Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!LSUVM.BITNET!$CSD211 From: $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: New Apple II generation Message-ID: <9011210256.AA09328@apple.com> Date: 21 Nov 90 01:26:02 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 148 |I maintain that Apple could easily make a GS for the 90's - I've talked to the |engineers and they know exactly what to do. The problem is that too many of |them have been shuffled off to Mac projects (which don't get cancelled half as |often, according to one of them) -- I can't be more specific because I was |under non-disclosure, but I can say that I think Apple is going to make some |very stupid product decisions in the next few years unless they get their |heads out of the clouds and start revving up the Apple // groups. C'mon...Isn't it time to stop HOPING that Apple will wise up. Apple is a business, owned by shareholders; they must keep those shareholders happy. Those shareholders aren't happy when they pick up a newspaper or magazine stating that their products are out of date or not competitive. Business has been bad for Apple; their market share is in free fall. They can't respond with an Apple //f - no matter how many DMA controllers, blitters, or Direct Slots there are - the Apple II is percieved as obsolete technology. There will be just enough people in the media who know about electronics to say "Hey, its still just a jumped up //e - with a 8-bit processor" (whine all you want about architecture) The New Macs do everything that their sharholders wanted (i.e. what the media demanded - lower cost). The Apple II is just not very popular...it has a very sticky image of being obsolete. Even the //f won't get rid of it. Sure the engineers know what to do, but they don't call the shots. The Marketeers do. Did you hear what an Apple spokesperson said (reported in the Dec. inCider: "Our market research shows that people don't really use expansion slots". That, coupled with recent reports that Apple is hard at work building a RISC replacement for the Mac would lead anyone to conclude that the Apple II is the last thing on their minds. |>If this is possible, I might assemble a groups of programmers and developers |>to create and market this new machine. It would basically be a IIGS upgraded |>to modern standards. | |I'm all for it, but beware of the resource investment you may be looking at. |I'd look into licensing technology from Zip and maybe CVT, and especially the |ASIC Technologies guys -- you will also need a VLSI ASIC service and a system |to design the custom chips on. This can cost $$$ rapidly. Oh, great! You mean we have to fight Apple and Zip too??? |>4 Meg memory, | |better yet just put SIMM sockets on the motherboard, or include a slot that |is more or less compatible with the existing memory slot (it might require |faster RAM though). Support up to 12 megs w/ DMA compatibility, etc. As long as it supports 4 Mb SIMMS (and above), I have no quarrels |>ENSONIQ sound, | |with at least stereo decoding on the motherboard. there are a lot of things |that could be done here but I'll save them. Yeah, I really like the way Todd described it in the //f paper (i.e. mapping Ensoniq registers to the address space of the '816. How much trouble would it be to add a DSP (i.e. Motorola 96002, TI 32020, etc.)? |>15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. | |whoa there. this sort of relies on the completion of the ASIC 65816 clone, |which is chugging along but isn't available yet. Whoa there is right! There's alot we don't know about the ASIC (i.e. How compatible, how reliable, how much, how many). The guy was talking about building a Apple IIgs built to "modern standards" Modern standards sound like marketing talk to me, in which case, even with the ASIC, this enhanced GS clone is still just a jumped up //e. Who has the fastest GS right now? According to what I've read, the fastest GSs run modified Transwarps at 13 MHz. Faster accelerators could be built...say by taking a inherently faster processor (say the ARM, or the Advanced Micro Devices AMD 29000) and emulating the 65816 instruction set (uh-oh, I said the "E" word). One has to ask oneself: (1) How long will it be before the ASIC is available in production quantities? (2) How reliable and compatible will it actually be? (3) How much will it cost in production quantities? (the usual answer for new chips is "not cheap") An enhanced version of the ARM (a RISC chip produced by VLSI) and the AMD 29000 are available now, in quantity, and at reasonable costs. In the case of the ARM, it can be had in production quantites for less than the cost of a 80286. In a benchmark that I posted in the spring, the Archimedes A310, using an ARM at 5 MHz, easily beat a Compaq Deskpro 386 (20 MHz) in all areas except floating point math. An enhanced version of that chip is available that runs over 20 MHz with an onboard cache. The AMD 29000 is a very fast RISC chip that even without a cache of any kind could emulate an '816 faster than the ASIC. With a cache it could easily beat out a NeXT at half to 3/4 the cost (i.e. 17 MIPS, 192 gen. purpose registers, 42000 Dhrystones/second, far less than the cost of a 68040). Oh but I can hear everyone already..."If your going to emulate, why not buy a Mac LC". Because with these chips (I favor the ARM - it's cheaper) one could build a system that is competitive in price with the Mac LC, but far superior in terms of capability. Prices for complete systems would range from $1500 bare bones to $2500 loaded-to-the-gills, and could have slots and built in language and toolbox support...i.e. a 32-bit BASIC with full access to system resources and the equivalent of MacApp in ROM. Further it could (and should) embrace Unix and X-Windows (something I seriously doubt that the '816 could ever do). |> Also, it would have an improved tool box and more efficient software, which |>would run all the goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). | |tool box we can do. porting Pagemaker is up to Aldus and getting their support |would be a truly formidable task. Aldus would be more willing if they thought they were making Pagemaker for X-Windows. Timeworks would probably leap at the chance. |> Basically, I'd like to built a II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, |> for about 1000 or so, everything included (printer, monitor, hard drive, | |don't even try to do it with everything included, unless the thing is extremel |closed (yuck). I'd shoot for a bare minimum system (floppy, cheap mono, 1 meg) |at $1000 (like the Mac Classic) but make the thing eminently expandable out |of the box. Everything included, I doubt it could be done for 1000. Two-thousand, mabye. Bare minimum sounds good...as long as there were many expansion options. As an aside, I'd find a cheap(er) CD-ROM drive than Apple's (say one of those internal CD-ROMs available for PCs) and offer it as an option. The case definitely needs redesigning. |>Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? | |I think it bears further research, but be warned that Apple might take legal |action over the ROMs -- GS/OS currently checksums the ROMs extensively (or so |I'm told), a very antisocial thing to do. I don't know how much Apple would |care, because they've been trying to keep their options open (last scuttlebutt |I heard was that if the LC doesn't kill the // in schools then the // will |finally get the attention it deserves). Apple wouldn't LET you do it, no. There would definitely be a fight. As far as the ROMs go...you would definitely have to document everything extensively. Checksums sound a lot like copy protection; this is a cracking job...make a renegade GS/OS that dosen't do checksums, or thinks that they have already been done. It's doable...look at Tandy. And they said that Microchannel was unclonable. |Todd Whitesel |toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ! @LSUVM.BITNET ! ------------------------------