Woz thinks of an Apple II improvement over 35 years later

[D Finnigan]

I'm posting this here for the remaining few people who haven't read this
elsewhere.

Our Mike Willegal who makes Apple I and rev 0 Apple II replicas has the
ear of Steve Wozniak and often corresponds with him. Most recently, Woz
mentioned that he had just thought of an improvement to the Apple II.

He said:

"I am totally interested in hearing such things even after all these
decades. I awoke one night in Quito, Ecuador, this year and came up with
a way to save a chip or two from the Apple II, and a trivial way to have
the 2 grays of the Apple II be different (light gray and dark gray) but
it’s 38 years too late. It did give me a good smile, since I know how
hard it is to improve on that design."

Willegal posted this in his blog:
http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=6023#comments

I posted a comment asking if Willegal was going to press Woz to get
more details. He did. This was Willegal's interpretation of Woz's next
reply:

"Regarding the two shades of Grey, they are represented in memory by
either A or 5 which in both cases turns into a 50% duty cycle square
wave going to the video mixer (those three resistors on the right side
of the board). Changing the duty cycle of the signal (percent hi versus
low) will change the shade of grey, as well as affect other colors. Woz
suggested that it could be done with a resistor, capacitor and diode,
though he didn’t specify the exact circuit.

I did some experiments over the weekend and found I could easily get an
effect just by adding a 47pF capacitor to the output of the 74LS74 at
B10, pin 5 (rev 0 schematics). This gave slightly different shade of
gray, but didn’t affect the other colors very much. However that
capacitor and some other things I tried, really messes with the
integrity of the signal, so I’m looking for a “cleaner” solution. Maybe
I’ll try using a 74LS123 one shot, though it kind of violates Woz’s idea
that it could be done without adding chips. Maybe the integrity of the
signal doesn’t matter that much and the simple capacitor solution would
be fine. You could use a variable cap and make the effect adjustable.

This flip flop is clocked by the system 14MHz clock, so you can’t do it
with normal digital logic. Also, fooling with the clock input to that
flip flop would likely upset timing for the entire system.

He didn’t say what he had in mind for eliminating a chip or two."

[jWs]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, D Finnigan wrote:
> I'm posting this here for the remaining few people who haven't read this
> elsewhere.
>
> Our Mike Willegal who makes Apple I and rev 0 Apple II replicas has the
> ear of Steve Wozniak and often corresponds with him. Most recently, Woz
> mentioned that he had just thought of an improvement to the Apple II.

General question(s) regarding this topic: why is less chips always considered better? Sure, if it does exactly what it did before and is just as easy to program, elimination makes sense.

But can anyone think of how if a few MORE chips were added to the Apple II, it could have been made much easier to program, or have been more flexible somehow?

For instance, I've always thought the high res graphics addressing to be overly complicated, and why have a completely non-standard floppy disk format.

- John S.

[David Schmidt]

On 12/4/2014 12:29 PM, jWs wrote:
> General question(s) regarding this topic: why is less chips always considered better?

Sherman, set the Wayback machine to the 1970s. Chips were expensive.
CPUs were insanely expensive. That drove Woz's decision to adopt the
6502 (not his first choice, as I understand it). Every chip added adds
expense and reduced profit. In books I've read, he learned this from
work at other jobs - designs were accepted or rejected (or at least
critiqued) based on chip count. Plus, there's the intellectual
stimulation of getting the most out of the simplest design. The entity
that became Apple Computer, Inc. was in the business of making money -
not making it convenient to move bits around on a TV screen. They
wanted to make it possible, yes - but programmer convenience was not the
primary driver at the time.

[gid...@sasktel.net]

Don't forget that less chips also means a smaller computer, and Woz wanted to make a Personal Computer to use at home and not just in schools. Although, "programmer convience" may not have been the primary driver, Apple somewhat made an attempt at it since they incorporated Applesoft, which made it easy to teach, easy to learn and easy to program.

But the other side of the coin is, since gaming systems were as popular as the Apple was as a teaching aid, adding an extra chip or two would have made graphics and sound that much easier to program and sound better on the Apple. I believe that Apple computer would have sold that many more and would have been even more popular in homes. Maybe even as popular and as powerful as the Amiga with its 16 bit 16000 CPU.

[open...@gmail.com]

The non-standard disk format was a great choice! Having the RWTS in software allowed for enhancements to floppy storage and creative use of the disk.

And the cost argument was compelling. Apple computers had fast disks, and the overall cost was reasonable, meaning many users adopted disk storage quickly. Other computer manufacturers resolved this with cartridges, and cassette, both with strengths, but lacking the simple utility floppy disk storage made possible.

As for the goofy screen addressing, I'm sure many of us would much rather seen something a little more sane, but the color shift bit turned out to be a great choice too.

Many machines presented the 4 color screen. An Apple could do six, and it turns out 6 colors is enough to do most anything. It was just enough. 7 bits per byte was a good call, but the addressing maybe wasn't.

I've always thought it would be cool to just scan more of the screen memory, linear, to get 160 color pixels / screen. It would be more than 40 columns of text, but it would also use the memory better.

A card could do this.

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, jWs wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, D Finnigan wrote:
>> I'm posting this here for the remaining few people who haven't read this
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Our Mike Willegal who makes Apple I and rev 0 Apple II replicas has the
>> ear of Steve Wozniak and often corresponds with him. Most recently, Woz
>> mentioned that he had just thought of an improvement to the Apple II.
>
>
> General question(s) regarding this topic: why is less chips always
> considered better? Sure, if it does exactly what it did before and is
> just as easy to program, elimination makes sense.
>

Design is a criteria, and one design could be "best" while another "best"
yet each is different and based on different criteria.

Steve Wozniak always seems to like to do things with minimal parts count.
So he did figure out how to change this over here so that over there is
done simpler. For commercial equipment, saving 5cents means 5cents
multiplied by how many units are made, which can be significant over the
full run.

It's not just the cost of the component. If the circuit board can use up
less space, that will be cheaper to make, and require a smaller case.
Again, over a lot of units, it can add up.

On the other hand, you can add parts to make things overall simpler. I
have a cheap pocket shortwave radio, sells for $30, is on par with that
horrible desktop radio I bought in 1971 for about $90 (and that was when
money was more valuable). This portable is a simple radio, except they
add an IC and a digital readout, so there is a clock and the ability to
digitally display the frequency the radio is tuned to. It doesn't improve
radio reception performance, but by adding this IC that complicates it so
much (even though the manufacturing process isn't made a whole lot more
complicated), they don't need a dial (and the space required for it), they
don't need to fuss at the factory to calibrate the dial (or just ship it
without caring about calibration), and they can have each band very small,
which makes it easier to tune with the little thumb knob.

In the days of tubes, radios tried to be minimal because tubes were
expensive, and took up a lot of space. When transistors came along, one
could add transistors without much more cost (in money or space) so the
gain could be spread over more stages, and that simplified other things.
When ICs came along, they used a whole lot more transistors to do what was
done with discrete transistors, because the cost of adding a few
transistors meant little to the cost of the IC, but adding transistors
implified overall design.

> But can anyone think of how if a few MORE chips were added to the Apple
> II, it could have been made much easier to program, or have been more
> flexible somehow?
>

But that was his tradeoff. He did cut back on ICs, so one had that weird
spacing of the video memory. He "fixed" it by having a routine to deal
with it, so in effect the gaps in the video memory didn't matter. Other
people designed for minimal software, and while I'm not sure that's a good
example, that sort of thing often means more hardware cost.

He came up with a wonderful floppy disk controller, extremely cheap for
the parts at a time when other floppy controllers used a lot of ICs or an
expensive 40pin IC. But the cost was that the Apple II had to do more in
software (I suspect there would have been problems if there'd ever been a
mutlitasking OS for the Apple II, I suspect the floppy software would have
required too much attention so the rest would slow down during floppy
operations), and they started with a less complicated floppy disk drive.
In the latter case, it didn't make the drives cheaper (despite taking away
a lot of parts), but it meant one couldn't use off the shelf floppy drives
that eventually became so very cheap. And with other computers, one could
have double sided drives, and then later swap 3.5" drives for 5.25" drives
and get more capacity, something that didn't happen so easily with the
Apple II.

> For instance, I've always thought the high res graphics addressing to be
> overly complicated, and why have a completely non-standard floppy disk
> format.
>

It seemed to help at the time. The Apple II was expensive when it came
out, yet was a fairly full blown system when others were bits and pieces
you put together to come up with a similar system. But, it was cheap when
compared to those other systems when they were fully loaded like the Apple
II. If cost had not been a factor with the Apple II, the IC count could
have gone up, and the price gone up, which at the time likely was an
issue.

Later, it mattered a whole lot less. The Apple II had to use off the
shelf components, so cost mattered. When they could use custom ICs in the
IIC and IIE, because they knew they would sell enough to warrant the
overhead of the custom ICs, that was cost cutting in a different form.
But it was only viable when you could front the money for the custom IC in
the first place, something not an option in 1976.

Michael

[Michael J. Mahon]

I think it's interesting that software-oriented people think that
simplifying software is a major hardware design goal. It is not.

Systems are hardware + software. Hardware costs are non-recurring (design)
costs + recurring (manufacturing) costs. Software costs are design costs +
support costs, no real manufacturing costs.

Therefore, as long as low-level software complexity is compartmentalized
and does not significantly add to design costs or contribute to support
costs, it is not an important hardware design factor.

Hardware is freed by low-level software to implement the most
cost-effective hardware by moving recurring manufacturing cost into
non-recurring software design cost--often an excellent tradeoff,
particularly if high volumes can be expected.

Woz, for both personal and professional reasons, was relentless in his
pursuit of greater system functionality from lower hardware complexity, and
he knew how to use low-level software to present a clean system interface.

Beauty or elegance or "design merit" is directly proportional to useful
functionality and inversely proportional to the implementation complexity
required to achieve it.

An elegant design with good cost-performance was key to the success of the
Apple II, and, necessarily, to the success of Apple.

One of the lessons of computer architecture is to never let software folks
design a hardware interface alone--they misunderstand where the real
symmetries are in hardware and fail to exploit them while introducing
countless costly "features". (And they seldom understand what is getting
cheaper and what's getting more expensive.)
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon

[David Schmenk]

Conversely, don't allow hardware folks design a hardware interface alone--they assume whatever mismatch in functionality can be handled later in software. Having insight into both is fundamental to efficient software implementation and cost effective hardware. The hires memory map of the Apple II is always singled out as convoluted and inefficient for software. But in all honesty, the design tradeoff Woz made incurred minimal software overhead and saved a few cents per motherboard and, probably more important, increased reliability. Definitely a big win in 1977.

[Michael J. Mahon]

I agree completely--though, in my experience, experienced hardware
designers are much more likely to appreciate this than even experienced
software designers.

The ignorance of what software is actually doing in hardware has actually
gotten continually worse as language levels have risen and the only API
many programmers learn is tens of thousands of feet above the hardware.

HP's architecture teams were always deep with hardware, software, and
architecture expertise.

"Architecture expertise" involves system-level integration tradeoffs, but,
even more importantly, how to maintain backward compatibility for 20+ years
without constraining the constant evolution of efficient implementations.
Tricky, that. ;-)

Done properly, it allows a large and growing body of software written to
the architected interface to run compatibly and efficiently on a large
range of implementations of that architecture, even when the range of
software applications and hardware implementations is difficult to predict.


History is replete with examples of people accidentally nailing one of
their feet to the ground. Architecture is about preventing that.

