VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET (05/05/90)
From: Bitnet%"toddpw%Tybalt.Caltech.Edu@CitIago.Bitnet" 4-MAY-1990 04:29:34.2
2
To: vs83f8@umkcvax3.bitnet
CC:
Subj: Re: II custom chips...cheaper
Received: From CITIAGO(MAILER) by UMKCVAX3 with Jnet id 7890
for VS83F8@UMKCVAX3; Fri, 4 May 90 04:29 CDT
Received: from Tybalt.Caltech.Edu by Iago.Caltech.Edu with INTERNET ;
Fri, 4 May 90 02:27:54 PDT
Date: Fri, 4 May 90 01:27:26 PDT
From: toddpw%Tybalt.Caltech.Edu@CitIago.Bitnet (Todd P. Whitesel)
Message-Id: <900504012726.01r@Tybalt.Caltech.Edu>
Subject: Re: II custom chips...cheaper
In-Reply-To: Your message <900503212518.21600130@Hamlet.Caltech.Edu> dated
3-May-1990
To: vs83f8@umkcvax3.bitnet
> a) Eng-en-eers. Even with nice computer design and
> simulation, custom designing a chip takes man power,
> cpu time, etc.
How's two people and an Apollo workstation? That's what it took to design
one of the controller chips for the new Mac II video card.
> And we are not talking about a
> relatively simple task of putting simple chips on a LSIC,
> but of designing a modern (I would expect 32 bit to be able
> to directly address real address space for mem,perphs, screen,etc)
> cpu that is backword compatible. This isn't as easy as it seems.
> Look at the work that goes into a vax, or iX86, or 680X0 machine.
> Granted, the 6502 instruction set is hardly a monster, but there
> is still some design work involved.
What the Hell are you talking about? A 65032? I never suggested anything of
the sort. A 65816 running at a reasonable speed (i.e. 7, preferably 14 mhz)
is fine.
> b) Testing. If it don't work the first time, kiss your investment in a)
> goodbye.
Simulation software is pretty sophisticated now. You can sample the design
and test it -- this allows you to get everything working correctly before
volume production begins.
> c) Software. We're talking system stuff. Look at the time and energy
> apple has poured into "system 7.0" on the mac (now pushed largely
> into "8.0" and you get the idea. And because of the rom addressing
> scheme used on the mac, its easy to transparently patch the system
> to be backward compatible (though getting tougher). This is a bit
> tougher on the II.
Oh really... the IIGS toolbox can be patched just as easily. The GS system
software is cleaner and much more forward-thinking than the Mac's -- mostly
due to hindsight from the Mac and (finally) some real vision on the part of
Apple employees.
> But what I truely think apple should do is say, "Look, we can build a decent,
> low-*er* cost II but we may have to lose some compatibility with the older
> machines." And then start from scratch. Take the OS/2 approach, and have
> a compatibility *mode* that may or may not be compatible.
A noble idea; after looking into things I have found that a surprising amount
of compatibility could be maintained. The original architecture is still
really simple, it is just the current implementation that is archaic and
inefficient. Fixing this is so easy... I find it hard to remain civil when
speculating as to why Apple has not bothered to make a decent machine in
five years...
[ snip ]
Your bit about marketing strategies describes the classic Apple paranoia of
selling two product lines. Sooner or later they will figure out that they can
get away with it and then we might see some real support. Porting Mac apps
to the GS is something Apple has been nudging developers toward lately (or
so I have heard). Problem is, we really need a ROM 04 to stir new interest.
The ROM 03 was effectively a pacifier that did not fool anyone.
Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edugwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/08/90)
In article <9005050048.AA26702@apple.com> Todd Whitesel writes: >The ROM 03 was effectively a pacifier that did not fool anyone.> I don't think the ROM 03 IIGS was *intended* to fool anyone; that was merely an updated motherboard, still essentially the same machine. The opportunity was exploited to make some minor improvements (better slot mapping, etc.), as it should have been.