Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: "I want my Apple II"
Keywords: Apple ][, Apple ][+, Apple //e, Apple //c, Apple //c+, Apple //GS
Message-ID: <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 3 May 90 21:30:48 GMT
References: <7758@latcs1.oz.au>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 62

stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) writes:

>  For instance, if I was to ask you if it was possible to write an arcade
>quality game on a 1 MHz Apple ][+ with a fully animated background that
>scrolled smoothly up or down at 10 frames per second, how many of you would
>raise your hand and say it could be done?  Well, for those of you who didn't,
>you will be amazed to learn that it _can_ be done.  I've got the code to
>prove it.

Great! But with IIGS Super Hires the BEST you can theoretically do is 30 frames
(with a DMA card!) and in software the maximum is about 17 and it isn't that
clean.

>  This being the case, imagine what I could do on an Apple //GS; the prospects
>are awesome.

They are, it's just that Apple has crippled us with an archaic 1 mhz bottleneck
and a brain dead sound interface that takes a lot more CPU work than it should.
(Music is not a problem, it's long sounds that gobble the CPU.)

> Of course, we are not limited to CPU-intensive games here, but
>I chose this example as most people tend to be more impressed with a computers
>graphics and sound capabilities than anything else.

True, but until a bunch of funamental design flaws in the GS are fixed (and
they are so simple that they are practically obvious to hardware folks!) the
true potential of the GS will be nowhere near as easy to exploit as the Amiga.
(If they ever get some respect they will be a serious threat to both Apple //
and Macintosh.)

>  We have had numerous reports of non-apple users being wowed by the
>Apple //GS's "modest" speed, "modest" graphics, "modest" sound.  So why aren't
>Apple users happy?  Isn't their current machine good enough?  I would suggest
>that it is!

It is NOT. It was never good enough to do justice to the desktop, and it
barely is now! A properly written set of tools (ORCA/C is what the desktop
should be!) would satisfy most of us. However, the fabled 1 mhz bottleneck is
putting severe dampers on my supposedly kick-butt fill mode animation system.
In the current GS I'll have to pull lousy tricks to get clean animation --
tricks I shouldn't have to pull.

>  Maybe Apple is being a little slow in demonstrating their continuing support
>for the Apple //.  Certainly, it's nice to be able to grab a faster, more
>impressive machine if it's available, if that's what you want.  But I believe
>that it's more important to recieve the software support for existing //'s
>than it is to see new hardware on the horizon.

Problem: the two are linked. Software support is hard to drum up in a market
that appears to be dying.

Current Rumors of the ROM 04 and 6.0/Hypercard GS would give the GS a real shot
in the arm, and might keep it around until something like my //f comes out.
If Apple wants to compete in the 90's, they're going to finally have to go for
coprocessing hardware like the Amiga's -- but Apple has the chance to do it
RIGHT, with full tool support and with specialized parts, none of this 'chip
RAM' that every coprocessor has to fight for. A distributed system based on
custom gate arrays and specialized IC's is the real answer. Apple has the
capability to build such a machine, and I propose one in the Apple //f paper.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu