Discussion:
IIgs questions
(too old to reply)
Anthony Ortiz
2017-08-31 14:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.

Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.

Warm Regards,

Anthony
Michael 'AppleWin Debugger Dev'
2017-08-31 15:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Ortiz
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled fanatics or the general concensus?
In the 80's I stayed as far as possible from the GS for a few reasons:

* Not everything worked on it -- what was the point when everything "just worked" on a //e+ ?
* It was just too "different"

I picked up two a few years back and I kind of wish I hadn't let my biases color my thinking and picked one up back then but by that time I had ditched the 6502 for the x86.
Charlie
2017-08-31 16:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Ortiz
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.
There are a few differences, but most //e cards work the same in a IIgs.
The Apple IIgs Hardware Reference Chapter 8 contains most of what you
need to know.
You should also check out the IIgs tech notes #32 and #68.
Post by Anthony Ortiz
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.
I've owned and used an Apple ][+, a //e and a IIgs (ROM 01). I feel the
IIgs is a very worthy successor. Its design was intended to make it
compatible with the previous Apple IIs while moving forward into a 16
bit machine. I believe it succeeded in that. There are a few odd
design decisions but I think you find that in all computers.

Most of the criticism I've seen involves three things:

1. Look and feel. In that the critics are correct it doesn't
physically look or feel like a ][, ][+ or //e. A IIc doesn't either for
that matter.

2. Documentation. Apple chose to do away with the good manuals that
came with the earlier Apple IIs and instead sold expensive and overly
verbose manuals.

3. The GUI. Some people don't like them.

These criticisms are valid to some people but speaking for myself, they
don't make the IIgs poorly designed or unworthy.

Charlie
r***@gmail.com
2017-09-01 00:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Off of the top of my head, I don't recall cards that do not work in the IIgs.

There are far too many issues to discuss about the IIgs, so here are the highlights:

* Too slow
* Sound chip - the most advanced feature of the machine - was crippled by mono output
* Not allowed to compete with Macintosh (may explain “too slow”)
* The segmented architecture of the 65816 was already despised in the IBM PC and its clones
* Graphics not competitive with the Amiga or Atari ST
* 800K disks were too small to use GS/OS

In short, not a compelling machine. Mainly of interest to existing Apple II owners.

Disclosure: I used pre-release IIgses.
Du Hast
2017-09-02 01:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Off of the top of my head, I don't recall cards that do not work in the IIgs.
* Too slow
* Sound chip - the most advanced feature of the machine - was crippled by mono output
* Not allowed to compete with Macintosh (may explain “too slow”)
* The segmented architecture of the 65816 was already despised in the IBM PC and its clones
* Graphics not competitive with the Amiga or Atari ST
* 800K disks were too small to use GS/OS
In short, not a compelling machine. Mainly of interest to existing Apple II owners.
Disclosure: I used pre-release IIgses.
I've been using a //gs since about 1992, and the issues listed are easily(sort of) now to rectify.

It is a slow machine in 16 bit mode without an accelerator, but I had a Transwarp from the beginning. It makes it tolerable.

I got a sound card, and it opens the door to a whole new world of applications and creativity with digitizing sounds. (Not easily done on a II)

I had a SCSI card, and GS/OS with a HD is just peachy.

The other concerns aren't really end user things except for graphics, and they are decent for the time.

I used my //gs daily until 1997 or so, all through college while everyone else had P90's and I had no problems keeping up with actual "work", but fell behind in games and those sort of things. After 1997 the innerwebs is what made me stop using it. I still do use it now, but mainly for Appleworks.

In short it is an EXTREMELY compelling machine. You have all the 8 bit Apple things, and all the 16 bit extras that make it a machine you can actually use today with a little patience. It just does things that an 8 bit Apple just can't. I did some of my wedding invitation design on it a few years ago. It addressed all the envelopes from a database.

Full disclosure: ROM 01, ZipGSX 8 Mghz, Audio Animator, CFFA, Laserjet 4200. At one point I had a CDRom but not much use for it.

You can take my //gs when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
r***@gmail.com
2017-09-03 15:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.

