of >_Computer_Shopper_ and build an RLL or MFM (which one?) drive to plug >into this card? It'd be a whole lot cheaper than SCSI, if it would >work. Almost certainly MFM. And, that sounds like a good idea. Too bad the company isn't around, you could ask them to be sure... >Scott Alfter _/_ -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (10/30/90)
In article <2220@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >In article <9010291627.AA03471@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >>It's a total myth that we cannot do anything. If Apple won't produce a new >>IIgs. Mabye Laser could...Perhaps we should be writing to them instead of >>the deaf ears at Apple. > >Laser gave up on trying to clone the GS. I think it's in the latest >_A2-Central_ (if it isn't there, try the past few issues of _Nibble_; >I don't recall offhand where I saw the article). They did WHAT? Gave up? They COULDN'T have been trying very hard. A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, if they improved the design while they were at it. I imagine it's more like, "we don't want to spend the resources when we can make 386 boxes". >Scott Alfter -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (10/30/90)
In article <139800045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >After all, whether Macintosh Inc. discontinues the Apple II or not, my >trusty Apple II will remain on my desk. This is a good point. However, commercial software developers are likely to totally drop the Apple II line, unless there are strong sales of the Apple II software that are currently on the market. Many have already done so. One ray of hope is the emergence of comp.sources.apple2. If enough QUALITY software is made available in source form, other developers will be able to use some of it as a base for their own products, and thus it is possible that the Apple II community may become self-supporting.
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (10/30/90)
>Also, I've seen an "InnerExpress" advertised that is >supposed to increase the speed of Ingenuity's (ST-506) >hard disks. Is this a new controller to replace >the original? If it is, could you grab any issue of >_Computer_Shopper_ and build an RLL or MFM (which >one?) drive to plug into this card? It'd be a whole >lot cheaper than SCSI, if it would work. SCSI is a standard that defines how a drive is supposed to connect to a computer. Any computer that can support a SCSI card/port should be able to use any SCSI drive. It's why you can buy a Seagate or Miniscribe SCSI drive for an IBM (much cheaper this way!) and run it on your Apple. MFM (Modified Frequency Modulation) and RLL (Run Length Limited) refer to the method by which the drive head(s) read and write to the disk. RLL will place about 50% more information on a drive, but there may be problems with reliability if you have a cheap drive. Best way to check whether your drive can handle RLL encoding rather that MFM is to ask the manufacturer. -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.203334.23768@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, ... Not without stealing the firmware ROM, it wouldn't. If you doubt that, try coding up a substantial fraction of the toolbox yourself and you'll see that it isn't at all "simple".
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (10/30/90)
In article <14278@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Oct29.203334.23768@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >>A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, ... > >Not without stealing the firmware ROM, it wouldn't. If you doubt that, >try coding up a substantial fraction of the toolbox yourself and you'll >see that it isn't at all "simple". I figured it'd be you who noticed my "boo boo". However, if Apple liscenced their Mac ROMs to a company that was going to produce a portable, why wouldn't they liscence the GS ROM? Plus- the System Disk contains almost all the tools, so not much of the code would need to be rewritten. I've contemplated this many times, it IS possible. If Apple is cooperative, GREAT! No sweat. If not, well, something could be worked out. (The whole point of the toolbox is to provide a transparent interface to system functions, regardless of the implementation of those functions). What I meant above is that the hardware would be pretty much a piece of cake. The hardest thing would be the old HiRes graphics, but once you understand how it works it's no big deal. (Perhaps acquire some Mega 2s). -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) (10/30/90)
I believe Zip Chip is the only accelerator on the market now. After they sued Bits 'n Pieces over the superior Rocket Chip and won, then then pointed their attention at Applied Engineering. I believe it was because of some of the technology used in TransWarp III. Therefore, AE dropped the accelerator. I suggest you call AE to get the whole story. albert
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (10/31/90)
Who did Apple license the Mac ROMs to? If you're thinking of Outbound,
I should remind you that that system requires you to steal the ROMs from
a Mac Plus or SE.
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (10/31/90)
In article <14278@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Oct29.203334.23768@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >>A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, ... > >Not without stealing the firmware ROM, it wouldn't. If you doubt that, >try coding up a substantial fraction of the toolbox yourself and you'll >see that it isn't at all "simple". Even if you were to start from scratch it would be pretty hard to write code that you couldn't be sued over. One, you'd have to prove that all of your code *is* original, and there's only so many ways of doing some things. Two, it might not even get to the point of win or lose. I have a feeling that Apple could outbid you lawsuit wise in no time at all. ********************************************* * bob church * * bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu * *********************************************
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (10/31/90)
0 @UCSD.EDU> On Mon, 29 Oct 90 20:33:34 GMT Desdinova said: > They did WHAT? Gave up? They COULDN'T have been trying very hard. >A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, if they improved the design >while they were at it. I imagine it's more like, "we don't want to spend >the resources when we can make 386 boxes". A couple of my friends that were at Applefest (I forgot which one) said they saw a WORKING LaserGS prototype. I have no idea why they aren't marketing it though. >Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing >Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) >jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! > Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) >Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST) ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (10/31/90)
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >Laser gave up on trying to clone the GS. I think it's in the latest >_A2-Central_ (if it isn't there, try the past few issues of _Nibble_; >I don't recall offhand where I saw the article). No they didn't. A recent talk with Laser/V-Tech Canada's national sales manager revealed that the only thing stopping them from selling it is the potential legal ramifications. (They did use the ROM's after all). It exists, it works, it's possible.. But it won't happen... until Apple decides to "let it go".. But Apple doesn't know WHAT to do with the IIgs, so I guess all we can do is watch the possibilities waste away? > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Scott Alfter _/_ > / v \ Apple II: >Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! > GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/ --- Email: sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (most mailers won't barf on that..) My comments aren't even worth a disclaimer... pnet91 - 416-237-{1204|0308}. 2400bps only. 1200bps if you do hard breaks.
sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (10/31/90)
acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) writes: >I believe Zip Chip is the only accelerator on the market now. After they >sued Bits 'n Pieces over the superior Rocket Chip and won, then then pointed >their attention at Applied Engineering. I believe it was because of some of >the technology used in TransWarp III. Therefore, AE dropped the accelerator. >I suggest you call AE to get the whole story. > >albert Yup.. AE sent a letter (in May or earlier) to all AE dealers that they were pulling the Transwarp II from the market and had scrapped the development of the Transwarp III, and a similar product was available from Zip Technologies known as the Zip Chip. AE even arranged for dealers with existing orders for TW's of any variety (minus TWGS) to get a discount on the dealer pricing for the Zip Chip.s The TWII lasted a few weeks. the TWIII NEVER EXISTED.. (and no, it never will). But the Transwarp I (or "The Transwarp") still exists. Is still sold. Is still serviced.. and now has a really low price attached to it. Not as cheap as as the Zip Chip though. Matthew --- Email: sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (most mailers won't barf on that..) My comments aren't even worth a disclaimer... pnet91 - 416-237-{1204|0308}. 2400bps only. 1200bps if you do hard breaks.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/31/90)
In article <139800045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >It occurs to me that we may possibly be panicking too soon on the subject >of the Apple II's "death." After all, whether Macintosh Inc. discontinues >the Apple II or not, my trusty Apple II will remain on my desk. Nothing >Scully can do can make it disappear. Yes, I agree with this. I will probably keep my GS forever (for "sentimental" reasons in many years where we all have virtual reality from machines on our desktop, etc! And to play Rescue Raiders!), no matter what other machine(s) I may have. > And I think software vendors can see >that. I mean, we say that there is no new software for the II, but is this >really true? Appleworks is up to version 3.0 now. Several new GS games just >came out. You can get a scanner for the II line that (on a GS) will do high >speed Optical Character Recognition. Third party hardware companies are still >developing stuff (RamFast SCSI, Zip chips, AE stuff) to enhance already >existing systems. All we have to do is to vote with our dollars (ie. buy >some of the stuff) in order to make sure it keeps coming. Well, I honestly don't see how you can actually say and believe all of that.. Yes, you did make a lot of valid points.. But anyone can see that the Apple II (any variety) isn't getting ANYWHERE NEAR as much software or hardware support as it was 5 or so years ago. It seems the Apple II was one of the FIRST platforms software was made for... Now new software is often not made for the Apple II, or if it is, it's usually the last out.. (Maybe the following is due to me being used to the capabilities of the GS, but I don't think it is completely... New software for the Apple II seems like garbage and not anywhere near as good as the old software... EXCEPT Prince of Persia.. I consider that "GS worthy," meaning it's as good as the best GS specific stuff even though it's a //e game). >In fact, I like it this way. I don't want an Apple IIgs+, because if one came >out, it would I would probably not be able to upgrade my current system a >(a ROM 01 GS). I would much rather AE or a similar company come out with a >better video card, etc., which will work with my machine. But this kind of >thing can only happen if we express our willingness to buy stuff. Well, I -do- want a better GS. I want a GS+.. with better graphics and have it faster from the start.. without accelerators.. Ugg? A BETTER VIDEO CARD? That would bring us in the realm of the IBMs and Macs! I'm serious... that's one of my biggest complaints about the IBM world [along with function keys, the work of the devil]... When you have multiple video standards, you have to have software rewritten for different versions. With the lack of software for the II and/or GS nowadays, we certainly don't need MULTIPLE standards! >So what we should do (IMHO) is stop harassing Apple so much about a decision >that I suspect (fatalistic me) is irreversible and instead work on making >sure that third party software/hardware producers know that there is still >money to be made catering to our needs. Well, I think we should keep harrassing Apple. It might not help, but this kind of "consumer protest" works in other fields (like TV {WRITE TO FOX TV ABOUT CANCELLING ALIEN NATION!}, and politics)... -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/31/90)
In a previous article jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes: >Who did Apple license the Mac ROMs to? If you're thinking of Outbound, >I should remind you that that system requires you to steal the ROMs from >a Mac Plus or SE. I don't remember which company it was, but it was Mitsubishi or Hyundai or one of those other Japanese companies that is very recognizable.. (Hyundai makes TTL chips, do they make a whole computer?!) Also, I don't think it was 100% finalized yet.. they were just in SERIOUS negotiations.. [the first time they've been in really serious negotiations about licensing the ROMs] -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/01/90)