> The hires memory map of the Apple II is always singled out as convoluted
> and inefficient for software. But in all honesty, the design tradeoff Woz
> made incurred minimal software overhead and saved a few cents per
> motherboard and, probably more important, increased reliability.
> Definitely a big win in 1977.

Yes, and eliminating the need for a separate DRAM refresh probably saved
several chips, not to mention the performance hit from having to steal
cycles from the 6502 to do the refresh (as the C=64 line did).

Perhaps an even bigger implication of not folding DRAM refresh into screen
refresh would have been the loss of timing determinism for the processor.
The whole scheme of using the 6502 to control the "upper end" of disk I/O
would not have been so easy if processor cycles could be stolen by refresh
circuitry.

Looked at another way, Woz's refresh design is one of the things that made
the use of DRAM a good choice for the Apple II, at a time when SRAM was
still very common.

And doing it all without using a Z80, with it's built-in refresh counter,
or another bunch of multiplexers and counters, each with concomitant
performance hits, was a coup.

You may recall that some machines of the era took all the hits: DRAM
refresh interference, graphics refresh interference, and more complex
hardware designs. The Apple II had none of that.

[Michael Black]

I thought they'd limited it to 40 characters since many were using tv sets
as monitors, and tv sets would have mangled wider lines.

Of course, 80 column cards did come later, and I suspect were pretty
common after a certain point. But there Apple didn't cut corners, if
they'd made the Apple II self-contained, one would have had to buy a new
computer to get those 80 columns. Since the bus connectors were there, it
made the whole thing terribly adaptive. right down to putting various CPU
boards in the computer.

On the other hand, the IIE is pretty neat in terms of being compatible
with the II, but giving 80 columns. Just add more memory to the memory
card, static if you only needed more columns, dynamic RAM if you wanted
more columns and more RAM.

Michael

[mwillegal]

It was interesting to learn that some major components of the Apple II video/DRAM refresh system was already in place in the Apple 1. In fact the video timing counters also feed the DRAM refresh system in the Apple 1. However the refresh data did not feed the video and it suspended the 6502 instead of stealing 1/2 the memory cycle. Even though the Apple 1, suspends the CPU during refresh, the performance difference between the Apple 1 and Apple II is not great, with the Apple II, just a tiny bit faster. The memory mapped video with color graphics was a giant leap forward in functionality. There was major expense in adding the slots to the Apple II, something I read that Woz avocated, and was against Job's wishes. So adding functionality at high cost wasn't always avoided by Woz, when it was deemed important enough.

regards,
Mike W.

[Michael J. Mahon]

In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-proofing that a durable
design needs. Without slots, a requirements shift means having to start
over.

[mdj]

On Friday, 5 December 2014 08:06:50 UTC+10, Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Perhaps an even bigger implication of not folding DRAM refresh into screen
> refresh would have been the loss of timing determinism for the processor.
> The whole scheme of using the 6502 to control the "upper end" of disk I/O
> would not have been so easy if processor cycles could be stolen by refresh
> circuitry.

Not just coalesced, but out of band - or two ~1mhz sidebands either side of a ~2mhz 'carrier' :-)

It is the *quintessential* architecture decision of the Apple II, and it's interesting to note the comparative complexity of two attempts to succeed it. The Apple /// and the IIe. One of them treats the original design as a mistake ;-)

Of course the period of time where memory was faster than microprocessors was very short-lived, and it soon became essential to squeeze out every last hert of available memory bandwidth for computation.

The Apple II though is a near-perfect exploitation of that particular tradeoff, and as you note, it provided the foundation for perhaps the finest example of elegant hardware *and* software design ever devised. The Apple II is bested IMO only by the engineering masterpiece of the Disk II.

Matt

[Steve Nickolas]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-proofing that a durable
> design needs. Without slots, a requirements shift means having to start
> over.

Biggest plus of the Apple ][ over the C64.

-uso.

[Bill Garber]

"Steve Nickolas" <usot...@buric.co> wrote in message
news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1412050450060.70689@localhost...

You can say that 6 more times. ;)

Bill Garber - I love my
C1 F0 F0 EC E5 A0 C9 C9 E7 F3
http://www.sepa-electronics.com

[Your Name]

In article <puqdnaKU7JLN0xzJ...@giganews.com>, Bill Garber

<will...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Steve Nickolas" <usot...@buric.co> wrote in message
> news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1412050450060.70689@localhost...
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> >>
> >> In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-
> >> proofing that a durable design needs. Without slots,
> >> a requirements shift means having to start over.
> >
> > Biggest plus of the Apple ][ over the C64.
>

> You can say that 6 more times. ;)

The C64 had *a* slot, although it was almost totally used for pluging
in games cartridges. :-)

[Bill Buckels]

"David Schmidt" <schm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>The entity that became Apple Computer, Inc. was in the business of making
>money - not making it convenient to move bits around on a TV screen. They
>wanted to make it possible, yes - but programmer convenience was not the
>primary driver at the time.

The design of the Apple II graphics modes until the Apple IIgs is a thing of
beauty, and no harder to program than other computer graphics of the day
like the Commodore 64 and and (a little later) the IBM-PC. I can provide
many examples of programs that I've done for the last 30 years that supports
that last remark.

Today programming and working around the limitations of the Apple II's small
footprint is a source of great joy and a fitting and honourable recreational
activity for an aging mind like mine, but it is really shocking to think
that this all began from the young mind of just one guy with nothing but his
wits and creativity. Some may remember that my hero is not Jobs but Woz,
although I give Jobs credit for the Big Picture, and capitalizing Woz in the
early days.

It's a good thing that Apple and others took care of the busines side and
made all this a reality when they did. The industry they started and moved
along fed many families for many years including mine. Without the Apple II
it's hard to say where we would all be today.

The position of the color space of the Apple II's 16 Lo-Res NTSC colors also
used in DHGR is perfect. Adding the second grey wouldn't change this much,
but changing the position of the other colors in the color space would foul
the color balance I think

Bill

[Gamoe]

*This* is the type of thing I would like included in my Apple II Wiki
project. This covers not only the *technical* aspects of the Apple II,
but it's *historical* development, the *people* and *passion* involved
as well as and underlying design *philosophy*.

Again, please e-Mail me if you're interested in this project. Ther'e's
more on it on the "share your story- Help me make an Apple II Wiki"
thread.

Anyway, thanks for posting this story, D Finnigan! (BTW, I look forward
to purchasing your book at some point once I have some funds.)

[Michael Black]

Yes. But one slot is not that much better than no slots. The Radio Shack
Color Computer also had a slot, and it was fine so long as I only needed
to add a floppy disk controller. When I wanted to add a serial port, I
had to do some work to get "another slot". Radio Shack sold an expander,
but I wasn't spending money on that.

Michael

[D Finnigan]

Gamoe wrote:
>
> Anyway, thanks for posting this story, D Finnigan! (BTW, I look forward
> to purchasing your book at some point once I have some funds.)
>

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I usually lower the price right around
this time of the year.
Right now, retail price is $25 and Amazon is discounting it to $22.50.

I can set retail to $20 and then it will really fly off the shelves, as I've
found out... ;-)

Stand by.

--
]DF$
Apple II Book: http://macgui.com/newa2guide/
Usenet: http://macgui.com/usenet/ <-- get posts by email!
Apple II Web & Blog hosting: http://a2hq.com/

[gid...@sasktel.net]

On Friday, 5 December 2014 15:50:16 UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
>

> > In article <>, Bill Garber
> > <> wrote:
> >> "Steve Nickolas" <> wrote in message

> >> news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1412050450060.70689@localhost...
> >>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-
> >>>> proofing that a durable design needs. Without slots,
> >>>> a requirements shift means having to start over.
> >>>
> >>> Biggest plus of the Apple ][ over the C64.
> >>
> >> You can say that 6 more times. ;)
> >
> > The C64 had *a* slot, although it was almost totally used for pluging
> > in games cartridges. :-)
> >
> Yes. But one slot is not that much better than no slots. The Radio Shack
> Color Computer also had a slot, and it was fine so long as I only needed
> to add a floppy disk controller. When I wanted to add a serial port, I
> had to do some work to get "another slot". Radio Shack sold an expander,
> but I wasn't spending money on that.
>
> Michael

I kind of disagree with the whole slot issue.

One slot is all that is needed. Look at the Laser 128 EX/EX2. Built in serial port with the option to get a serial to parallel adapter. Built in Clock, but even if it didn't have one, at one time there was the No-Slot-Clock. Built in Ram expansion without a slot. Built in 3.6 Mhz CPU and could have been replaced with the 8 Mhz Zip Chip. All I used the one slot for was a hard drive.

And, even apple was getting away from slots. Look at the IIc and IIc+. Really could have used one slot here for the hard drive.

Even the one slot on the C-64 was enough, as an ide card for storing games on a SD card was created for it as well. Can play a lot of games without switching cartridges. A faster cpu and more memory would have almost been redundant on a C-64.

[Michael J. Mahon]

You miss the point.

Slots are not just to add your favorite mass market peripherals. They are
there to allow *any* peripheral to be added!

Built-ins are fine for a "packaged" system when only software
configurability is enough, but there were literally thousands of peculiar
peripherals added to the Apple II, most with no mass market, like electron
microscopes, speech trainers, and gas chromatographs.

Slots are the way a computer says "Welcome!" To the unknown future.

IBM saw it, and it was good.

[Michael J. Mahon]

Because of their root in the 14.3MHz dot clock, all Apple II "pure" colors
are uniformly spaced 22.5 degrees apart in chroma phase. This provides
optimal coverage of the NTSC color gamut for 16 colors.

[Michael J. Mahon]

And the Apple slots have fully decoded select lines and address space, plus
ROM/RAM selects and address space. They even provide bank-switched
extension space, DMA and interrupt support, and onboard ROM disable.

Very capable and convenient slots, indeed.

[Michael J. Mahon]

My thoughts exactly--and I love "hert". ;-)

[gid...@sasktel.net]

> > I kind of disagree with the whole slot issue.
> >
> > One slot is all that is needed. Look at the Laser 128 EX/EX2. Built in
> > serial port with the option to get a serial to parallel adapter. Built in
> > Clock, but even if it didn't have one, at one time there was the
> > No-Slot-Clock. Built in Ram expansion without a slot. Built in 3.6 Mhz
> > CPU and could have been replaced with the 8 Mhz Zip Chip. All I used the
> > one slot for was a hard drive.
> >
> > And, even apple was getting away from slots. Look at the IIc and IIc+.
> > Really could have used one slot here for the hard drive.
> >
> > Even the one slot on the C-64 was enough, as an ide card for storing
> > games on a SD card was created for it as well. Can play a lot of games
> > without switching cartridges. A faster cpu and more memory would have
> > almost been redundant on a C-64.
>
> You miss the point.
>
> Slots are not just to add your favorite mass market peripherals. They are
> there to allow *any* peripheral to be added!
>
> Built-ins are fine for a "packaged" system when only software
> configurability is enough, but there were literally thousands of peculiar
> peripherals added to the Apple II, most with no mass market, like electron
> microscopes, speech trainers, and gas chromatographs.
>
> Slots are the way a computer says "Welcome!" To the unknown future.
>
> IBM saw it, and it was good.

Slots are only good for a select few. Mostly hi-end gamers, science researchers and big business movie and music ventures. But apple finally saw the true advantage of the all-in-one architecture for normal home users. iMacs, iPad, iPhone, iPod - none had expansion slots. And only the iMacs had usb ports for hard drive expansion, which was all that was needed.