So this reply is for those who need to kill some time. :-)
Post by Du Hast
I've been using a //gs since about 1992, and the issues listed are easily(sort of) now to rectify.
The IIgs was discontinued in that year.

It's unimportant that the issues can be resolved now. It's important that they can be resolved while the //gs was being produced.
Post by Du Hast
It is a slow machine in 16 bit mode without an accelerator, but I had a Transwarp from the beginning. It makes it tolerable.
I got a sound card, and it opens the door to a whole new world of applications and creativity with digitizing sounds. (Not easily done on a II)
I had a SCSI card, and GS/OS with a HD is just peachy.
Buying a computer, an accelerator, a hard drive and controller and an additional card for sound is not going to help sell more of that computer.
Post by Du Hast
The other concerns aren't really end user things except for graphics, and they are decent for the time.
If developers are having trouble, the users are the most affected.

I have no idea how the //gs graphics can be described as "decent for the time."

Generally the 1982 Commodore 64 outclasses Apple II graphics. One of IBM's last significant contributions to the PC architecture was VGA (640x480 256 colors), which even Apple adopted in 1989's Mac IIci. (VGA also spelled doom for the Amiga and Atari ST.)
Post by Du Hast
.. After 1997 the innerwebs is what made me stop using it. ...
I completely agree with that. The internet absolutely killed the Apple II family (VGA being ubiquitous by then was also a significant factor).
Post by Du Hast
In short it is an EXTREMELY compelling machine. ...
I would hope after all those upgrades it would be compelling!

The primary reason why I find the //gs useful today is its RGB output. ADB is also convenient, allowing a choice of keyboards - though the //gs keyboard is hard to beat for a) the Control key being in the right place and b) its size.
Polymorph
2017-09-03 23:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
So this reply is for those who need to kill some time. :-)
OK... so I've got a couple of minutes to kill. :-)

This topic was *always* going to be polarising, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. Many people are 8 bit purists, whilst others enjoy the 16 bit side of the IIgs. Surely people are entitled to their own opinions?
Post by r***@gmail.com
I have no idea how the //gs graphics can be described as "decent for the time."
Generally the 1982 Commodore 64 outclasses Apple II graphics. One of IBM's last significant contributions to the PC architecture was VGA (640x480 256 colors), which even Apple adopted in 1989's Mac IIci. (VGA also spelled doom for the Amiga and Atari ST.)
I'm not sure which graphics mode you are talking about with regards to the IIgs? The IIgs has 2 super hires modes that set it apart from the 8 bit machines:
1) 320×200 (3200 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
2) 640×200 (800 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)

The IIgs does have a limitation of only allowing colours from one pallete to be used per scanline, but you can switch palletes between scanlines. I'm no C64 expert, but I'm pretty confident it couldn't compete with a IIgs, in fact the IIgs' graphics IMHO is better than an Atari ST (at least in terms of resolution and colour depth). The IIgs does have a 1 MHz graphics bus which means the system has to slow down to 1 MHz when refreshing the display.
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Du Hast
.. After 1997 the innerwebs is what made me stop using it. ...
I completely agree with that. The internet absolutely killed the Apple II family (VGA being ubiquitous by then was also a significant factor).
Post by Du Hast
In short it is an EXTREMELY compelling machine. ...
I would hope after all those upgrades it would be compelling!
Well compare it to contemporary 16 bit machines of the day - the Atari ST and the Amiga (of which I own both) - consider how expandable each of these machines are in comparison to the IIgs. Short answer, there is no comparison. Woz's slots to this day allow enthusiasts to easily add features to a 30+ year old machine. There are great expansions for the Amiga (and maybe the ST?) too, but these usually involve hanging cartridge-style contraptions to the side of the machine. And you can usually only add one at a time...
Post by r***@gmail.com
The primary reason why I find the //gs useful today is its RGB output. ADB is also convenient, allowing a choice of keyboards - though the //gs keyboard is hard to beat for a) the Control key being in the right place and b) its size.
I like the keyboard options for the IIgs as well. I prefer to use an "Apple Keyboard II" with my IIgs as it has a better feel to the one that came with the IIgs. But in truth this is not the real reason why this machine is my favourite. I grew up with an Apple IIe, but with the IIgs I love the fact that I can do pretty much everything I used to do with an 8 bit machine *plus* take advantage of the 16 bit side
- graphical OS
- greatly improved graphics
- greatly improved sound

I get that some people prefer the 8 bitters - I have a //e and //c as well - but to right-off the IIgs as not being a worthy successor? Bah!