On Wed, 31 Oct 90 05:00:04 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > >No they didn't. A recent talk with Laser/V-Tech Canada's national sales >manager revealed that the only thing stopping them from selling it is the >potential legal ramifications. (They did use the ROM's after all). It exists, >it works, it's possible.. But it won't happen... until Apple decides to "let >it go".. You mean that Laser might actually get 'control' of the GS??? That would be GREAT!!! >--- >Email: sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (most mailers won't barf on that..) >My comments aren't even worth a disclaimer... >pnet91 - 416-237-{1204|0308}. 2400bps only. 1200bps if you do hard breaks. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
f175011@yogi (11/01/90)
In article <71@generic.UUCP> sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >>Laser gave up on trying to clone the GS. I think it's in the latest >>_A2-Central_ (if it isn't there, try the past few issues of _Nibble_; >>I don't recall offhand where I saw the article). > >No they didn't. A recent talk with Laser/V-Tech Canada's national sales >manager revealed that the only thing stopping them from selling it is the >potential legal ramifications. (They did use the ROM's after all). It exists, >it works, it's possible.. But it won't happen... until Apple decides to "let >it go".. > >But Apple doesn't know WHAT to do with the IIgs, so I guess all we can do is >watch the possibilities waste away? With all this talk of letter-writing campaigns to Apple...maybe we ought to try and reverse the tactic. Rather than writing letters saying "Hurry up and support the GS and make wondrful things for it" say "Hurry up, and give up the GS, and just license out the ROMS tos omeone else, so you can do what you want - support Macs". It seems licensing ROMs would be a good idea. Apple would get money since they would charge companies to buy the license. Then probably also charge money for every unit the company sells. They'd get a lot of satisfied people since Apple did what everyone wanted - ie: help support the II (even if it's not APple inc directly...teh end result is the same). Last...how did Laser get around the non-GS ROM licensing problem? Is the GS ROM so much incredibly more difficult to do than a IIe ROM? |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Internet pthirose@ucdavis.edu : USnail Mail : "Violence is the | | BITNET pthirose@ucdavis : Paul Hirose : last refuge of | | UUCP ucdavis!pthirose : 230 A St, #18 : the incompetent" |
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/01/90)
Yes, Hyundai does make a whole computer; they have a line of MS-DOS
machines. The Apple/IBM dealer in my hometown carries them. They are
incredibly inexpensive machines.
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/01/90)
In article <8353@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > Ugg? A BETTER VIDEO CARD? That would bring us in the realm of the >IBMs and Macs! I'm serious... that's one of my biggest complaints about >the IBM world [along with function keys, the work of the devil]... When you >have multiple video standards, you have to have software rewritten for >different versions. > With the lack of software for the II and/or GS nowadays, we certainly >don't need MULTIPLE standards! If, for example, a 640x400 mode acts like a 640x200 mode until the program does something special to enable the higher resolution (UHR?), then all GS software can contniue to be used with no problem, and very likely only minor changes would be needed to adapt well-written applications so that they would detect the larger available size for GrafPorts and exploit it. Note that there is already a 640x400 video overlay card available for the Apple II and IIGS. While it isn't quite what is wanted for an enhanced GS, it is quite useful. At the A2Central Apple II Developer's Conference (a.k.a. KansasFest), some commercial educational software was demoed that really made nice use of the VOC; also, an experiment to try to use the VOC's 640x400 mode for the IIGS Finder was exhibited (not fully bug-free). Since 640x400 is approximately the resolution of NTSC (broadcast TV), it is an important resolution to strive for in home computers. Relatively few people yet demand 1280x1024x24 resolution such as is found on top-end interactive graphic workstations. (We have those here, and the improved resolution really is nice.)
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/01/90)
YES. The GS ROM _is_ much more difficult to do than the //e ROM. The
//e ROM contains a self test, Monitor ROM, and some version of AppleSoft
BASIC. The GS ROM contains all that, plus the mini-assembler, plus an
enhanced monitor, plus some I/O stuff. That's the easy part. Now the
hard part -- the IIgs ROM also contains Toolbox code, the Control Panel,
Alternate Display Mode, Memory Peeker, and Visit Monitor NDAs, and some
other stuff.
Of these, the most difficult to write is the IIgs toolbox, which is
quite large, and considerably cleaner than the Mac toolbox. The //e ROM
is 16K. The IIgs ROM is 128K. That's a considerable difference.