And Apple also saw the need for hi-end equipment as well. And offered the Power Mac in a tower for those select few who wet their bed because they have a card to install into a slot.

Apple saw it, and it IS even better.

On a similar note. On Wednesday night, the series "Stuff of America" articled both the Apple II and C-64. They highlighted the C-64 more than the Apple II as being the catalyst that brought in a new age for home users to have an electronic device in their home at having over 17 million sold.

[Your Name]

In article <2931ead2-d79a-4600...@googlegroups.com>,

You don't really need slots. Ports work just as well for most things -
electron microscopes, etc. can just as easily be plugged in via an
ethernet port, or whatever.

These days there's no Mac that ships with slots (not even the Mac Pro),
although you can get external boxes with slots that plug into the
computer via the Thunderbolt port.

> On a similar note. On Wednesday night, the series "Stuff of America"
> articled both the Apple II and C-64. They highlighted the C-64 more than the
> Apple II as being the catalyst that brought in a new age for home users to
> have an electronic device in their home at having over 17 million sold.

The C64 sold more largely because it was cheaper. The fact that it was
also a good computer was an added bonus. We got the VIC20 and then C64
because the Apple II was too expensive.

Of course, the C64 is like the VW Beetle of the computer world. They
were still making C64 computers not that long ago and recently there
was a "C64" being sold that was really just a PC box with emulation
software.

[Your Name]

In article
<1661738570439517135....@news.giganews.com>, Michael

J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
> >> In article <puqdnaKU7JLN0xzJ...@giganews.com>, Bill Garber
> >> <will...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> "Steve Nickolas" <usot...@buric.co> wrote in message
> >>> news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1412050450060.70689@localhost...
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-
> >>>>> proofing that a durable design needs. Without slots,
> >>>>> a requirements shift means having to start over.
> >>>>
> >>>> Biggest plus of the Apple ][ over the C64.
> >>>
> >>> You can say that 6 more times. ;)
> >>
> >> The C64 had *a* slot, although it was almost totally used for pluging
> >> in games cartridges. :-)
> >>
> > Yes. But one slot is not that much better than no slots. The Radio
> > Shack Color Computer also had a slot, and it was fine so long as I only
> > needed to add a floppy disk controller. When I wanted to add a serial
> > port, I had to do some work to get "another slot". Radio Shack sold an
> > expander, but I wasn't spending money on that.
>

> And the Apple slots have fully decoded select lines and address space, plus
> ROM/RAM selects and address space. They even provide bank-switched
> extension space, DMA and interrupt support, and onboard ROM disable.
>
> Very capable and convenient slots, indeed.

I never said it was a better slot. Simply that the C64 did indeed have
a slot. The C64 slot was used for other things as well as game
cartridges. We had a "freeze frame" cartridge that basically dumped the
content of memory out to a file and allowed you to use cheat modes - it
was sold as a way of doing things like saving progress through a game,
but of course most people used it to simply copy games.

[Steve Nickolas]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:

> I never said it was a better slot. Simply that the C64 did indeed have
> a slot. The C64 slot was used for other things as well as game
> cartridges. We had a "freeze frame" cartridge that basically dumped the
> content of memory out to a file and allowed you to use cheat modes - it
> was sold as a way of doing things like saving progress through a game,
> but of course most people used it to simply copy games.

Didn't the Apple ][ have addon cards like that too? I want to say
Wildcat?

-uso.

[Michael Black]

But that only works if the computer has enough built in. And once you
start putting in the kitchen sink, the price goes up, so entry is higher
yet you may be paying for things you don't need.

One thing that made the Apple II was the slots. So endless things could
be added. When it was time for 80 columns, you could get a board. If you
needed a serial port, you could get that, or a parallel port. If you
wanted to go further, you could get that Z80 Softcard or that 6809 board,
or even that 16bit board. That meant one could keep on using the Apple II
longer than its original lifespan. But, if there'd only been one slot,
you'd have to choose between using a printer, or running CP/M, you
couldn't do both with one slot.

And people did grumble about the IIC. It had more built in than the II,
but if you wanted soemthing more exotic, a custom card had to be designed,
and those cost money. Then you get to the original Mac, and endless work
had to be done to expand memory, or add a hard drive.

Yes, only one slot meant cost was kept down. But like I said, when I
needed more than a floppy disk controller for my Color Computer, I had to
make a sort of extension, or spend more money to buy a bus expander from
Radio Shack. For many, you did need more than one slot.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Yes, some thought was given to the Apple II expansion bus.

I've read that the S100 bus was really just thrown together, just a way of
expanding the 8080 pinout, rather than a serious attempt at a universal
expansion bus. Of course, at the time, it was just there to add
peripherals, it was only when it became a "standard" that the problems
came in. There were lots of problems when people wanted to add CPU cards
for something that wasn't an 8080.

It is a surprise that Steve Wozniak could see so much into the future to
create that bus.

Michael

[Bill Buckels]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:

>Because of their root in the 14.3MHz dot clock, all Apple II "pure" colors
>are uniformly spaced 22.5 degrees apart in chroma phase. This provides
>optimal coverage of the NTSC color gamut for 16 colors.

It's a thing of beauty.

By comparison, the IIgs RGB color spacing is WAY-OFF. It can't possibly
display DHGR correctly, composite artifacting aside. The more I got into
converting from true-color to DHGR the more the poor emulation capabilities
of the IIgs started to fall apart like a cheap suit. It was very poorly
done... it seems to sell hardware with "sharp" pixels to display SHR at the
expense of a really second rate DHGR display.

Taking a mean distance cleans-up the DHGR RGB display quite a bit it's a
poor match for a television. All a person can do is work around it. This is
one area that Apple didn't do well at all.

Bill

[Your Name]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 5 December 2014 15:50:16 UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <>, Bill Garber
> >>> <> wrote:
> >>>> "Steve Nickolas" <> wrote in message
> >>>> news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1412050450060.70689@localhost...
> >>>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact, slots provide exactly the kind of future-
> >>>>>> proofing that a durable design needs. Without slots,
> >>>>>> a requirements shift means having to start over.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Biggest plus of the Apple ][ over the C64.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can say that 6 more times. ;)
> >>>
> >>> The C64 had *a* slot, although it was almost totally used for pluging
> >>> in games cartridges. :-)
> >>>
> >> Yes. But one slot is not that much better than no slots. The Radio Shack
> >> Color Computer also had a slot, and it was fine so long as I only needed
> >> to add a floppy disk controller. When I wanted to add a serial port, I
> >> had to do some work to get "another slot". Radio Shack sold an expander,
> >> but I wasn't spending money on that.
> >
> >

The C64 had multiple ports specifically for some peripherals as well as
the cartridge slot:

- Cartridge expansion slot for program modules and memory
expansions, among others

- Serial bus for CBM printers and disk drives

- Cassette tape interface

- User port for modems and third-party printers, among
other things

- Two game ports for joysticks, mouse, graphics tablets,
etc.

[Michael J. Mahon]

The NTSC capability of the IIgs has always seemed to me like a
quick-and-dirty work-around.

They had to deal with converting native RGB to composite, so they managed
"compatibility" by leveraging a rather bad NTSC-to-RGB converter, then
converting back to NTSC again!

I wish they'd just bypassed the two conversions and delivered straight
Apple II NTSC video out.

[Michael J. Mahon]

Steve and his friend Allen Baum designed the Apple II peripheral bus
architecture. Between them, they had some experience with peripheral busses
and their usual shortcomings.

[Michael J. Mahon]

This thread is drifting into the general question of the role/benefit of
slots in today's computers.

That's way off the point of slots in the Apple II timeframe, where they
literally spawned an industry in building novel slot cards that extended
the Apple II far beyond it's built-in capabilities, keeping it alive and
useful far beyond contemporaneous slot-less computers.

[Your Name]

In article
<1336466773439596808....@news.giganews.com>, Michael

Which brings it back to my original point - not all those
contemporaries were slotless. Both the Commodore Vic20 and C64 had a
slot and other ports. I think the the early Ataris also had at least
one slot and extra ports. I can't recall whether or not the Texas
Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.

Yes, there were also a lot of crappy "computers" released around that
time, like those from Sinclair, which didn't have slots, but then they
were only really toys.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:


> Which brings it back to my original point - not all those
> contemporaries were slotless. Both the Commodore Vic20 and C64 had a
> slot and other ports. I think the the early Ataris also had at least
> one slot and extra ports. I can't recall whether or not the Texas
> Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.
>

The TI 99/4 had a slot. One reason it didn't sell well was that the
peripherals for the slot were expensive, and that was something to do with
the design. So it didnt' sell that well, until the price dropped to
somewhere around a hundred dollars, at which point it became a relatively
successful computer (at least, enough people remember it decades later).

I think somewhere upthread the point was made that the multiple slots were
important to the Apple Ii. It was probably uncommon, up to a certain
point, for a "home computer" to not have some method of expansion. But
just bringing out the bus lines to a connector didnt' necessarily make
expansion easy.

> Yes, there were also a lot of crappy "computers" released around that
> time, like those from Sinclair, which didn't have slots, but then they
> were only really toys.
>

The SInclair had a slot, at least one of the SInclairs. There were memory
expansion modules, and likely other things, that could plug in. Maybe the
ZX80 didn't have a slot, and they added it to the 81, but I thought both
had them.

On the other hand, it apparently wasn't well designed physically, I've
read comments about the flakieness of that connector, people having to add
some suppor underneath the module plugged into the connector.


Michael

[Your Name]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Which brings it back to my original point - not all those
> > contemporaries were slotless. Both the Commodore Vic20 and C64 had a
> > slot and other ports. I think the the early Ataris also had at least
> > one slot and extra ports. I can't recall whether or not the Texas
> > Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.
> >
> The TI 99/4 had a slot. One reason it didn't sell well was that the
> peripherals for the slot were expensive, and that was something to do with
> the design. So it didnt' sell that well, until the price dropped to
> somewhere around a hundred dollars, at which point it became a relatively
> successful computer (at least, enough people remember it decades later).
>
> I think somewhere upthread the point was made that the multiple slots were
> important to the Apple Ii. It was probably uncommon, up to a certain
> point, for a "home computer" to not have some method of expansion. But
> just bringing out the bus lines to a connector didnt' necessarily make
> expansion easy.

They weren't uncommon. Pretty much every *real* old "home computer"
(i.e. prior to the original Mac and Windows) I've ever used has had at
least one slot and specialised ports.

> > Yes, there were also a lot of crappy "computers" released around that
> > time, like those from Sinclair, which didn't have slots, but then they
> > were only really toys.
>
> The SInclair had a slot, at least one of the SInclairs. There were memory
> expansion modules, and likely other things, that could plug in. Maybe the
> ZX80 didn't have a slot, and they added it to the 81, but I thought both
> had them.

One solely for memory expansion isn't really a "slot" as is being meant
in this topic, but you're right if it had one it may have been put to
other uses.

> On the other hand, it apparently wasn't well designed physically, I've
> read comments about the flakieness of that connector, people having to add
> some suppor underneath the module plugged into the connector.

Nothing about Sinclair's toys was well designed ... they were all cheap
'n' nasty rubbish I wouldn't touch with a million light year long barge
pole.