That's my 2c worth anyhow!

Cheers,
Mike
Steve Nickolas
2017-09-04 02:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
So this reply is for those who need to kill some time. :-)
OK... so I've got a couple of minutes to kill. :-)
This topic was *always* going to be polarising, so I'm not sure why
anyone is surprised. Many people are 8 bit purists, whilst others enjoy
the 16 bit side of the IIgs. Surely people are entitled to their own
opinions?
:P
Post by Polymorph
I'm not sure which graphics mode you are talking about with regards to
the IIgs? The IIgs has 2 super hires modes that set it apart from the 8
1) 320×200 (3200 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
2) 640×200 (800 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
The IIgs does have a limitation of only allowing colours from one
pallete to be used per scanline, but you can switch palletes between
scanlines. I'm no C64 expert, but I'm pretty confident it couldn't
compete with a IIgs, in fact the IIgs' graphics IMHO is better than an
Atari ST (at least in terms of resolution and colour depth). The IIgs
does have a 1 MHz graphics bus which means the system has to slow down
to 1 MHz when refreshing the display.
Parity. Possibly more colors total, but it's still 320x200x16/640x200x4.

The C64's usual mode was only 160x200 with 16 fixed colors which had some
limitations as to how you could use them, or 320x200 with further
limitations. Absolutely the GS would crush it.
Post by Polymorph
Well compare it to contemporary 16 bit machines of the day - the Atari
ST and the Amiga (of which I own both) - consider how expandable each of
these machines are in comparison to the IIgs. Short answer, there is no
comparison. Woz's slots to this day allow enthusiasts to easily add
features to a 30+ year old machine. There are great expansions for the
Amiga (and maybe the ST?) too, but these usually involve hanging
cartridge-style contraptions to the side of the machine. And you can
usually only add one at a time...
Always was the advantage of Apples over C= and Atari.

-uso.
awanderin
2017-09-05 05:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Nickolas
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
So this reply is for those who need to kill some time. :-)
OK... so I've got a couple of minutes to kill. :-)
This topic was *always* going to be polarising, so I'm not sure why
anyone is surprised. Many people are 8 bit purists, whilst others
enjoy the 16 bit side of the IIgs. Surely people are entitled to
their own opinions?
:P
Post by Polymorph
I'm not sure which graphics mode you are talking about with regards
to the IIgs? The IIgs has 2 super hires modes that set it apart from
1) 320×200 (3200 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
2) 640×200 (800 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
The IIgs does have a limitation of only allowing colours from one
pallete to be used per scanline, but you can switch palletes between
scanlines. I'm no C64 expert, but I'm pretty confident it couldn't
compete with a IIgs, in fact the IIgs' graphics IMHO is better than
an Atari ST (at least in terms of resolution and colour depth). The
IIgs does have a 1 MHz graphics bus which means the system has to
slow down to 1 MHz when refreshing the display.
Parity. Possibly more colors total, but it's still 320x200x16/640x200x4.
The C64's usual mode was only 160x200 with 16 fixed colors which had
some limitations as to how you could use them, or 320x200 with further
limitations. Absolutely the GS would crush it.
Except that the C-64 had programmable character graphics, hardware
scrolling registers, and sprites. These three things made it easier to
do various games at 30 frames/second.

So, visually yes, the IIgs' graphics were much better. But
animation-wise, it was harder to do animation and scrolling at the same
speed and with similar simplicity of code.