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/01/90)
In article <9148@aggie.ucdavis.edu> pthirose@ucdavis.edu (Paul Hirose) writes: >>[Stuff about a Laser GS clone deleted] >With all this talk of letter-writing campaigns to Apple...maybe we ought >to try and reverse the tactic. Rather than writing letters saying "Hurry >up and support the GS and make wondrful things for it" say "Hurry up, and >give up the GS, and just license out the ROMS tos omeone else, so you >can do what you want - support Macs". > >It seems licensing ROMs would be a good idea. Apple would get money >since they would charge companies to buy the license. Then probably >also charge money for every unit the company sells. They'd get a lot >of satisfied people since Apple did what everyone wanted - ie: help >support the II (even if it's not APple inc directly...teh end result >is the same). But I think that a lot of the general public wouldn't buy a non-"big name" computer... Unless this would sort of be the same as the zillion IBM clones around, but I see it in a different light but I can't really explain why.. (Well, for one that there'd only be one company and not zillions) Lots of people now won't buy something if it doesn't say IBM on it, and I believe there are probably people who believe that about Apple also. Giving/licensing the GS to Laser (or Applied Engineering, I'd say... They seem to be technical whizes) is better than NOTHING, but I say prodding and presuring Apple to do something is still the best thing.. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (11/01/90)
In article <72@generic.UUCP> sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >The TWII lasted a few weeks. the TWIII NEVER EXISTED.. (and no, it never >will). I'm sure I saw ads for the TransWarp III in _Nibble_ a few months ago. I haven't seen them since, though, and nobody seems to be advertising them. Both the AE and QC catalogs only list the TransWarp (original), which is a shame since the 8 MHz Zip Chip is so much faster. Quick question: is the Zip Chip made in the USA? It'd make the decision to pick it over the TW so much easier if it is. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/02/90)
On Thu, 1 Nov 90 00:57:19 GMT Jeffrey T. Hutzelman said: > YES. The GS ROM _is_ much more difficult to do than the //e ROM. The >//e ROM contains a self test, Monitor ROM, and some version of AppleSoft >BASIC. The GS ROM contains all that, plus the mini-assembler, plus an ----------------------- Just a minor correction, the //,//+,//e,//c,//c+ also had the mini assembler. Some of those earlier computers needed an integer basic language card to use it though. *F666G will start it up. >-------------------- >Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 >Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >>> Apple // Forever!!! << ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on frog licking.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/02/90)
>Since 640x400 is approximately the resolution of NTSC (broadcast TV), it is >an important resolution to strive for in home computers. Relatively few >people yet demand 1280x1024x24 resolution such as is found on top-end >interactive graphic workstations. (We have those here, and the improved >resolution really is nice.) Why stop there? VGA cards with resolutions of (640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768) are available for less than $300 for most PC clones. In many cases VGA cards can be had for $150 or less. I might remind you that higher resolution cards have been available for the Apple II before (but are no longer available). Demco Electronics made a 640x350 board (roughly equivalent to EGA resolution) for desktop publishing applications a few years ago. A while back Number Nine made the famous Number Nine Graphics board which (depending on options) could give the Apple II 512x512x16 colors, 768x768x4 colors, or 1024x1024 monochrome. The card had its own video processor (NEC 7220) and its own memory (not VRAMs) . Multiple cards could be linked together for increased resolution, colors speed, etc. That card was produced from 1982-1984. Some software was produced for that board...some applesoft and machine language primitives, a paint program, a special version of CADApple. That company has moved on to produce professional graphics boards for the PC (ie. expensive ones using the TMS34010/34020) I find it fascinating how II users drool over the GS's capabilities but few of them know that speed and graphics far superior to what we have today was available in the past (back when the Apple II was the world's most popular personal computer). Don't get me started on coprocessor boards... ---------------------------- Mark Orr ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ----------------------------
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (11/02/90)
In article <9011011645.AA13315@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >On Thu, 1 Nov 90 00:57:19 GMT Jeffrey T. Hutzelman said: >>The GS ROM contains all that, plus the mini-assembler, plus an > ----------------------- >Just a minor correction, the //,//+,//e,//c,//c+ also had the mini assembler. >Some of those earlier computers needed an integer basic language card to use >it though. Yet another correction: The need for the intbasic card means that the feature was not built into the ROM itself. The intbasic firmware card (the original ][ firmware) has the miniassembler. The ][+ and //e do not have it by default (you either buy an intbasic firmware card or a 16k ram expansion and load the intbasic firmware into it). The //c and later machines do have it. I think (but am not sure) that the enhanced //e has it as well. There you have it. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. Every now and then one makes a mistake. Mine was probably this post.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/02/90)
In art <9011011645.AA13315@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >Just a minor correction, the //,//+,//e,//c,//c+ also had the mini assembler. >Some of those earlier computers needed an integer basic language card to use >it though. > >*F666G will start it up. The unenhanced //e doesn't have the mini-assembler. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
msuacm@plains.NoDak.edu (MSU ACM Student Chapter) (11/02/90)
Another way to invoke the mini-assembler is to type '!' from the monitor... To get to the monitor type ]call-151 The mini-assembler commands are documented in a supplement to the //e that I got from a dealer after much begging, even though they were supposed to be given to everyone. To use it... type the starting address followed by the mnemonic instruction(s) you wish to execute. For the following lines of code, either do the same with the next instruction(s) or type a space then just the mnemonic codes and the monitor will add the line in next into memory. There are a few other features that I can't remember offhand... but if you send e-mail with any questions and can be patient, I'll get back to you. Eric Ondler <msuacm@plains.nodak.edu>
ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) (11/02/90)
In article <9011011645.AA13315@apple.com>, MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU says: > >Just a minor correction, the //,//+,//e,//c,//c+ also had the mini assembler. >Some of those earlier computers needed an integer basic language card to use >it though. > >*F666G will start it up. If you boot up a dos 3.3 system master and get integer basic loaded up, you do a 'c080' first.