[Michael J. Mahon]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> Which brings it back to my original point - not all those
>>> contemporaries were slotless. Both the Commodore Vic20 and C64 had a
>>> slot and other ports. I think the the early Ataris also had at least
>>> one slot and extra ports. I can't recall whether or not the Texas
>>> Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.
>>>
>> The TI 99/4 had a slot. One reason it didn't sell well was that the
>> peripherals for the slot were expensive, and that was something to do with
>> the design. So it didnt' sell that well, until the price dropped to
>> somewhere around a hundred dollars, at which point it became a relatively
>> successful computer (at least, enough people remember it decades later).
>>
>> I think somewhere upthread the point was made that the multiple slots were
>> important to the Apple Ii. It was probably uncommon, up to a certain
>> point, for a "home computer" to not have some method of expansion. But
>> just bringing out the bus lines to a connector didnt' necessarily make
>> expansion easy.
>
> They weren't uncommon. Pretty much every *real* old "home computer"
> (i.e. prior to the original Mac and Windows) I've ever used has had at
> least one slot and specialised ports.

Take a good look at the Apple II slot architecture.

I think you'll find that there was nothing else done so well and so
completely--before or since.

Fully decoded ROM space, expansion ROM space, fully decoded "device select"
space, interrupt support, DMA support, etc. Designing a peripheral card
for the Apple II was a piece of cake.

Even activation support (IN#s, PR#s) and software protocols were specified
and provided.

Not every card manufacturer "got it", but many did, making adding a
peripheral about as easy as it gets.

I have a six degree-of-freedom robotic arm that plugs into an Apple slot.
After issuing a PR#n to the card, ROM Applesoft is extended to provide arm
control commands, courtesy of the "ARMBASIC" extensions in the card's ROM,
which uses the 6502 to directly control all the stepper motors in the arm
simultaneously!

It doesn't get easier than that--in fact, it hasn't gotten *as easy* yet...

[Michael J. Mahon]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
>
>
>> Which brings it back to my original point - not all those
>> contemporaries were slotless. Both the Commodore Vic20 and C64 had a
>> slot and other ports. I think the the early Ataris also had at least
>> one slot and extra ports. I can't recall whether or not the Texas
>> Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.
>>
> The TI 99/4 had a slot. One reason it didn't sell well was that the
> peripherals for the slot were expensive, and that was something to do
> with the design. So it didnt' sell that well, until the price dropped to
> somewhere around a hundred dollars, at which point it became a relatively
> successful computer (at least, enough people remember it decades later).
>
> I think somewhere upthread the point was made that the multiple slots
> were important to the Apple Ii. It was probably uncommon, up to a certain
> point, for a "home computer" to not have some method of expansion. But
> just bringing out the bus lines to a connector didnt' necessarily make expansion easy.

Hear, hear!

A lot of thought and design are needed to make simple, effective interfaces
possible. Otherwise, you're just constructing an interface to a raw
microprocessor.

>> Yes, there were also a lot of crappy "computers" released around that
>> time, like those from Sinclair, which didn't have slots, but then they
>> were only really toys.
>>
> The SInclair had a slot, at least one of the SInclairs. There were
> memory expansion modules, and likely other things, that could plug in.
> Maybe the ZX80 didn't have a slot, and they added it to the 81, but I
> thought both had them.
>
> On the other hand, it apparently wasn't well designed physically, I've
> read comments about the flakieness of that connector, people having to
> add some suppor underneath the module plugged into the connector.

It was a mechanical disaster!

[Michael J. Mahon]

And my point is that the Apple slots are not just an _ad hoc_ "expansion
port", they were carefully and fully designed to support truly "plug and
play" peripherals, in a way that no computer has done, before or since.

[Your Name]

In article
<813549790439622046.2...@news.giganews.com>, Michael

That's not what you said, but you now want to try to move the goal
posts so you can pretend you were right all along ... whatever you want
to delude yourself with. :-\

[STYNX]

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 6:37:31 AM UTC+1, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> And my point is that the Apple slots are not just an _ad hoc_ "expansion
> port", they were carefully and fully designed to support truly "plug and
> play" peripherals, in a way that no computer has done, before or since.
> --
> -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon

The slots are a integrated architecture in hardware as well as software. That is what i like about the Apple II. You can put a few pieces of hardware together to get something functional or go the extra mile to integrate your design into the system completely. All the possibilities without the fuss... no system bus has since been so easy to use with that much possibilities. With ISA IBM took a few ideas from the A2 and implemented a similar but simpler system-bus concept and modified it with each Model of the PC.
...
If someone compares the ZX Series with a toy, you can say the same about the VC20 and C64... except they had _slightly_ better concepts. My thought is that each and every computer system of the early 80s had unique concepts and designs that created specific problems to solve others. No system was perfect and most were designed for a handful of specific tasks. In most cases even the designers didn't have a clue what the systems could actually be used for.

-Jonas

[Bill Buckels]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I wish they'd just bypassed the two conversions and delivered straight
>Apple II NTSC video out.

A far better improvement than the one that WOZ thought about the other
night.

Bill

[Tempest]

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 6:55:16 AM UTC-5, Bill Buckels wrote:

> "Michael J. Mahon" wrote:
> >I wish they'd just bypassed the two conversions and delivered straight
> >Apple II NTSC video out.
>
> A far better improvement than the one that WOZ thought about the other
> night.
>
> Bill

Is that possible to do? The reason I still have my IIe out is because the colors on the HR and DHR graphics on the IIgs are off and look cruddy. Some games like Zork Zero aren't even playable because you can't read the DHRG text.

[David Schmenk]

I think the only delusion is equating an expansion port with with Apple II slots. Michael is expanding upon his earlier arguments, not moving the gaol posts - reread what he said. But I think the port/slot argument really centers around the market for the computers.

In 1976, there was no personal computer market to look at to determine what features a computer should have. Woz, being Woz, decided to give his baby some future-proofing. Another computer from 1977, the TRS-80 model 1, took the expansion port route. The TRS-80 was initially cheaper than the Apple II, but when disk drives became available (and necessary to compete in the market), the expansion bus was expensive and flakey.

By the 1980's, the market had differentiated enough into what I would call the personal computer market and home computer market. IBM certainly took note of the Apple II success and copied the expansion slots on the IBM PC. Anybody recall what the PC Jr used for expansion ;-) Home computers almost exclusively came with expansion ports - they were cheaper, and it worked for this cost conscience market. The personal computer market still catered to business and industrial markets where true expansion slots were crucial for adding functionality. Keyboard quality and video output quality (80 column text) was essential in a personal computer which was easily achieved with expansion slots.

Sometimes it's hard to remember just how fast the markets changed in the late '70 and early '80s. Remember Apple went from an 8 bit CPU with 60 cps 40x24 text only display (Apple 1) to a 16/32 bit CPU with bitmapped GUI and mouse (Lisa) in 7 years. Can you think of an equally significant change in computing from 2007?

Dave...

[gid...@sasktel.net]

> I think the only delusion is equating an expansion port with with Apple II slots.

I don't think anyone equated an expansion port with an Apple II slot. The discussion was about using the cheaper expansion port (as you noted below) instead of slots for some hardware uses and how many slots were really needed for expansion. There was no one denying that slots were needed nor did any one deny that the slot was an engineering marvel for expandability.

> In 1976, there was no personal computer market to look at to determine what features a computer should have. Woz, being Woz, decided to give his baby some future-proofing. Another computer from 1977, the TRS-80 model 1, took the expansion port route. The TRS-80 was initially cheaper than the Apple II, but when disk drives became available (and necessary to compete in the market), the expansion bus was expensive and flakey.

Although the personal computer market was just getting started, both ports and slots were known about at the same time. Therefore Woz would have known that ports were cheaper to incorporate into his design. Remember also that Woz was trying to eliminate chips from the motherboard to reduce costs as well as space on the motherboard.

> By the 1980's, the market had differentiated enough into what I would call the personal computer market and home computer market. IBM certainly took note of the Apple II success and copied the expansion slots on the IBM PC. Anybody recall what the PC Jr used for expansion ;-) Home computers almost exclusively came with expansion ports - they were cheaper, and it worked for this cost conscience market. The personal computer market still catered to business and industrial markets where true expansion slots were crucial for adding functionality. Keyboard quality and video output quality (80 column text) was essential in a personal computer which was easily achieved with expansion slots.

There was no denying that slots were more essential as technology progressed. IBM went from a 640 kb base computer (although 64 kb was more than enough for any apple) and with slots could jump into the Megabytes and adding a couple of megabytes was far cheaper than Apple could go from 64 kb to 128 kb. I think this wowed the general public more than anything. And the same with the Processor. By the time the IIGS was out with only 2.4 Mhz, IBM was already developing 8 Mhz machines at a cheaper cost.

This is really where the general public were misled. All they saw was the bigger numbers without really knowing how that related to programming power.

> Sometimes it's hard to remember just how fast the markets changed in the late '70 and early '80s. Remember Apple went from an 8 bit CPU with 60 cps 40x24 text only display (Apple 1) to a 16/32 bit CPU with bitmapped GUI and mouse (Lisa) in 7 years. Can you think of an equally significant change in computing from 2007?

2007? 1980 + 7 would equal 1987. Or are you asking that some great event happened in 2007 that we should know about?

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, David Schmenk wrote:

> On Saturday, 6 December 2014 22:11:26 UTC-8, Your Name wrote:
>> In article
>> <813549790439622046.2...@news.giganews.com>, Michael
>> J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And my point is that the Apple slots are not just an _ad hoc_ "expansion
>>> port", they were carefully and fully designed to support truly "plug and
>>> play" peripherals, in a way that no computer has done, before or since.
>>
>> That's not what you said, but you now want to try to move the goal
>> posts so you can pretend you were right all along ... whatever you want
>> to delude yourself with. :-\
>
> I think the only delusion is equating an expansion port with with Apple
> II slots. Michael is expanding upon his earlier arguments, not moving
> the gaol posts - reread what he said. But I think the port/slot argument
> really centers around the market for the computers.
>
> In 1976, there was no personal computer market to look at to determine
> what features a computer should have. Woz, being Woz, decided to give
> his baby some future-proofing. Another computer from 1977, the TRS-80
> model 1, took the expansion port route. The TRS-80 was initially cheaper
> than the Apple II, but when disk drives became available (and necessary
> to compete in the market), the expansion bus was expensive and flakey.
>

That's not true. There were minicomputers that had expansion busses, and
I doubt the PDP/8 would have been so successful if it couldn't have been
expanded.

And in 1976, The Altair 8800 and the ones that followed had already
incredible influence, and everyone knows the Altair had the S100 bus.

The SOL-20 from Processor Technology may have been around before Steve
started on the Apple II. The Sol was an all in one, though it never sold
as much as the later ones in that category.

One difference is that by 1977, the computers were becoming more
integrated. The Altair came with something like 256 bytes of memory, you
needed the expansion bus to add memory. But by 1977, the basic computers
were more dense, so there was a lesser need for an expansion bus just to
get the basics. The Apple II wsa kind of like a hybrid, lots built in
(the paddle controllers, the ability to get up to 48K of RAM, the
keyboard, the video controller, some rudimentary I/O for whatever you
wanted) but also the expansion bus.

> By the 1980's, the market had differentiated enough into what I would
> call the personal computer market and home computer market. IBM
> certainly took note of the Apple II success and copied the expansion
> slots on the IBM PC. Anybody recall what the PC Jr used for expansion
> ;-) Home computers almost exclusively came with expansion ports - they
> were cheaper, and it worked for this cost conscience market. The
> personal computer market still catered to business and industrial
> markets where true expansion slots were crucial for adding
> functionality. Keyboard quality and video output quality (80 column
> text) was essential in a personal computer which was easily achieved
> with expansion slots.
>

The PC Jr had a connector on the side, and you added through that. If you
needed more than one, the second "expansion board" would plug into the
first "expansion board".