[...]
--
--
Jerry awanderin at gmail dot com
r***@gmail.com
2017-09-07 01:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
Seems that Du Hast is more fixated than just a fanatic. The fixated only want good news.
Post by Polymorph
This topic was *always* going to be polarising, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. Many people are 8 bit purists, whilst others enjoy the 16 bit side of the IIgs. Surely people are entitled to their own opinions?
I am primarily trying to add historical perspective. There may be readers who aren't aware of how the microcomputer world was 30 years ago.
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
Generally the 1982 Commodore 64 outclasses Apple II graphics. One of IBM's last significant contributions to the PC architecture was VGA (640x480 256 colors), which even Apple adopted in 1989's Mac IIci. (VGA also spelled doom for the Amiga and Atari ST.)
1) 320×200 (3200 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
2) 640×200 (800 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
No idea where the 3200 and 800 colours are from. From the IIgs Hardware Reference Manual:

* 16 colors for each of the 200 lines-up to 256 colors per frame

I failed to mention that by the time the IIgs was released its Super Hi-Res was already obsolete compared to the Amiga or Atari ST.

There is exactly one Super Hi-Res page which is laughable in the Commodore or Atari worlds.
Post by Polymorph
Well compare it to contemporary 16 bit machines of the day - the Atari ST and the Amiga (of which I own both) - consider how expandable each of these machines are in comparison to the IIgs. Short answer, there is no comparison. Woz's slots to this day allow enthusiasts to easily add features to a 30+ year old machine. There are great expansions for the Amiga (and maybe the ST?) too, but these usually involve hanging cartridge-style contraptions to the side of the machine. And you can usually only add one at a time...
Absolutely, if Woz hadn't insisted on 8 slots for the original Apple II, the IIgs could not have happened.

So what did you get for the IIgs that wasn't already built in to the Atari ST or Amiga? (For the noobs, "Which Atari ST or Amiga" is its own topic.)
Post by Polymorph
But in truth this is not the real reason why this machine is my favourite. I grew up with an Apple IIe, but with the IIgs I love the fact that I can do pretty much everything I used to do with an 8 bit machine *plus* take advantage of the 16 bit side
- graphical OS
- greatly improved graphics
- greatly improved sound
As I already mentioned: Primarily appealing to existing Apple II owners.
Post by Polymorph
I get that some people prefer the 8 bitters - I have a //e and //c as well - but to right-off the IIgs as not being a worthy successor? Bah!
I appreciate that Apple put a whole lot of work into the IIgs. Essentially porting the Macintosh Toolbox was a huge effort. There were literally reams of pre-release documentation.

The IIgs had the first color implementation of Apple's user interface.

However...name the GS/OS "killer application." Something that was only on the IIgs that would make it worth buying instead of a //e.
John Brooks
2017-09-07 06:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
Seems that Du Hast is more fixated than just a fanatic. The fixated only want good news.
Post by Polymorph
This topic was *always* going to be polarising, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. Many people are 8 bit purists, whilst others enjoy the 16 bit side of the IIgs. Surely people are entitled to their own opinions?
I am primarily trying to add historical perspective. There may be readers who aren't aware of how the microcomputer world was 30 years ago.
Post by Polymorph
Post by r***@gmail.com
Generally the 1982 Commodore 64 outclasses Apple II graphics. One of IBM's last significant contributions to the PC architecture was VGA (640x480 256 colors), which even Apple adopted in 1989's Mac IIci. (VGA also spelled doom for the Amiga and Atari ST.)
1) 320×200 (3200 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
2) 640×200 (800 colours, selectable from 4,096 colour palette)
* 16 colors for each of the 200 lines-up to 256 colors per frame
I failed to mention that by the time the IIgs was released its Super Hi-Res was already obsolete compared to the Amiga or Atari ST.
There is exactly one Super Hi-Res page which is laughable in the Commodore or Atari worlds.
Post by Polymorph
Well compare it to contemporary 16 bit machines of the day - the Atari ST and the Amiga (of which I own both) - consider how expandable each of these machines are in comparison to the IIgs. Short answer, there is no comparison. Woz's slots to this day allow enthusiasts to easily add features to a 30+ year old machine. There are great expansions for the Amiga (and maybe the ST?) too, but these usually involve hanging cartridge-style contraptions to the side of the machine. And you can usually only add one at a time...
Absolutely, if Woz hadn't insisted on 8 slots for the original Apple II, the IIgs could not have happened.
So what did you get for the IIgs that wasn't already built in to the Atari ST or Amiga? (For the noobs, "Which Atari ST or Amiga" is its own topic.)
Post by Polymorph
But in truth this is not the real reason why this machine is my favourite. I grew up with an Apple IIe, but with the IIgs I love the fact that I can do pretty much everything I used to do with an 8 bit machine *plus* take advantage of the 16 bit side
- graphical OS
- greatly improved graphics
- greatly improved sound
As I already mentioned: Primarily appealing to existing Apple II owners.
Post by Polymorph
I get that some people prefer the 8 bitters - I have a //e and //c as well - but to right-off the IIgs as not being a worthy successor? Bah!
I appreciate that Apple put a whole lot of work into the IIgs. Essentially porting the Macintosh Toolbox was a huge effort. There were literally reams of pre-release documentation.
The IIgs had the first color implementation of Apple's user interface.
However...name the GS/OS "killer application." Something that was only on the IIgs that would make it worth buying instead of a //e.
No idea where the 3200 and 800 colours are from
I made the 3200 format to display a photo of an Apache helicoptor on the Tomahawk IIGS title screen in 1988. It races the beam changing palettes every scan line.

Tomahawk also had a flicker-free 'sprite' mouse cursor in-game. I used a scan-line IRQ to interrupt the CPU just before the line where the cursor would be visible. The cursor was then drawn just before the beam and then erased just after the beam. The IRQ exited with no cursor pixels in the frame buffer.
Post by r***@gmail.com
So what did you get for the IIgs that wasn't already built in to the Atari ST or Amiga?
A great platform for makers, programmers and power users with great community support. The Apple IIGS open hardware and software empowered experimentation in ways that the ST & Amiga did not.

It's like comparing the Raspberry Pi to the Beagle Bone Black today. While the BBB has more powerful hardware, the RPI has a better community and is more empowering for most devs & users.
Post by r***@gmail.com
Something that was only on the IIgs that would make it worth buying instead of a //e
As a game programmer, I felt there were 3x killer apps for the GS compared to the //e:

1) Deluxe Paint (GS/OS). While not as capable as the Amiga version it was still very good and much better than anything on the //e.

2) Merlin-16 (both ProDOS & GS/OS versions). The improvements to the assembler, linkers, editor, and utilities made this a much better dev environment than any of the //e options.

3) Localtalk (both ProDOS & GS/OS) was groundbreaking tech and a key purchase feature for many teams.

Other app genres that were 'big wins' on the GS vs //e:
1) Sound/music
2) Wysiwyg word processors
3) Games

Actually, there is almost nothing that was 'better' on the //e compared to the GS AFAIK.

The biggest 'step down' I experienced in the Apple II ecosystem was going from an Apple II+ w/Ultraterm 132-column card to the //e w/80-column card. Moving to the GS, I only missed the cassette port and multiple aux ram banks, but not very much. :)