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/02/90)
On Thu, 1 Nov 90 18:38:05 GMT David C. Whitney said: >Yet another correction: The need for the intbasic card means that the >feature was not built into the ROM itself. The intbasic firmware card >(the original ][ firmware) has the miniassembler. The ][+ and //e do >not have it by default (you either buy an intbasic firmware card or a >16k ram expansion and load the intbasic firmware into it). The //c and >later machines do have it. I think (but am not sure) that the enhanced >//e has it as well. I'm pretty sure that the //e (unenhanced) had it. I have a Franklin Ace 1000 (pre-//e enhancement clone) that had it without loading in intbasic. Also, according to an OLD (1981) book called Apple Machine Language (where I got the info today) said the same thing. >Dave Whitney >Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug >dcw@lcs.mit.edu | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. >Every now and then one makes a mistake. Mine was probably this post. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on frog licking.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (11/02/90)
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: > >You mean that Laser might actually get 'control' of the GS??? That would be >GREAT!!! I never said that Laser would, could or is interested in getting control of the IIgs? If they ever did, they have an existing hardware design that would allow them to produce compatible machines... (i.e. ROM chips). >| | | >| This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | >| This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | >| This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | >|____________________________________|_______________________________| --- Email: sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (most mailers won't barf on that..) My comments aren't even worth a disclaimer... pnet91 - 416-237-{1204|0308}. 2400bps only. 1200bps if you do hard breaks.
sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (11/02/90)
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >In article <72@generic.UUCP> sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >>The TWII lasted a few weeks. the TWIII NEVER EXISTED.. (and no, it never >>will). > >I'm sure I saw ads for the TransWarp III in _Nibble_ a few months ago. >I haven't seen them since, though, and nobody seems to be advertising >them. Both the AE and QC catalogs only list the TransWarp (original), >which is a shame since the 8 MHz Zip Chip is so much faster. There is a difference between advertised product, and actual product. The TWIII never existed as a product and I have a letter from the president of AE to prove it (signed by the big Rob Carrol himself!). > >Quick question: is the Zip Chip made in the USA? It'd make the >decision to pick it over the TW so much easier if it is. The Zip Chip to my knowledge, and at last check in my IIe is manufactured in the USA. I would take the Zip Chip personally.. but my opinion is hardly indicative of anymore than 10 human beings available on a sample street corner. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Scott Alfter _/_ > / v \ Apple II: >Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! > GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/ --- Email: sysadmin@pnet91.cts.com (most mailers won't barf on that..) My comments aren't even worth a disclaimer... pnet91 - 416-237-{1204|0308}. 2400bps only. 1200bps if you do hard breaks.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/02/90)
In article <9011012226.AA23010@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >I'm pretty sure that the //e (unenhanced) had it. I have a Franklin Ace >1000 (pre-//e enhancement clone) that had it without loading in intbasic. >Also, according to an OLD (1981) book called Apple Machine Language (where >I got the info today) said the same thing. Before my GS hit puberty, it was an unenhanced //e. (Which is to say I upgraded my unenhanced //e to a GS) It definitely did NOT have the mini-assembler in ROM. I remember there was some amazingly small (like 4-8 DOS3.3 blocks... maybe it was a ProDOS program.. I forget, but it was teeny) program that was the mini-assembler, but you had to run it from disk... No call-151 and ! then.. It's built in the GS though and many of the other //s. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
s25bt@gandalf.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Kong) (11/02/90)
In article <9011012226.AA23010@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: > >I'm pretty sure that the //e (unenhanced) had it. My unenhanced //e needs to load intbasic before $F666G can call up the mini-assembler, so I think all unenhanced models don't have it built-in. Keith Kong
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/02/90)
In article <9011011742.AA18934@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >The card had its own video processor (NEC 7220) and its own memory (not VRAMs). In other words, it was basically a self-contained frame buffer. The problem is that such a third-party peripheral does not receive much support from software publishers, until so many units are sold that it becomes advantageous to support it from a merketing perspective. The Hercules graphics adapter for the IBM PC was one of the few such devices that received much support, apart from ones officially sanctioned by IBM. I suspect the only reason there is even one piece of commercial software that uses Apple's Video Overlay Card is due to the fact that the VOC was backed by the Apple name.