> Sometimes it's hard to remember just how fast the markets changed in the
> late '70 and early '80s. Remember Apple went from an 8 bit CPU with 60
> cps 40x24 text only display (Apple 1) to a 16/32 bit CPU with bitmapped
> GUI and mouse (Lisa) in 7 years. Can you think of an equally significant
> change in computing from 2007?
>

That's the contradictory thing. At the time, we were living through it, I
don't think it particularly went fast, especially when some or many of us
didn't have the money to just buy whatever was new.

But decades later, yes, it all happened really fast. I got my first
computer in 1979, the second in 1981 and the third in 1984. It was just
easier and cheaper to buy a whole new computer to get more capability than
to try to add things on. It was a new field, and in any new field changes
happen real fast.

But it flattened out once computers became capable enough to do 'the
basics" without trouble. ANd also, while it's easy to double or quadruple
capability when you had a 1MHz CPU clock speed and 1K of RAM, once you get
to a certain point, it's much harder. You have to increase things
incrementally, which is why things now aren't moving so fast.

Michael

[STYNX]

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:22:31 PM UTC+1, David Schmenk wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 December 2014 22:11:26 UTC-8, Your Name wrote:
> > In article

> > <..hon-a...@news.giganews.com>, Michael

My thoughts to expansion bus vs. feature port:

- Architecture independent expansion busses designed to integrate one or many CPUs with several subsystems like S100, Multibus and so on

- Architecture dependent expansion busses designed to integrate several subsystems that may even replace integrated functionality like Apple II bus, ISA bus and so on

- Architecture independent feature ports that are used to communicate with a subsystem based on a protocol like RS232, parallel and so on

- Architecture dependent feature ports designed to interface with a specialized subsystems that may even replace integrated functionality like Atari Cartridge port, C64 cartridge port, C64 user port and so on

[David Schmenk]

On Sunday, 7 December 2014 09:16:32 UTC-8, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
snip

> 2007? 1980 + 7 would equal 1987. Or are you asking that some great event happened in 2007 that we should know about?

1976 + 7 = 1983. 2007 + 7 = 2014.

That is the timeframe from the Apple 1 to Lisa.

[David Schmenk]

On Sunday, 7 December 2014 09:26:36 UTC-8, Michael Black wrote:
> > In 1976, there was no personal computer market to look at to determine
> > what features a computer should have. Woz, being Woz, decided to give
> > his baby some future-proofing. Another computer from 1977, the TRS-80
> > model 1, took the expansion port route. The TRS-80 was initially cheaper
> > than the Apple II, but when disk drives became available (and necessary
> > to compete in the market), the expansion bus was expensive and flakey.
> >
> That's not true. There were minicomputers that had expansion busses, and
> I doubt the PDP/8 would have been so successful if it couldn't have been
> expanded.
>
> And in 1976, The Altair 8800 and the ones that followed had already
> incredible influence, and everyone knows the Altair had the S100 bus.
>
> The SOL-20 from Processor Technology may have been around before Steve
> started on the Apple II. The Sol was an all in one, though it never sold
> as much as the later ones in that category.
>
> One difference is that by 1977, the computers were becoming more
> integrated. The Altair came with something like 256 bytes of memory, you
> needed the expansion bus to add memory. But by 1977, the basic computers
> were more dense, so there was a lesser need for an expansion bus just to
> get the basics. The Apple II wsa kind of like a hybrid, lots built in
> (the paddle controllers, the ability to get up to 48K of RAM, the
> keyboard, the video controller, some rudimentary I/O for whatever you
> wanted) but also the expansion bus.
>

Those are good points. I guess I was trying to describe the *market* for personal computers. PDP-8s and such were personal in the sense that they afforded an individual complete access to the computer, but it wasn't a mass market kind of computer. Its expansion was definitely one of the keys to its success. The S-100 machines had been sold for a while, and Woz certainly had knowledge of them from the HBCC.

> > By the 1980's, the market had differentiated enough into what I would
> > call the personal computer market and home computer market. IBM
> > certainly took note of the Apple II success and copied the expansion
> > slots on the IBM PC. Anybody recall what the PC Jr used for expansion
> > ;-) Home computers almost exclusively came with expansion ports - they
> > were cheaper, and it worked for this cost conscience market. The
> > personal computer market still catered to business and industrial
> > markets where true expansion slots were crucial for adding
> > functionality. Keyboard quality and video output quality (80 column
> > text) was essential in a personal computer which was easily achieved
> > with expansion slots.
> >
> The PC Jr had a connector on the side, and you added through that. If you
> needed more than one, the second "expansion board" would plug into the
> first "expansion board".

Yeah. Ugh.

>
> > Sometimes it's hard to remember just how fast the markets changed in the
> > late '70 and early '80s. Remember Apple went from an 8 bit CPU with 60
> > cps 40x24 text only display (Apple 1) to a 16/32 bit CPU with bitmapped
> > GUI and mouse (Lisa) in 7 years. Can you think of an equally significant
> > change in computing from 2007?
> >
> That's the contradictory thing. At the time, we were living through it, I
> don't think it particularly went fast, especially when some or many of us
> didn't have the money to just buy whatever was new.
>
> But decades later, yes, it all happened really fast. I got my first
> computer in 1979, the second in 1981 and the third in 1984. It was just
> easier and cheaper to buy a whole new computer to get more capability than
> to try to add things on. It was a new field, and in any new field changes
> happen real fast.
>

I relied on the expansion slots of my Apple II from 1980 through 1987 to extend the life of my machine through college. Having a SoftCard made the microprocessor lab a breeze (8080 based development boards) - no late nights in the lab for me. I couldn't afford a new machine until the cheap PC clones made their appearance. And then, you're right, it became cheaper to just buy a new machine.

[Your Name]

In article <5353aa41-95f1-486a...@googlegroups.com>,

STYNX <Jonas.Gr...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> If someone compares the ZX Series with a toy, you can say the same about the
> VC20 and C64... except they had _slightly_ better concepts. My thought is
> that each and every computer system of the early 80s had unique concepts and
> designs that created specific problems to solve others. No system was perfect
> and most were designed for a handful of specific tasks. In most cases even
> the designers didn't have a clue what the systems could actually be used for.

The only thing Sinclair's toys did was being made cheap to sell to
naive buyers caught up in the "must have a 'computer'" fad. They
weren't even close to "perfect" in *any* way.

[Your Name]

In article <3de9647d-bbe1-4e56...@googlegroups.com>,

David Schmenk <dsch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 December 2014 22:11:26 UTC-8, Your Name wrote:
> > In article
> > <813549790439622046.2...@news.giganews.com>, Michael
> > J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > And my point is that the Apple slots are not just an _ad hoc_ "expansion
> > > port", they were carefully and fully designed to support truly "plug and
> > > play" peripherals, in a way that no computer has done, before or since.
> >
> > That's not what you said, but you now want to try to move the goal
> > posts so you can pretend you were right all along ... whatever you want
> > to delude yourself with. :-\
>
> I think the only delusion is equating an expansion port with with Apple II
> slots. Michael is expanding upon his earlier arguments, not moving the gaol
> posts - reread what he said. But I think the port/slot argument really
> centers around the market for the computers.

<snip>

The only difference between a "slot" and an "expansion port" is the
name and the fact that a "slot" is usually internal and an "expansion
port" is usually external. Both can and were used for all sorts of
different things.

[Michael J. Mahon]

Again, read up on the Apple II slot architecture. You'll find that it's
much more than a bunch of signals brought out to a connector.

For example, each slot has "personalized" signals that greatly simplify a
card that plugs into it. And each card has reserved resources (RAM, address
spaces) that both simplify and regularize card design, and make it much
easier for different cards to "play nicely together" and with the system.

These are not characteristics of expansion ports, nor, for that matter, of
most peripheral busses.

[Bill Buckels]

"Tempest" <reiche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is that possible to do? The reason I still have my IIe out is because the
>colors on the HR and DHR graphics on the IIgs are off and look cruddy.
>Some games like Zork Zero aren't even playable because you can't read the
>DHRG text.

Anything is possible to do but I can't do much myself. Reprogramming the
Mega II controller is probably within my capabilities but not possible
within my lifetime:)

Programming my graphics converter and studying the work of Sheldon Simms has
made me realize exactly what went-on here and for that I am grateful. If we
used Sheldon's latest colors or Jace's color palette, it would be infinitely
better than what Apple Computer provided.

Only the Apple IIe with a composite monitor or NTSC television set is
capable of DHGR and HGR. The other displays are no better than an emulator,
and the AppleWIN NTSC emulator is better than a real IIgs when it comes to
DHGR and HGR.

I think this part of this thread is headed in the right direction. This
business about adding two grey levels seems silly, and throwing the color
balance off seems even sillier. The DHGR and HGR modes are perfect.

Someone who is smarter than me could probably design an emullation chip for
the IIgs that remaps the DHGR and HGR colors to NTSC emulation at the flick
of a switch. That's what I would propose. That seems like it would be simple
for an EE to program, fringe colors, composite artifacts, and the proper
DHGR and HGR NTSC colors.

This is exactly the opposite of some of the promotional cr*p that I have
read that tries to civilize DHGR and HGR to look like RGB. It is RGB that
killed the Apple II graphics display.

Bill

[Bill Buckels]

"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>Reprogramming the Mega II controller is probably within my capabilities but
>not possible within my lifetime:)

I might have meant the VGC, but I am sure that everyone gets my point. A
real hardware guy like Bill Garber could probably dream-up something because
he knows enough.

Bill

[D Finnigan]

Steve Nickolas wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Your Name wrote:
>
>> I never said it was a better slot. Simply that the C64 did indeed have
>> a slot. The C64 slot was used for other things as well as game
>> cartridges. We had a "freeze frame" cartridge that basically dumped the
>> content of memory out to a file and allowed you to use cheat modes - it
>> was sold as a way of doing things like saving progress through a game,
>> but of course most people used it to simply copy games.
>
> Didn't the Apple ][ have addon cards like that too? I want to say
> Wildcat?

Say Wildcard instead. ;-)

[D Finnigan]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

And you realize that it had to be something so capable when you think about
the Transwarp, or any other accelerator, which is basically a miniature
computer on a card. I haven't tried it myself, but they say you can run an
Apple with no microprocessor on its motherboard if you have a Transwarp
installed.

--
]DF$
Apple II Book: http://macgui.com/newa2guide/
Usenet: http://macgui.com/usenet/ <-- get posts by email!
Apple II Web & Blog hosting: http://a2hq.com/

[Bill Garber]

"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:m62n9e$sk5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> I might have meant the VGC, but I am sure
> that everyone gets my point. A real hardware
> guy like Bill Garber could probably dream-up
> something because he knows enough.

The Mega II and the VGC are both preprogrammed
ASICs, and unless there are intricately written
and published documents on either or both of them,
I wouldn't have a clue what's inside of either one.

Bill Garber - I love my
C1 D0 D0 CC C5 A0 C9 C9 C7 D3
http://www.sepa-electronics.com

[Michael J. Mahon]

It may not be so hard. ;-)

The conversion of "native" Apple II video to RGB happens inside the Mega II
chip, but it looks like a test point is provided that may be the original
video. It's labeled TP154, and it is pin 21 of the Mega II, with signal
name "SERVIDEO".