$0.02
-JB
@JBrooksBSI
Du Hast
2017-09-04 02:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
There is little value in trying to debate with fanatics.
So this reply is for those who need to kill some time. :-)
Post by Du Hast
I've been using a //gs since about 1992, and the issues listed are easily(sort of) now to rectify.
The IIgs was discontinued in that year.
It's unimportant that the issues can be resolved now. It's important that they can be resolved while the //gs was being produced.
Post by Du Hast
It is a slow machine in 16 bit mode without an accelerator, but I had a Transwarp from the beginning. It makes it tolerable.
I got a sound card, and it opens the door to a whole new world of applications and creativity with digitizing sounds. (Not easily done on a II)
I had a SCSI card, and GS/OS with a HD is just peachy.
Buying a computer, an accelerator, a hard drive and controller and an additional card for sound is not going to help sell more of that computer.
Post by Du Hast
The other concerns aren't really end user things except for graphics, and they are decent for the time.
If developers are having trouble, the users are the most affected.
I have no idea how the //gs graphics can be described as "decent for the time."
Generally the 1982 Commodore 64 outclasses Apple II graphics. One of IBM's last significant contributions to the PC architecture was VGA (640x480 256 colors), which even Apple adopted in 1989's Mac IIci. (VGA also spelled doom for the Amiga and Atari ST.)
Post by Du Hast
.. After 1997 the innerwebs is what made me stop using it. ...
I completely agree with that. The internet absolutely killed the Apple II family (VGA being ubiquitous by then was also a significant factor).
Post by Du Hast
In short it is an EXTREMELY compelling machine. ...
I would hope after all those upgrades it would be compelling!
The primary reason why I find the //gs useful today is its RGB output. ADB is also convenient, allowing a choice of keyboards - though the //gs keyboard is hard to beat for a) the Control key being in the right place and b) its size.
Well, the issues were resolved back when the computer was being made, albeit they were a little pricey. More easily today because they are somewhat cheaper.

I remember in 1986, when the //gs came out, you still had buy HD, sound cards, possibly a math coprocessor for IBM's, yet they still sold.

So you're saying that because the //gs didn't have VGA, which was developed after it was designed and built, that the //gs graphics weren't good for the time? Really?

Developers having trouble with segmented architecture? The end user was suffering? The applications existed, the games may have been lacking but that was mostly because of speed.

You're right, with the upgrades it is compelling, and that's what makes it the worthy successor. You CAN upgrade it. I can install and use today's technology in my 30+ year old computer and have it DO something. I can fire up Appleworks GS or Graphicwriter and use a font designed yesterday and laser print it out, all while seeing it WYSIWYG. USB stick? Yep. Ethernet? Yep. Whatever comes out 10 years from now. Yep.
David Schmenk
2017-09-01 17:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Ortiz
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.
Warm Regards,
Anthony
Anthony-

I believe the criticisms of the IIgs are well warranted, however, I've come to accept the IIgs as a successor to the //e by:

1. Building a stealth GS from a //e case - this gives the physical appearance that appeases my sensibilities (certainly not necessary, though).

2. Consider the IIGS a slightly accelerated //e (but that can be disabled and run at 1 MHZ)

3. Built in, not quite compatible serial ports that are a bit annoying with their mini-DIN connectors. This is easily rectified by plugging in a Super Serial Card, just as you would with a //e.

4. Program it as you would a //e. The advanced features of the IIgs are easily accessed, even from 8 bit code, should you want to play with them. Also, any additional RAM you have in the system makes for a nice RAM drive.

5. You have the option to go full GUI and networking with upgrades.

6. From the hardware tinkering side of things, there shouldn't be any real differences. It was meant to be Apple II compatible, including most peripheral cards.

Dave...
Michael J. Mahon
2017-09-01 21:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Schmenk
Post by Anthony Ortiz
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I
realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any
advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a
IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to
be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed
or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled
fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some
links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the
understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.
Warm Regards,
Anthony
Anthony-
I believe the criticisms of the IIgs are well warranted, however, I've
1. Building a stealth GS from a //e case - this gives the physical
appearance that appeases my sensibilities (certainly not necessary, though).
2. Consider the IIGS a slightly accelerated //e (but that can be disabled and run at 1 MHZ)
3. Built in, not quite compatible serial ports that are a bit annoying
with their mini-DIN connectors. This is easily rectified by plugging in a
Super Serial Card, just as you would with a //e.
4. Program it as you would a //e. The advanced features of the IIgs are
easily accessed, even from 8 bit code, should you want to play with them.
Also, any additional RAM you have in the system makes for a nice RAM drive.
5. You have the option to go full GUI and networking with upgrades.
6. From the hardware tinkering side of things, there shouldn't be any
real differences. It was meant to be Apple II compatible, including most peripheral cards.
Dave...
...also, missing the cassette ports.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Daniel Bethe
2017-09-02 01:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm not sure how 99% compatibility (100% of anything that matters) in a functionally modernized superset can be considered unworthy, but such a person could never be satisfied anyway. That doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, here's a supremely awesome essay about the IIgs, written by some of the best programmers ever. This describes the competitive market position of the IIgs from a deeply technological viewpoint -- features and performance compared to Amiga and Atari ST. The verdict is that it's flawed on some performance traits but way ahead in others, and ahead on graphics and sound features and ease of programming.