C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) (11/02/90)
No, the mini assembler wasn't included in the ][plus or //e (original) Roms. It is in the enhanced //e Roms however. Just type a ! in the monitor to start it up. I still think it's handy for entering quick bits of code or to test things out, something which would probably appaul Mac users. greg hodgdon c489030@umcvmb.missouri.edu
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.183805.14929@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >Yet another correction: The need for the intbasic card means that the >feature was not built into the ROM itself. The intbasic firmware card >(the original ][ firmware) has the miniassembler. The ][+ and //e do >not have it by default (you either buy an intbasic firmware card or a >16k ram expansion and load the intbasic firmware into it). The //c and >later machines do have it. I think (but am not sure) that the enhanced >//e has it as well. The original IIe ROMs don't have the mini-assembler, but the enhanced ROMs do. Damn good thing they do, too. The mini-assembler's great for quick hacks--it's better than looking up opcodes in the technical reference. :-) Just the other day I hacked together a program to play SoundMaster (or whatever it's called) files from the Mac--used the mini-assembler for the whole thing. It sounds fairly decent (with short 11 MHz samples, anyway) and works on _any_ II--you don't need a GS! The program is over in rec.arts.startrek right now (I wrote the program to play a SoundMaster file of the Borg-ified Capt. Picard speaking to Riker), but I could post it to comp.binaries.apple2 if there's interest in the program. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) (11/02/90)
There's not all that much to the mini-assembler. There are a few differences between the "old" mini-assembler and the one that's in my //c. The basic idea of the mini-assembler is if you type in !addr:mnemonic operand it will assemble one line at the specified address; to continue you forgo the address and just use ! mnemonic operand (i.e. a leading space). The OLD mini-assembler lets you do monitor commands by preceding them with a $; my //c's doesn't. To exit the OLD mini-assembler you do a !$ff69g but on my //c you just hit return on an empty line. Oh, and $ are optional. all numbers are hexadecimal:-) My //c's mini-assembler does support 65c02 opcodes, by the way. There are no other commands in the old mini-assembler, but there may be in the new.
ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) (11/02/90)
In article <9011012226.AA23010@apple.com>, MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU says: > >I'm pretty sure that the //e (unenhanced) had it. I have a Franklin Ace >1000 (pre-//e enhancement clone) that had it without loading in intbasic. >Also, according to an OLD (1981) book called Apple Machine Language (where >I got the info today) said the same thing. The unenhanced //e absolutely did not have it without integer basic loaded in somehow. I just tried it. F666G drew some fancy patterns on my screen and forced me to reboot, but no mini-assembler. an
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/02/90)
While the //e, //c, //c+ could run the mini-assembler, it was not in
ROM. It has to be loaded from disk as part of the Integer BASIC
language card area. The ][, and IIgs have it in ROM. (Not sure about
the ][+; depends on what language is in ROM).
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) (11/03/90)
In article <2335@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) writes: In article <14278@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Oct29.203334.23768@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >>A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, ... > >Not without stealing the firmware ROM, it wouldn't. If you doubt that, >try coding up a substantial fraction of the toolbox yourself and you'll >see that it isn't at all "simple". Even if you were to start from scratch it would be pretty hard to write code that you couldn't be sued over. One, you'd have to prove that all of your code *is* original, and there's only so many ways of doing some things. Two, it might not even get to the point of win or lose. I have a feeling that Apple could outbid you lawsuit wise in no time at all. A blurb in the latest BYTE announces an "upgrade" to Mac+, SE, and 512KE owners.. It's basically a new Mac in a PC AT style case that uses the old Mac ROMs. Speeds comparable to IIci speeds are claimed. The Texas company is also rewriting color quickdraw in order to add color support to the "colorless" ROMs. We'll have to see how long it takes Apple to take action. -Paul -- Paul Nakada | Oracle Corporation | pnakada@oracle.com
UD169430@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) (11/04/90)
In article <8353@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) says: > > > Well, I think we should keep harrassing Apple. It might not help, >but this kind of "consumer protest" works in other fields (like TV >{WRITE TO FOX TV ABOUT CANCELLING ALIEN NATION!}, and politics)... > >-- >/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP >CDs\ >\"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa >Simpson/ They CANCELLED IT!?!?! I thought it was just end-of season or something. That was my 3rd (after ST:TNG and The Simpsons) favorite show!!!! First they kill Alien Nation, then the Apple II...what is this world coming to!?!?! --- Mike Aos "I own a Harley, not just a T-shirt!" ['68 Sporty] East Grand Forks, MN (yeah, it's COLD up here) Are Amiga's really (218) 773-9154 | Woz | that bad? UD182050@NDSUVM1 (.Bitnet?) | Apple IIgs | "Share and Enjoy" UD182050@VM1.NoDak.Edu | (and Sun 2/120) | -Sirius Cybernetics Corporation I like to trade. | 'till I can afford a NeXT | (reserved for a Mac slam) "O captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done, The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won, The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting." _O Captain, My Captain_ -Walt Whitman
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (11/08/90)
In article <9148@aggie.ucdavis.edu>, f175011@yogi writes: >Last...how did Laser get around the non-GS ROM licensing problem? >Is the GS ROM so much incredibly more difficult to do than a IIe >ROM? Back in the days before ProDOS, there was a company that made an Apple II clone that had only enough ROM in it to boot DOS (3.2 or 3.3) and then load either the file FP.BASIC or the file INT.BASIC. Once either of these files was loaded, the onboard ROM waas nolonger needed: These BASIC load files had copies of the Apple II+ ROM in them; they were originally intended to load a RAM card occupying the ROM address space in a real Apple II or II+ to provide the machine with the "other" BASIC (Apple's version of this card was called the "Language Card") -ie: it would load Applesoft into the II or load Integer BASIC into the II+. Thus, this clone avoided the copyright problem re: the ROMs because it required the owner to purchase the Apple DOS System Master disk from Apple, which contained copies of ALL of the Apple II and II+ ROMs (Applesoft, Integer BASIC, the Monitor ROM, and even the Apple Mini-assembler and Sweet16) However, life isn't as easy with ProDOS and GS/OS: both of these use the ROM routines and neither provides a copy of the ROM from which to load into RAM. In the case of ProDOS, one could either first boot with DOS 3.3 to load Applesoft and a copy of the II+ monitor ROM, OR copy the FP.BASIC file from the DOS master disk and use a modified boot routine to load FP.BASIC from the ProDOS boot disk and then load ProDOS. All of this is technically legal because Apple supplied a loadable copy of the ROMs on the Apple DOS master disk (I say "technically legal" because none of this violates the LETTER OF THE LAW, however, it is theoretically possible to convience a court that it is a violation of the intent of the law (although convictions based soley on the intent of a law tend to be hard to get and easy to get over turned)) For the IIgs, however, there is disk based copy of the core routines of the IIgs ROMs - only the Toolbox routines. Therefore a would be clone maker would have to either license the ROMs, leave it to the customer to aquire a set of the ROMs, or implement enough of the ROMs from scratch to satisisfy GS/OS's needs (one of those needs is to match several dozen checksums GS/OS computes over various areas of the ROM - a very nearly impossible requirement) Thus, Apple has effectively locked out clones of the IIgs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks.
scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) (11/09/90)
The ][+ had a miniassembler in ROM -- had a + for 7 years -- and on occasion my mind slept, and I wrote a little something in the assembler: Call -151 ! and suddenly realized I hadn't booted DOS. ////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ Internet: scottr@applesauce.cts.com /\ ts'hahl: /\ 'tis but / / AKA: Monte \/ no retreat \/ a scratch \ \ America Online: ScottR2 /\ no surrender /\ -- M.P. / /----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, / / -- Edgar Allan Poe \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////////////////////
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/10/90)
In article <m0iXUjg-0001h5C@jartel.info.com> scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) writes: >The ][+ had a miniassembler in ROM -- had a + for 7 years -- and on occasion my >mind slept, and I wrote a little something in the assembler: >Call -151 >! >and suddenly realized I hadn't booted DOS. The II+ does not have the mini-assembler in ROM-- it was removed from the AutoStart ROM. You may have had an Integer Basic ROM card with the Old Monitor Rom, but if you did, the way to get into it was > CALL -151 $ F666G The way to get into the Enhanced //e miniassembler is ] Call -151 $ ! -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (11/11/90)
On unenhanced IIe, you have to load Integer Basic to get Mini Assembler into the RAM/aux.
seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) (11/17/90)
In article <2652@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >For the IIgs, however, there is disk based copy of the core routines of the >IIgs ROMs - only the Toolbox routines. Therefore a would be clone maker >would have to either license the ROMs, leave it to the customer to aquire >a set of the ROMs, or implement enough of the ROMs from scratch to satisisfy >GS/OS's needs (one of those needs is to match several dozen checksums GS/OS >computes over various areas of the ROM - a very nearly impossible requirement) Just a simple question about the checksums...is this an anti-clone precaution or the way that GS/OS determines what revision ROM you have? Neither? Both my rationalizations seem unlikely. -- Dave Seah | Omnidyne Systems-M | INET: seah@ee.rochester.edu | | "User-Friendly Killing Machines" | America Online: AFC DaveS | ^..^ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov16.160414.10965@ee.rochester.edu> seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah) writes: > >Just a simple question about the checksums...is this an anti-clone >precaution or the way that GS/OS determines what revision ROM you >have? Neither? Both my rationalizations seem unlikely. I suspect it is just a simple quality control measure-- when you are mass producing ROMS, you are bound to get a few bad ones, and it is best to know before you have put them on the circuit board. As an anti-clone measure, it would fail-- I understand that there are algorithms out there that let you figure out how to make a given CRC come out right, and checksums are trivial. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/26/90)
In article <9010310002.AA02158@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >0 > @UCSD.EDU> > >On Mon, 29 Oct 90 20:33:34 GMT Desdinova said: >> They did WHAT? Gave up? They COULDN'T have been trying very hard. >>A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, if they improved the design >>while they were at it. I imagine it's more like, "we don't want to spend >>the resources when we can make 386 boxes". > >A couple of my friends that were at Applefest (I forgot which one) said they >saw a WORKING LaserGS prototype. I have no idea why they aren't marketing it >though. > Ever heard of copyright and/or patent laws? I don't even think BUILDING a clone was legal, let alone marketing it! (Desigining would be legal I think) -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/26/90)
|>On Mon, 29 Oct 90 20:33:34 GMT Desdinova said: |>> They did WHAT? Gave up? They COULDN'T have been trying very hard. |>>A //gs clone would be bloody simple to make, if they improved the design |>>while they were at it. I imagine it's more like, "we don't want to spend |>>the resources when we can make 386 boxes". |> |>A couple of my friends that were at Applefest (I forgot which one) said they |>saw a WORKING LaserGS prototype. I have no idea why they aren't marketing it |>though. |> | Ever heard of copyright and/or patent laws? I don't even think |BUILDING a clone was legal, let alone marketing it! (Desigining would be legal |I think) | | |-- |zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM I haven't heard anything about the LaserGS clone. Nevertheless, the only thing that should be legally questionable is the ROMs; since any decent clone maker would know that in cloning a GS (or a Mac) you would lose some hardware. (i.e. ADB, Smartport, the particular implementation of the serial ports, most of the internal gate arrays, etc.). But losing hardware dosen't preclude building a clone...If you wanted to build an enhanced GS clone, you would get all the documentation you could, get a team together and take apart the GS ROMs; figure out what apple did and come up with an alternative means to do it. Alternatively (expect to lose some compatibility), you could look at the software for the GS and figure out a way to make it work on your clone; look at what in the system it calls, what it requires of the system, and superimpose that over the well cloned apple //e ROMs. Building a GS clone is tricky, but by no means illegal,immoral,irrational, unsanitary, etc. If you build your clone in a foreign country, Apple can't touch you...Asia is full of illegal clones (anyone ever heard of the Happy Joiner?). How much GS compatibility are we willing to give up? ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ! @LSUVM.BITNET ! ------------------------------