If I were designing this chip, I'd want this output for verification, so
maybe that's why it's there.

It probably needs to be combined with /SYNC and CREF, but if it's what I
suspect it is, a couple of resistors and transistors (as in the II or //e)
would serve to create a real Apple II video output!

[Charlie]

If it's possible to do (and it probably is) it could be done with the
Carte Blanche card. It would take somebody who understands DHR much
better than I do. I have tried for years (unsuccessfully) to make the
DHR output of the CB look "correct". For me "correct" was the same as
the IIgs RGB. I went from an Apple ][+ (no DHR) to an Apple IIgs and so
never really knew there was much difference. Bill Garber has been
trying for a while to convince me to try to make it look like the //e DHR.

So, I've looked at both composite from the //e and the IIgs (on the same
monitor) and there is indeed a difference, but it is hard for me to
quantify what the difference is and I also think it is very subjective
which is better. On the pictures I've been using for testing, some look
better with the RGB, some don't.

As for the NTSC using the correct color palette as compared to the RGB I
can't see that either. I have a ColorMonitor IIe and I can turn dials
on the front that gives me almost any color I want. So what's the right
one? It's whatever we like it to be.

Charlie

[mdj]

On Monday, 8 December 2014 06:24:24 UTC+10, Your Name wrote:

> The only difference between a "slot" and an "expansion port" is the
> name and the fact that a "slot" is usually internal and an "expansion
> port" is usually external. Both can and were used for all sorts of
> different things.

To take an example the C64 "cartridge port" provided sufficiently low-level access to the system bus to do "most" of the things you can do with an Apple II card, ostensibly because it can do DMA. In this respect it's more of a "slot" than a "port".

The very fact that most of the equivalences that are being drawn here must be done by using "air quotes" ought to be an indicator that the level of abstraction required to draw them is a little too far removed from reality, no ?

In the case of the "expansion ports", since "there can be, only one" the protocol used between the expansion and associated software is, quite rightly, bespoke. In contrast, the Apple II slot architecture provides a cleanly defined protocol for many such expansions to coexist peacefully. Later, firmware protocols emerged that standardised character and block oriented IO interfaces. The latter in particular paved the way for 3.5" media, then both SCSI and IDE hard disk drives that integrated seamlessly into the existing operating system.

This sort of future proofing that was *actually utilised* was only utilised on platforms that provided such a bus architecture. The Apple II was the archetype on which its successors were modeled; indeed, the ISA bus of the IBM PC (as it was later called) is an almost exact rip-off, except that they elected to leave IO decoding up to the card, destroying the elegant plug-n-play model that the Apple II pioneered (a mistake nobody made again).

IBM's later "Micro Channel Architecture" (a proprietary successor to ISA) tacitly recognises the power of such a bus architecture. They understood that the bus itself handed over evolution of the platform to the free market, and they wanted it back. Market forces however ensured that we stayed with the inferior older bus until adequate open standard replacements emerged. To this day, the evolution of the PC architecture is an emergent property of free market innovation, albeit with a smaller number of ever-larger players than it had in its heyday.

The significance of this really *cannot* be overstated, and the bus architecture is the special sauce that underpins it.

As an aside and somewhat ironically, slot and port really have converged in recent years. Recent Macintosh models for example have at least 1 Thunderbolt port, and a Thunderbolt "port" is ostensibly a PCI-Express "slot" :-) My (I think current-gen) Macbook has two 20Gb/s "slots" on the side!

Even more ironically, the volume side of the market seems to be making do with USB 3, which offers a quarter of the performance at best. So amusingly, your argument is actually perfectly valid for present-day machines (at least Apples), but a long way off it if we're talking 198x.

Matt

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, mdj wrote:

> On Monday, 8 December 2014 06:24:24 UTC+10, Your Name wrote:
>
>> The only difference between a "slot" and an "expansion port" is the
>> name and the fact that a "slot" is usually internal and an "expansion
>> port" is usually external. Both can and were used for all sorts of
>> different things.
>
> To take an example the C64 "cartridge port" provided sufficiently
> low-level access to the system bus to do "most" of the things you can do
> with an Apple II card, ostensibly because it can do DMA. In this respect
> it's more of a "slot" than a "port".
>
> The very fact that most of the equivalences that are being drawn here
> must be done by using "air quotes" ought to be an indicator that the
> level of abstraction required to draw them is a little too far removed
> from reality, no ?
>

One difference is that the "consumer computers" of the early eighties
were intended for a different market. Be relatively cheap, and useable
when you got it home. So yes, they brought had the connector, but the
primary intent was for cartridges. Atari (though the 800 had slots for a
few), Radio Shack COlor Computer, the C64 (did they have cartridges?), the
TI 99/4 and others, the computers could be used as is, just buy the
cartridge. So once they decided on that, it didn't cost much more to
bring out the full lines, but it made expansion cumbersome if you needed
more than one card.

And for a lot of people, a cartridge slot was fine. When they'd appear at
garage sales, I dont' remember seeing an Apple II being sold without
floppy drives, and probably some other boards inside too). But I did see
various Radio Shack Color Computers, and they were all by themselves, no
peripherals. That reflects the way both types of computers were used. If
you bought an Apple II, you were likely doing more serious work. The
"consumer computers" could be used that way, but took more effort to
expand. It actually was a good market. You could buy cheap, and then
expand later, or lose interest and not have spent much. The companies
didn't need to keep two computers in their line.

Michael

[Michael J. Mahon]

Michael J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:

I no longer have a IIgs, so can someone with a IIgs and an oscilloscope
take a look at TP154 to see if the IIgs actually has the makings of an
original composite video output?

[Your Name]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, mdj wrote:
> > On Monday, 8 December 2014 06:24:24 UTC+10, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >> The only difference between a "slot" and an "expansion port" is the
> >> name and the fact that a "slot" is usually internal and an "expansion
> >> port" is usually external. Both can and were used for all sorts of
> >> different things.
> >
> > To take an example the C64 "cartridge port" provided sufficiently
> > low-level access to the system bus to do "most" of the things you can do
> > with an Apple II card, ostensibly because it can do DMA. In this respect
> > it's more of a "slot" than a "port".
> >
> > The very fact that most of the equivalences that are being drawn here
> > must be done by using "air quotes" ought to be an indicator that the
> > level of abstraction required to draw them is a little too far removed
> > from reality, no ?
>
> One difference is that the "consumer computers" of the early eighties
> were intended for a different market. Be relatively cheap, and useable
> when you got it home. So yes, they brought had the connector, but the
> primary intent was for cartridges. Atari (though the 800 had slots for a

> few), Radio Shack Color Computer, the C64 (did they have cartridges?), the

> TI 99/4 and others, the computers could be used as is, just buy the
> cartridge. So once they decided on that, it didn't cost much more to
> bring out the full lines, but it made expansion cumbersome if you needed
> more than one card.
>
> And for a lot of people, a cartridge slot was fine. When they'd appear at
> garage sales, I dont' remember seeing an Apple II being sold without
> floppy drives, and probably some other boards inside too).

The C64, etc. already had specific built-in ports for things like disk
drives, cassette drives, joysticks, modems, etc., so they didn't need
5,000 extra slots / expansion ports.

The C64 did have cartridges. Some games shipped as cartridges, and
there were a couple of makes of "freeze frame" cratrdges, and there
were other uses for the expansion port.

If you really needed more than one cartridge (which was rare), there
were multi-cartridge adaptors for some systems, although we never had
one, so I can't vouch for how well they may or may not have worked.

> But I did see various Radio Shack Color Computers, and they were all by
> themselves, no peripherals. That reflects the way both types of computers
> were used. If you bought an Apple II, you were likely doing more serious
> work. The "consumer computers" could be used that way, but took more
> effort to expand. It actually was a good market. You could buy cheap,
> and then expand later, or lose interest and not have spent much. The
> companies didn't need to keep two computers in their line.

Yes, the C64 was mainly a "home computer", but it was also used by many
people for "doing more serious work" in small businesses, self-employed
people, farms, etc. Even the earlier VIC20 was used for "doing more
serious work", although that usually meant adding a memory expansion
cartridge.

Most software for the C64 shipped on cassette or disk, so the computer
would be near useless without at least one of those. There were plenty
of cassette drives, disk drives, printers, and later mice, etc. for the
C64 from both Commodore and third-party manufactureres.

[Charlie]

I gave it a shot. First let me say, I'm no expert on video signals,
oscilloscopes or much of anything hardware.

Anyway, I hooked up the actual IIgs composite for the second trace so
I'd have something to compare it to. It looks to me like the Mega II is
doing just as you said. It is sending the active video data without the
sync and color ref. On the scope the Mega II video lines up exactly
with the data on the IIgs output but no color burst, no sync tips, no
porches.

Charlie

[Michael J. Mahon]

Great! Thanks, Bill, for checking it out!

So it looks like "original Apple II video" is available on the IIgs, and
can be provided to a composite monitor for next to nothing. ;-)

[David Schmenk]

Doesn't the Apple IIc+ use the Mega II? Or am I confused?

Dave...

[D Finnigan]

Yes, you are confused. :-) The other Apple II that uses the Mega II is the
Apple IIe emulator card for the Macintosh LC line.

[David Schmenk]

Ah, Ok. Thanks.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <071220141508326647%Your...@YourISP.com>,
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>I can't recall whether or not the Texas
>Instruments computer a friend had actually had any slots.

Not in the computer itself, but the Peripheral Expansion System was a box
with a linear power supply, eight slots, and a full-height 5.25" drive bay
that plugged in to an expansion connector on the side of the TI-99/4A (or
99/4, I'm guessing). Expansion cards (at least the ones from TI) were
mounted in a cast-aluminum housing that slotted into the box. Compared to
the computer itself, which was after a while being built to a price, the
expansion system was seriously overbuilt...and was priced accordingly.

My parents bought a 99/4A in 1983, when they'd come down in price to about
$150. For a couple of years, it was just the basic system: 16K, TI BASIC,
joysticks, and a cassette recorder, with an old 19" TV as the monitor. By
the time we looked at outfitting it to do real work (which would've meant
more RAM, a printer, one or more disk drives, etc.), TI had already gotten
out of the computer business, but even if they hadn't, it would've been
insanely expensive for what we would've ended up with. They ended up buying
an Apple IIe (with a printer and two floppy drives) about a year and a half
later, right before I started high school.

(The 99/4A I had back in the day was left behind in Germany when we returned
stateside, but a while back I picked up another one, and a bunch of the
addons that I didn't have the first time around. One of these days, I'll
get around to setting it up again.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[mdj]

On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 10:45:47 UTC+10, David Schmenk wrote:

> Doesn't the Apple IIc+ use the Mega II? Or am I confused?

More confusing is that instead of licensing tech from Zip and developing the MIG chip, they could have *removed* parts from the IIgs design and fit it in the same space, arguably for less.

I can still remember the sinking feeling I had when I read the review in (I think November '88) Nibble. They were clearly only concerned with ensuring the Laser 128 series didn't eat too much of the cash cow. On that day any hope of 'better' Apple II's evaporated for me.