http://brutaldeluxe.fr/products/crossdevtools/mrspritetech/

Good luck with your hardware design pursuits!
David Schmenk
2017-09-02 16:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael J. Mahon
Post by David Schmenk
Post by Anthony Ortiz
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I
realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any
advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a
IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to
be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed
or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled
fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some
links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the
understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.
Warm Regards,
Anthony
Anthony-
I believe the criticisms of the IIgs are well warranted, however, I've
1. Building a stealth GS from a //e case - this gives the physical
appearance that appeases my sensibilities (certainly not necessary, though).
2. Consider the IIGS a slightly accelerated //e (but that can be disabled and run at 1 MHZ)
3. Built in, not quite compatible serial ports that are a bit annoying
with their mini-DIN connectors. This is easily rectified by plugging in a
Super Serial Card, just as you would with a //e.
4. Program it as you would a //e. The advanced features of the IIgs are
easily accessed, even from 8 bit code, should you want to play with them.
Also, any additional RAM you have in the system makes for a nice RAM drive.
5. You have the option to go full GUI and networking with upgrades.
6. From the hardware tinkering side of things, there shouldn't be any
real differences. It was meant to be Apple II compatible, including most peripheral cards.
Dave...
...also, missing the cassette ports.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Right, and some game port differences that are just enough to be infuriating.
Michael J. Mahon
2017-09-02 17:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Schmenk
Post by Michael J. Mahon
Post by David Schmenk
Post by Anthony Ortiz
I'm doing some peripheral card tinkering aimed at the IIe when I
realized that I only own a IIgs and it may have some differences. Any
advice on developing a card for the IIe when actual development is on a
IIgs? I have the apple ii interfacing book but that doesn't cover the IIgs.
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems to
be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed
or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few disgruntled
fanatics or the general concensus? If the latter, I'd appreciate some
links to an in-depth analysis of why this is the case as I was under the
understanding that Woz was involved in the development of the IIgs.
Warm Regards,
Anthony
Anthony-
I believe the criticisms of the IIgs are well warranted, however, I've
1. Building a stealth GS from a //e case - this gives the physical
appearance that appeases my sensibilities (certainly not necessary, though).
2. Consider the IIGS a slightly accelerated //e (but that can be
disabled and run at 1 MHZ)
3. Built in, not quite compatible serial ports that are a bit annoying
with their mini-DIN connectors. This is easily rectified by plugging in a
Super Serial Card, just as you would with a //e.
4. Program it as you would a //e. The advanced features of the IIgs are
easily accessed, even from 8 bit code, should you want to play with them.
Also, any additional RAM you have in the system makes for a nice RAM drive.
5. You have the option to go full GUI and networking with upgrades.
6. From the hardware tinkering side of things, there shouldn't be any
real differences. It was meant to be Apple II compatible, including
most peripheral cards.
Dave...
...also, missing the cassette ports.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Right, and some game port differences that are just enough to be infuriating.
;-)

For me, the most annoying game port change came with the late-revision //e.
No doubt, to finish some last-minute FCC worries they put 0.1uF capacitors
across all four pushbutton inputs, rendering them only good for...
*pushbuttons*! ;-)

I had to add a section to my NadaNet write-ups describing how to remove
them to restore their rightful bandwidth!
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
James Davis
2017-09-02 19:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael J. Mahon
For me, the most annoying game port change came with the late-revision //e.
No doubt, to finish some last-minute FCC worries they put 0.1uF capacitors
across all four pushbutton inputs, rendering them only good for...
*pushbuttons*! ;-)
I had to add a section to my NadaNet write-ups describing how to remove
them to restore their rightful bandwidth!
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Hi Michael,

I was wondering if your NadaNet would work as a medium for connecting/communicating between Apple II and non-Apple II PC's--Hardware/Software-wise?