pyrros@cis.udel.edu (Christos Pyrros) (11/28/90)
In article <9011271241.AA27895@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: > >Building a GS clone is tricky, but by no means illegal,immoral,irrational, >unsanitary, etc. If you build your clone in a foreign country, Apple can't >touch you...Asia is full of illegal clones (anyone ever heard of the >Happy Joiner?). > >How much GS compatibility are we willing to give up? > HOLD IT, HOLD IT, hold it, hold it!!! The Apple IIGS is barely compatible with _itself_, and you expect to get a shred of compatibility from a backwards-engineered renegade machine? Well, ok, maybe you could get more compatibility if you didn't use System 5.0.3, but I don't think it's worth the bother. Apple II Forever!* *forever to be defined at next Apple // unveiling {don't hold your breath} Chris
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/29/90)
|In article <9011271241.AA27895@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) | writes: |> |>Building a GS clone is tricky, but by no means illegal,immoral,irrational, |>unsanitary, etc. If you build your clone in a foreign country, Apple can't |>touch you...Asia is full of illegal clones (anyone ever heard of the |>Happy Joiner?). |> |>How much GS compatibility are we willing to give up? |> | |HOLD IT, HOLD IT, hold it, hold it!!! The Apple IIGS is barely compatible |with _itself_, and you expect to get a shred of compatibility from a |backwards-engineered renegade machine? | |Well, ok, maybe you could get more compatibility if you didn't use System |5.0.3, but I don't think it's worth the bother. A shred may be all we need...if it can run most of the more popular programs then what's the difference. By saying that the IIgs is "barely compatible with itself" I am assuming that you refer to the ROM01/ROM03 differences...in which case you have a point (which machine do we emulate?). ROM01 would be a better choice since it runs more programs. Sure, it would be lovely if Apple just gave up on the II and let someone else develop it...but they won't. The II is a cigarette, and Apple is going to smoke it 'till the filter burns. Take inCider for instance (Apple's paid propaganda magazine)...Look what they're saying...They say the the IIgs is not really an Apple II; can you expect Apple will think much different. As I've been saying, a IIgs clone is NOT what we need. We need an Apple II gateway to the future. I'd buy a computer that "resembled" an Apple II in design (i.e. lots of expansion, ROM BASIC, system monitor,etc.). Sad that no one is willing to produce one. But since computers are now being made for the lowest common denominator... |*forever to be defined at next Apple // unveiling |{don't hold your breath} Oxygen tanks ready! From another post: | Even if a company could make a GS clone with impunity, why would they |want to? The GS is dificult to program, almost unsupported, outdated hardware? |There's much more money in IBM compats.... This is the real problem. Apathy. I can remeber a few years ago whenever you'd look in Sky and Telescope or CQ or QST or 73, you see interfacing projects for the Apple II. Furthermore, lots of hobbyist-type programs were being written for the Apple II. Today, largely due to the elitist-marketing of Apple's brass, the II is largely ignored and the Mac isn't looked upon well either. PC clones have filled the gap for markets where Apple has just given up (weren't glamourous enough, I guess). I have an old Computers and Music catalog from 1985 (they reviewed synthesizer and MIDI hardware, and sold it too); when you look in the back at the list of products they sold, the Apple II section was the largest - only the C-64 came close. But those markets are long gone... Apple wanted to become "The BMW of computer companies." ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ! @LSUVM.BITNET ! ------------------------------
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (11/29/90)
In <9011281629.AA06256@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >This is the real problem. Apathy. I can remeber a few years ago whenever you'd >look in Sky and Telescope or CQ or QST or 73, you see interfacing projects for >the Apple II. Furthermore, lots of hobbyist-type programs were being written >for the Apple II. Today, largely due to the elitist-marketing of Apple's brass, [stuff deleted] >Apple wanted to become "The BMW of computer companies." the II made them more like "the Volkswagen of computer companies" which is apparently not what they wanted to be. It's too bad really. I was very disappointed this week when I saw that Duet had been suspended by Cirtech's perceived lack of support for the II. I like the machine but it has a terrible image. I have a gs and use it mostly for communications & Appleworks 'classic' (no hard drive), but I hesitate to tell people around school what I use at home since I generally get a response like, "a what?! aren't those built with vacuum tubes!?" The occasional person who is interested in hearing what I can do with it is usually surprised that it can handle something like Orca's Prizm; but this only shows how poorly the machine is marketed. Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu