Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!shaunc From: shaunc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Shaun Case) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Modem usage in applesoft basic (sorry) Message-ID: <2206@gold.gvg.tek.com> Date: 23 Apr 91 01:36:40 GMT Article-I.D.: gold.2206 References: <9104200147.AA05353@apple.com> <1991Apr20.054824.22158@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA Lines: 87 In article <1991Apr20.054824.22158@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >Neither can a lot of other machines, and I think it is a symptom of the >generally lopsided development the industry is bent on. Everybody struggles >to implement NEW technologies and legislate everyone else to gain time -- >WHY DOES NOBODY SPEND ANY TIME MAKING THE TRIED AND TRUE TECHNOLOGIES WORK >REALLY REALLY WELL?? Because: 1) The market is smaller than that for newer technologies 2) The profit margin on older technologies is smaller than on newer technologies. I'm not saying it should be this way, just that it is. There is also a school of thought that you should do it right the first time -- there should be no need for putting huge amounts of effort into old technologies, since you thought about things like expansion, reliability, and upwards compatibility while you were still in the specification stage. Additionally, Macs are targeted at a different market than the Apple 2 series was (at first, anyway.) How many people do you know that program their macs, percentagewise, compared to the number of people you know who program their apple 2s? >One of my Mac friends agrees with me heartily on this. Computers in the >future should be self-contained out of the box, with the drivers for the >built in hardware and the O/S (and a few sample applications) in ROM. >When the machine is turned on, it literally starts up the O/S and is ready >to go after polling all installed devices. Hard disks or inserted floppies >are mounted automatically; system extensions and other stuff is loaded >automatically from a volume as it is mounted (unless a key like Option is >held down). A CLI and the core of a programming environment (probably a >mini-assembler designed to work with the operating system, sort of like >the monitor but in a blank process's address space) are available immediately, >perhaps a windowing system and finder if they will fit in ROM. A terminal >program to use the serial ports (using the drivers and communications tools >in ROM) is another must. A small set of HD utilities like the RAMfast's would >be a nice touch (as would a simple game!). This is a pretty good description of the IBM PS/1, I think. >The point is, not only is the computer self-sufficient, but it's USABLE FASTER >than computers that are dependent on system disks just to run. Boot time is >substantially reduced, and the system is designed well enough to allow patching >of nearly everything and installation of things on the fly. Rah! I'm all for that. If you are a computer designer, take a look at Intel's Flash memory technology, especially the JEDEC 2 devices. It is intended for just such an application. >This is the sort of computer I was beginning to concieve of when I wrote the >//f papers. It would be vastly more useful to me than a Sparc or a NeXT. I >could actually believe that assembly on such a beast would be reasonable, >since I don't think it would need an assembly-from-hell RISC CPU to get >good performance, with proper lightweight coprocessors for I/O and DMA Well, if you want it to run multiple processes well, you need virtual memory support and task switching stuff on the processor, which takes away some of the "reasonable"ness. It better be at least 32 bits, too, unless you want your machine to be obsolete before you get one off the line. :-P >built in to the system. Better yet, use VRAMs as a high speed access path >to the sound and video memory (or the cache even). The main memory would >have to be DRAMs to keep the cost reasonable but if that memory is interleaved >then DMA could be done between the main RAM and the 'block transfer bus' at >the bandwidth of the VRAM serial I/O ... Sounds good to me. >Such a machine could probably afford to have a sane assembly language and >would kick butt while remaining a hacker-capable machine, and my life's goal >is to get on the development team for one. Well, don't bother applying at Apple, then. Or IBM. You know, the world really needs a new hot personal computer startup right now. You have a senior project looming in your future, right? >P.S. What I am talking about is the real spirit of the Apple II that Apple and >most of the industry have nearly forgotten in their rush to market everything. Wow, the net is full of great stuff today! Nice change. // Shaun //