Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!ditmela!latcs1!stephens
From: stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: "I want my Apple II"
Keywords: Apple ][, Apple ][+, Apple //e, Apple //c, Apple //c+, Apple //GS
Message-ID: <7769@latcs1.oz.au>
Date: 4 May 90 07:05:00 GMT
References: <7758@latcs1.oz.au> <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Lines: 88

In article <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>, toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
> 
>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.)
> 

  This is true, and I'm not denying that they are definate ways of improving
the Apple //GS to make it easier to do greats graphics/sounds/number crunching
etc.  Hopefully we will get the fabled ROM 04 eventually, and many people
_will_ benefit.
  However, the point I was trying to make is that the low-end Apple ]['s are
still viable machines, and nowdays you can get one for a song.  For many
people, an Apple //e could do absolutely _everything_ they required, provided
that the software existed that provided the necessary performance.  There is
already a good base of such software, but nobody has stretched that machine
to it's limits.  For some people, a low-end Apple // may be their best chance
to own a home computer that can do what they need.
   I would love an Apple //GS, but I just can't afford one yet, and I won't
be able to for at least another 2 years.  Meanwhile, I keep on surprising
myself on what I can get my Apple ][+ to acheive.  With such a large user
base installed for the Apple // line, there seems to be a lot of potential
going to waste.  Does _everyone_ need to upgrade to a ROM 04 Apple //GS
or (heaven forbid) a Mac?  Of course not. 

> 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.
> ...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.

  Yes, but who said life was meant to be easy?  Natually as a programmer, I
rejoice when my job is made a little easier by the addition of a blitter or
other co-processors.  A Commodore 64 is a nice machine as a result of this :-)
However, my 10 frame/sec scroller & animator code was a mere 100 lines of
macro assembly, and is itself a general-purpose subroutine.  I whipped it up
in a day.  Of course, I've hit the limit of it's capacity in writing that
routine, so if I wanted more frames per second I _would_ have to move onto a
new platform.  Obviously you've hit that limit as well, so I don't blame you
for wanting the Apple //f.  But not everyone will find themselves in that
situation.

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

  In terms of current sales, that may be true, but what about all of the
thousands of Apple //n owners?  Isn't there enough potential for exploiting
that market?  If some really amazing software came out for the low-end
machines, I would expect that those users would snap it up.  It may even make
them think twice about selling their Apple //n and moving to a rival machine.

> 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.

  Exactly.  I damn well hope that Apple does get the future directions right.
But don't forget all those people who have owned an Apple // for many years,
and would like to see _their_ machine supported without necessarily having
to upgrade.  Not everyone needs the computing power of an Amiga or Mac, or
even a Apple //GS ROM 03.  Maybe one day this won't be true, but I don't
think that day has come just yet.
  An Apple // can do wordprocessing at the required speed.  It can run
arcade games at the required speed (and damn good one's too).  It can run a
modem at the necessary speed.  It can do many of the standard things that
people want a computer to do quite adequately.  It can have wods and wods
of additional memory added to it, it's got Appleworks which everyone loves...
the list goes on and on.

  Getting their act together in hardware is only one aspect of how Apple needs
to be supporting their customers.  I hope that in the near future I will be
able to contribute to the software support that people are crying out for.
There exists the potential to breath new life into the low-end Apple // line
that will help a lot of people, and _that's_ what I'm concerned about most
at the moment - simply because I'm one of those people. 

  As for yourself, keep up the good work in the hardware vein.  The truth is,
I'm right behind you!

</\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\></\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\>
<  Philip J. Stephens                ><   "Many views yield the truth."        >
<  Hons. student, Computer Science   ><   "Therefore, be not alone."           >
<  La Trobe University, Melbourne    ><          - Prime Song of the viggies   >
<\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/><\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/>