Matt

[Tempest]

On Monday, December 8, 2014 4:30:03 PM UTC-5, Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> So it looks like "original Apple II video" is available on the IIgs, and
> can be provided to a composite monitor for next to nothing. ;-)

So are you saying that it might be possible to route the Apple II video through the composite port, hook up a composite monitor, and get real composite output that would make DHR and DHRG look just like it does on the IIgs? If so, someone PLEASE make this happen. :)

[David Schmenk]

On Monday, 8 December 2014 22:59:43 UTC-8, mdj wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 10:45:47 UTC+10, David Schmenk wrote:
>
> > Doesn't the Apple IIc+ use the Mega II? Or am I confused?
>
> More confusing is that instead of licensing tech from Zip and developing the MIG chip, they could have *removed* parts from the IIgs design and fit it in the same space, arguably for less.
>

Indeed, making the IIc+ the antithesis of Woz's design aesthetic.

> I can still remember the sinking feeling I had when I read the review in (I think November '88) Nibble. They were clearly only concerned with ensuring the Laser 128 series didn't eat too much of the cash cow. On that day any hope of 'better' Apple II's evaporated for me.
>
> Matt

I didn't even know the Iic+ or LC add-in card existed until a few years ago. I'd written Apple off in '87 after the failed to hire me into the A/UX group. Bullet dodged.

Dave...

[Michael J. Mahon]

That's what I'm saying, with one caveat: SHR would not be available on
that composite output (no real loss). And it would make HR and DHR look
just like they do on a //e, not a IIgs, which I think is what you meant.

[Tempest]

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:50:50 AM UTC-5, Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> That's what I'm saying, with one caveat: SHR would not be available on
> that composite output (no real loss). And it would make HR and DHR look
> just like they do on a //e, not a IIgs, which I think is what you meant.

Derp. Yes that's what I meant.

So what is SHR (Single Hi-Res?)? How is that different from HR?

[Tempest]

Ok so SHR is Super Hi-Res (aka IIgs mode). If you can still have the Apple RGB monitor hooked up to the IIgs then that would still be ok since SHR looks like crap on composite anyway.

[Egan Ford]

On 12/5/14, 5:59 PM, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> They highlighted the C-64 more than the Apple II as being the catalyst that brought in a new age for home users to have an electronic device in their home at having over 17 million sold.

Does any know exactly how many Apple IIs (IIe, II, II+, IIgs) were produced?

What about the 200 or so different clones? And their volumes?

The //e lasted until 1993.

IMHO, the C-64 impact was not that great on computing.

[waynej...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:43:47 PM UTC-8, D Finnigan wrote:
>
> And you realize that it had to be something so capable when you think about
> the Transwarp, or any other accelerator, which is basically a miniature
> computer on a card. I haven't tried it myself, but they say you can run an
> Apple with no microprocessor on its motherboard if you have a Transwarp
> installed.
>
> --
> ]DF$
> Apple II Book: http://macgui.com/newa2guide/
> Usenet: http://macgui.com/usenet/ <-- get posts by email!
> Apple II Web & Blog hosting: http://a2hq.com/

You can remove the motherboard RAM as well. Possibly the extended 80 column card RAM though I haven't tried that.

[D Finnigan]

waynejstewart wrote:
> On Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:43:47 PM UTC-8, D Finnigan wrote:
>>
>> And you realize that it had to be something so capable when you think
>> about
>> the Transwarp, or any other accelerator, which is basically a miniature
>> computer on a card. I haven't tried it myself, but they say you can run
>> an
>> Apple with no microprocessor on its motherboard if you have a Transwarp
>> installed.
>

> You can remove the motherboard RAM as well. Possibly the extended 80
> column
> card RAM though I haven't tried that.

Now removing the 80-Column card in a IIe with the Transwarp is something
that I have tried, and the result is... strange.

I can't recall its effects clearly enough to be able to describe it here.

[Your Name]

In article <m67ir6$hdi$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford

Then you'd be wrong.

The C64 was like the VW Beetle of early computers (it was officially
discontinued in 1994, but has since been re-released briefly as a
retro-games console and sold as a PC with emulation package) and is in
the Guiness Book for "the highest-selling single computer model of all
time". It also came in various models, like the Apple II did, including
one of the first "portable" computers.

Also like the Apple II, the C64's successor computer (the C128) was
able to run the older software, but was comparatively a failure selling
in far fewer numbers.

According to the Wikipedia page:
"It has been compared to the Ford Model T automobile for
its role in bringing a new technology to middle-class
households via creative mass-production."

and:
"[it had] technologically superior sound and graphical
specifications when compared to some contemporary
systems such as the Apple II."

Without the computers from Commodore and Atari, it's very possible
there wouldn't have been "home computers" for most people (at least
until Windows PC boxes dramatically dropped in price), and many
developers would never have been introduced to the world of computing.

[waynej...@gmail.com]

I was meaning to just remove the RAM an the card.

[David Schmidt]

On 12/9/2014 3:45 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <m67ir6$hdi$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford
> <data...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/5/14, 5:59 PM, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
>>> They highlighted the C-64 more than the Apple II as being the catalyst that
>>> brought in a new age for home users to have an electronic device in their
>>> home at having over 17 million sold.
>>
>> Does any know exactly how many Apple IIs (IIe, II, II+, IIgs) were produced?

No. See Antoine and Oliver's statistical analysis based on serial
numbers for IIgs machines, anyway.

>> What about the 200 or so different clones? And their volumes?
>>
>> The //e lasted until 1993.
>>
>> IMHO, the C-64 impact was not that great on computing.
>
> Then you'd be wrong.

Wow, yeah, way to lob in a grenade, there, Egan. ;-) That's where I got
my start (at least my running start) by having a machine at home instead
of having to loiter at the Radio Shack and the local Apple dealer (both
of which I got kicked out of at one time or another).

The Apple was more expandable, more programmable, more accessible... but
darned if I wasn't in there typing Supermon into my C64 from Jim
Butterfield (some of which he lifted directly from the Apple II monitor,
naturally) to make it more so...

It would be hard to overstate the C64's impact on [my sub-generation?]
of computing, I'd say.

[Egan Ford]

On 12/9/14, 2:41 PM, David Schmidt wrote:
> Wow, yeah, way to lob in a grenade, there, Egan. ;-)

:-)

> It would be hard to overstate the C64's impact on [my sub-generation?]
> of computing, I'd say.

The post I replied to stated, *being the catalyst that brought in a new
age*. And the argument being 17 million units. The Atari 2600 sold 30
million units, that I'd argue *brought in a new age for home users to
have an electronic device in their home*.

I'd say the trinity of Apple II, TRS-80, and Commodore PET was the
*catalyst* for home computing. The C-64, again IMHO, benefited from
that catalyst.

The explosion of the PC and PC clones had a much greater impact than the
C-64. IMHO, the C-64 was in between the trinity and the rise of the IBM
PC clones. If the C-64 never existed, history would have probably been
the same. I cannot say that about the Apple II/TRS-80/PET or the PC.

I remember seeing C-64's around the mid-80's, but all anybody did with
them was play games. It was a great game machine with awesome sound.
The impact on me was, meh.

I'm not at all suggesting the C-64 didn't have value and people/kids
didn't learn from/on them, just that it was not the *catalyst that
brought in a new age*.

[Egan Ford]

On 12/9/14, 1:45 PM, Your Name wrote:
> The C64 was like the VW Beetle of early computers (it was officially
> discontinued in 1994, but has since been re-released briefly as a
> retro-games console and sold as a PC with emulation package) and is in
> the Guiness Book for "the highest-selling single computer model of all
> time". It also came in various models, like the Apple II did, including
> one of the first "portable" computers.

So what. If you count all the Apple II models and the millions of
clones I'd wager it's right up there. Count all the PC and PC clones,
even if limited to 1980-1994, and your 17 million as a percentage of
personal computers sold in that 14 years probably rounds to zero.

> According to the Wikipedia page:
> "It has been compared to the Ford Model T automobile for
> its role in bringing a new technology to middle-class
> households via creative mass-production."

Wikipedia? Who compared it to the Model T? Mass-production--yeah I
will not argue that.

> and:
> "[it had] technologically superior sound and graphical
> specifications when compared to some contemporary
> systems such as the Apple II."

Yep. Great for games as I stated before. Imagine how few systems they
would have sold if it didn't have *technologically superior sound and
graphical specifications*.

> Without the computers from Commodore and Atari, it's very possible
> there wouldn't have been "home computers" for most people (at least
> until Windows PC boxes dramatically dropped in price), and many
> developers would never have been introduced to the world of computing.

What does this argument have to do with the C-64? Don't recall
mentioning Atari. Again, IMHO, it was Commodore with their PET, Apple
with their II, and Radio Shack with their TSR that started the "home
computer"-as-an-appliance revolution. Not the C-64 and not the Atari
400/800. Did they help, yes, but it was already started, and if the
C-64 and Ataris didn't emerge, something else would have. Others did,
e.g. Sinclair, TI.

C-64 caught the wave at the right time, hence 17 million units. But the
wave was already there. Again, not implying that C-64 didn't have an
impact, just saying it wasn't that great.

[Your Name]

In article <m683no$ru7$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford

<data...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/9/14, 2:41 PM, David Schmidt wrote:
> > Wow, yeah, way to lob in a grenade, there, Egan. ;-)
>
> :-)
>
> > It would be hard to overstate the C64's impact on [my sub-generation?]
> > of computing, I'd say.
>
> The post I replied to stated, *being the catalyst that brought in a new
> age*. And the argument being 17 million units. The Atari 2600 sold 30
> million units, that I'd argue *brought in a new age for home users to
> have an electronic device in their home*.
>
> I'd say the trinity of Apple II, TRS-80, and Commodore PET was the
> *catalyst* for home computing. The C-64, again IMHO, benefited from
> that catalyst.

Although those did bring in the "personal computer", they were all too
expensive for most "home" users. It was the VIC20, the C64, and the
Ataris that really brought in "home computing" (as well as Sinclair's
rubbishy toys and a mulitude of cheap fly-by-night brands).

> The explosion of the PC and PC clones had a much greater impact than the
> C-64. IMHO, the C-64 was in between the trinity and the rise of the IBM
> PC clones. If the C-64 never existed, history would have probably been
> the same. I cannot say that about the Apple II/TRS-80/PET or the PC.

Complete nonsense. Without the cheaper computers there simply wouldn't
have been "home computing" and many people would never have become
computer programmers.

> I remember seeing C-64's around the mid-80's, but all anybody did with
> them was play games. It was a great game machine with awesome sound.
> The impact on me was, meh.

We had Apple II computers in high school (one of the first "computer
rooms" in the country and the biggest in the southern hemisphere at the
time) ... and pretty much all anybody did with those was play games,
many were supposedly "educational" games like Lemonade Stand, RobotWar,
Logo, etc., but still games.

Before that the school had *ONE* Commodore PET, which was used to tour
classrooms to say "this is a computer" and not actually used for
anything at all.

> I'm not at all suggesting the C-64 didn't have value and people/kids
> didn't learn from/on them, just that it was not the *catalyst that
> brought in a new age*.

The C64 was used by many small businesses and farms for running their
business. It wasn't used by big business because they could afford the
higher prices for the Apple II, IBM PC, Commodore PET, etc.

[Your Name]

In article <m684l0$sbq$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford

Whatever blinkered nonsense approach to history you want to delude
yourself with. :-\

[Bill Buckels]

"Tempest" <reiche...@gmail.com> wrote>

>Ok so SHR is Super Hi-Res (aka IIgs mode). If you can still have the Apple
>RGB monitor hooked up to the IIgs then that would still be ok since SHR
>looks like crap on composite anyway.

I think that about says it all. I needed to write several graphics
converters for both SHR and HGR/DHGR to understand the problem from a
software perspective and several loaders and other stuff as well. Michael
Mahon's simple solution seems a perfect resolution. While the history and
the "hype" is fascinating there's no getting away from the fact that the RGB
display is simply not capable of HGR or DHGR any more than the composite
display is capable of RGB.

Dithered DHGR and HGR images look far worse on my real Apple IIe RGB display
as well. And an 8 bit SHR loader works just as fine as IIgs NDA for loading
SHR images. The VOC is a real "kludge" as well especially on the IIe; it
seems like the "hype" really drove Apple II graphics and not the other way
around.

Simply put, there are two HGRs and two DHGRs on the Apple II.

When Olvier Zardini said that Error-Diffused Dithered DHGR Images look even
better from your neighbor's house, I wondered about that. They looked pretty
good on NTSC. But to IIgs games developers developing for the RGB display, I
realized that he was right.

When I first started this hobby, I was confused by the difference in HGR and
DHGR color between emulators like the IIgs and AppleWin which still isn't
correct like Sheldon Simms AppleWin NTSC. Tom Charlesworth has Sheldon's
code parked and has plans to integrate it at some point into the AppleWin
mainline.

Jace colors are close enough to AppleWin NTSC to say that Blurry also has
the right idea.

CiderPress file viewers are close enough to Kegs32 and Super Convert to say
that all 3 of them also had the right idea when it comes to RGB display, but
really cr*ppy colors simply because Apple Computer has really cr*ppy color
HGR and DHGR color emulation in their RGB display not to mention that they
used poor judgement (in my opinion) by adding a second grey level which
throws any hope of sorting to the right color balance completely out the
window.

On some images using a color distance between RGB (Super Convert) and NTSC
(Sheldon Simms tohgr colors) looks better on the IIgs HGR and DHGR but worse
on NTSC HGR and DHGR, compsite artifacting and fringing aside.

Reading the Video 7 color enhancer manual seemed like such "hype" to me too.

So I need to concur with your opinion entirely.

I am a klutz with a soldering iron, as well as with understanding a problem
of this magnitude so I defer to most of the other opinions in here by folks
who have the complete picture. It's discussions like this that keep the
Apple II alive for those of us who aren't content to get our entertainment
fed through an idiot box.

I'm glad for your thoughts and this thread.

Bill

[Tempest]

Ever since I got my IIgs about 10 years ago I've been annoyed by the Apple II 'emulation'. Sure it ran most games (the handful that don't run have been mostly patched now), but there were always quirks. Either the graphics didn't look quite right (check out the text in Zork Zero or the colors in any Sierra Hi-Res Adventure) or various parts of the games were broken (Ultima's Mockingboard issue, Sky Fox's clouds issue, Phantasie's joystick issue, etc.). This meant I had to keep my trusty IIe hooked up as well as my IIgs. If we can at least solve the HR and DHR graphic issue I'd be a very happy man. There will always be a few games that don't work, but those can all be patched in time.

[Egan Ford]

On 12/9/14, 6:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <m683no$ru7$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford
> <data...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The explosion of the PC and PC clones had a much greater impact than the
>> C-64. IMHO, the C-64 was in between the trinity and the rise of the IBM
>> PC clones. If the C-64 never existed, history would have probably been
>> the same. I cannot say that about the Apple II/TRS-80/PET or the PC.
>
> Complete nonsense. Without the cheaper computers there simply wouldn't
> have been "home computing" and many people would never have become
> computer programmers.

Computing would have got cheaper with or without C-64 and Atari. There
was plenty of "home computing" when I was growing up in the early '80s.
Plenty of Apple IIs and TRS-80s. My first "home computer" was CP/M
based. Home computing existed before the C-64.

[Tempest]

I meant Questron has the joystick issue (still unresolved) not Phantasie. Got my RPGs mixed up. :)

[Egan Ford]

On 12/9/14, 6:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Whatever blinkered nonsense approach to history you want to delude
> yourself with.

Let me make it really simple for you.

Almost every x86-based home computer, x86-workstation, x86-laptop, and
x86-base server can trace its lineage back to the IBM PC that was
released in 1981 (a year before the C-64). The IBM PC was created as an
answer to the late '70s mass-market computers (Apple II, TRS-80, PET).
The PC was quickly cloned, competition went up, and prices dropped, and
here we are today, an x86-home computer in 2 billions homes. That would
have happened with or without the C-64. Again, the C-64 was no *catalyst*.

[Michael Black]

That's a proper assessment.

SOme people used the C64 for quite advanced things, but I suspect a lot of
those sold were to families where the parents thought it would be a good
idea, you can use it without spending too much and use it with the tv set.
And for many, the computer either was used for games, or barely used at
all.

That's no different than the Radio Shack Color Computer, that came out in
1981. I bought mine in 1984 because it used the 6809, and I could run
Microware OS-9 on it, but I'm sure many purchasers never used it beyond
the basic unit.

That wsa the era of typing in BASIC programs from the magazines, something
I could never get excited about.

Michael

[Your Name]

In article <m68hth$5qp$1...@news.xmission.com>, Egan Ford

Let me make it simple for you - you're a brainless nutter who is now in
my killfile. :-\

[gid...@sasktel.net]

You are mis-interpreting how the C-64 was a catalyst. Its cheap price as well as better-than-most computers (sound and graphics) for its price made it the fastest selling computer. It sold 17 million computers to home owners in just a few years while all the computers were just a gleam in the creators eye. Sure there were other computers around before the C-64. But their price made them only really available to companies and schools, not to everyday people.

Just because there is over 2 billion PC's sold now, doesn't mean they are a catalyst. It's how fast and how many were the first ones off the shelf. The C=64 beats all other computers in that respect AND the majority of that was home owners, not schools and businesses.

It is more than likely that once people realized there was a limit on how much the C=64 could be expanded, then the Apple II's and IBM PC's starting getting more popular in homes. But it took years for any other computer to match the numbers that the C=64 first sold.

[Michael J. Mahon]

The text buffers, and any graphics buffers used, must be present to have a
video display. If DHGR and/or 80 column text is used, the equivalent AUX
memory buffers must also be present.

[Your Name]

In article <0add13ce-a381-4500...@googlegroups.com>,

<gid...@sasktel.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 22:24:18 UTC-6, Egan Ford wrote:
> > On 12/9/14, 6:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > > Whatever blinkered nonsense approach to history you want to delude
> > > yourself with.
> >
> > Let me make it really simple for you.
> >
> > Almost every x86-based home computer, x86-workstation, x86-laptop, and
> > x86-base server can trace its lineage back to the IBM PC that was
> > released in 1981 (a year before the C-64). The IBM PC was created as an
> > answer to the late '70s mass-market computers (Apple II, TRS-80, PET).
> > The PC was quickly cloned, competition went up, and prices dropped, and
> > here we are today, an x86-home computer in 2 billions homes. That would
> > have happened with or without the C-64. Again, the C-64 was no *catalyst*.
>
> You are mis-interpreting how the C-64 was a catalyst.

You're wasting your time ... they guy's a numbnut and/or a troll,
either way not worth bothering with.

> Its cheap price as well as better-than-most computers (sound and graphics)
> for its price made it the fastest selling computer. It sold 17 million
> computers to home owners in just a few years while all the computers were
> just a gleam in the creators eye. Sure there were other computers around
> before the C-64. But their price made them only really available to
> companies and schools, not to everyday people.
>
> Just because there is over 2 billion PC's sold now, doesn't mean they are a
> catalyst. It's how fast and how many were the first ones off the shelf. The
> C=64 beats all other computers in that respect AND the majority of that was
> home owners, not schools and businesses.
>
> It is more than likely that once people realized there was a limit on how
> much the C=64 could be expanded, then the Apple II's and IBM PC's starting
> getting more popular in homes. But it took years for any other computer to
> match the numbers that the C=64 first sold.

The Apple II and "IBM PC" were simply too expensive and were never in
as many homes (nor small businesses and farms) as the Commodore 64,
Commodore Amiga, and early Ataris, and in Britain the BBC computers. It
was only later when all the Wintel clones really started appearing that
the Windoze computers moved into the home, and Apple still somewhat
struggled to get into homes until the iMac, although the LC series was
partially succesful.

[Anthony Lawther]

Maybe if we all disagree loudly enough we can make this newsgroup really
quiet for you.

I don't know what school or year you are talking about in regard to the
computer lab, but my high school had a room with 16 Apple II Europluses in
1984 and these were mostly used for teaching programming in AppleSoft.

If the rule here is that those who don't agree with you are delusional then
add me to the list ... And your killfile.

Regards,
Anthony.

[Bill Buckels]

"Tempest" <reiche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Got my RPGs mixed up. :)

But you got everything else straightened out, theoretically speaking of
course.

"Everyone" is aware of this problem but AppleWin is used for far more than
playing games and displaying graphics. The debugger is contantly being
expanded and has become a monster. As far as graphics go, you can pause the
game, and BSAVE a DHGR game screen to disk in the debugger by saving the
main and auxiliary memory

Here's what Tom Charlesworth wrote in comp.emulators.apple2 in a recent
discussion about plans for Sheldon Simms AppleWin NTSC modes being added to
AppleWin. Keep in mind that this is very preliminary:

----- Original Message -----
From: "TomCh" <tomcharl...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.apple2
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: AppleWin and AppleWin NTSC Rendering - Composite Fringe Colors
and tohgr palette colors

Hi Bill,

Some background: a few years ago (actually 4 years now!), Sheldon GPL'd the
code and committed it to the AppleWin repository. This now resides in
github:
https://github.com/AppleWin/AppleWin/tree/AppleWin-Sheldon

Recently, I've been looking at Sheldon's work to try to figure out the best
way to integrate it into the current AppleWin main-line.

Sheldon's code not only supports 4 NTSC modes: {b/w, colour} x {TV,
monitor}; but is also cycle accurate, meaning it supports video mode
switching, albeit with mixed success (try the end credits of French Touch's
"Ansi Story": http://www.ctrl-pomme-reset.fr/french-touch/).

The cycle accuracy means that emulation is slower then regular AppleWin.
Keeping up with a 1MHz 6502 is easy, but AppleWin will switch to unthrottled
emulation speed when the Disk][ motor is on as a way to significantly reduce
load times. Also being able to use the ScrollLock key to temporarily apply
an emulation "burst" to skip through unwanted game sections is very useful.

I'd first like to support the NTSC modes without the cycle accuracy (since
there's only a handful of intros/demos that use this technique). Then make
cycle accuracy an option.

Dropping the existing AppleWin display modes is also an option, but there is
still value in some of these modes, eg 'Color (TV Emulation)' which does
vertical colour blending (used by many titles, eg. Karateka, Blazing
Paddles, MindShadow, etc). Obviously this vertical blending can be applied
to Sheldon's NTSC colour TV mode, but one step at a time, right? :)

So my initial focus would be on adding the NTSC modes (to sit alongside the
existing mode).

Tom

x--- snip ---x

I realize that this strays further off-topic than some folks would like, but
WOZ's epiphany that he could have done 2 levels of grey on a perfect
composite display when the RGB display is such a glaring kludge and does no
justice to his original design anyway seems somewhat like Moses adding a
16th commandment then coming down from the mountain only to find that Buddy
Jesus already added a 16th commandment to a digitally sampled RAP version to
sell an StoneAge iPhone that business dudes could use to read their contact
list without squinting, in anticipation of a large Cash Cow made from
Golden Eggs.

At the risk of more mixed metaphors, Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi also
comes to mind.

Bill