[Is this a old or new topic already on CSA2? If so, when/where?]

James Davis
Michael J. Mahon
2017-09-02 22:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Davis
Post by Michael J. Mahon
For me, the most annoying game port change came with the late-revision //e.
No doubt, to finish some last-minute FCC worries they put 0.1uF capacitors
across all four pushbutton inputs, rendering them only good for...
*pushbuttons*! ;-)
I had to add a section to my NadaNet write-ups describing how to remove
them to restore their rightful bandwidth!
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Hi Michael,
I was wondering if your NadaNet would work as a medium for
connecting/communicating between Apple II and non-Apple II PC's--Hardware/Software-wise?
[Is this a old or new topic already on CSA2? If so, when/where?]
James Davis
The topic comes up occasionally...

NadaNet is designed from the wire up to connect a few dozen Apple II's in a
peer-to-peer network. Its protocols rely on the timing determinism of the
Apple II, and it does not support gateways to other networks, or, for that
matter, to other NadaNet instances.

It would be possible to designate an Apple II on NadaNet as a proxy to
other networks, but systems on the other network(s) could not participate
in NadaNet as native members, and the proxy would be rather slow.

In principal, a microcontroller could serve as a proxy, but that would
require a re-implementation.

NadaNet supports a variety of data transfer and synchronization operation
between Apples, including client-server computing and parallel computing.

For example, I've implemented a "mailbox"-like message server and a ProDOS
file server that provides many of ProDOS's (stateless) services to other
Apples on NadaNet, whether they are running ProDOS, DOS, or no OS at all.

This is all documented on my website.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
James Davis
2017-09-04 02:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael J. Mahon
Post by James Davis
Post by Michael J. Mahon
For me, the most annoying game port change came with the late-revision //e.
No doubt, to finish some last-minute FCC worries they put 0.1uF capacitors
across all four pushbutton inputs, rendering them only good for...
*pushbuttons*! ;-)
I had to add a section to my NadaNet write-ups describing how to remove
them to restore their rightful bandwidth!
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Hi Michael,
I was wondering if your NadaNet would work as a medium for
connecting/communicating between Apple II and non-Apple II PC's--Hardware/Software-wise?
[Is this a old or new topic already on CSA2? If so, when/where?]
James Davis
The topic comes up occasionally...
NadaNet is designed from the wire up to connect a few dozen Apple II's in a
peer-to-peer network. Its protocols rely on the timing determinism of the
Apple II, and it does not support gateways to other networks, or, for that
matter, to other NadaNet instances.
It would be possible to designate an Apple II on NadaNet as a proxy to
other networks, but systems on the other network(s) could not participate
in NadaNet as native members, and the proxy would be rather slow.
In principal, a microcontroller could serve as a proxy, but that would
require a re-implementation.
NadaNet supports a variety of data transfer and synchronization operation
between Apples, including client-server computing and parallel computing.
For example, I've implemented a "mailbox"-like message server and a ProDOS
file server that provides many of ProDOS's (stateless) services to other
Apples on NadaNet, whether they are running ProDOS, DOS, or no OS at all.
This is all documented on my website.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Thanks for that, Michael.

Now, I understand that NadaNet is a "Nothing Network"/"Not a Network"! But that it is a medium for "Parallel Computing" and just your experiment for exploration of that subject!

So, what good is it to the rest of the Apple II community?--Don't answer that.--I really don't understand all the technicalities of your articles about it (and other things).--You're just to brilliant for me.

James Davis
Michael J. Mahon
2017-09-04 04:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Davis
Post by Michael J. Mahon
Post by James Davis
Post by Michael J. Mahon
For me, the most annoying game port change came with the late-revision //e.
No doubt, to finish some last-minute FCC worries they put 0.1uF capacitors
across all four pushbutton inputs, rendering them only good for...
*pushbuttons*! ;-)
I had to add a section to my NadaNet write-ups describing how to remove
them to restore their rightful bandwidth!
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Hi Michael,
I was wondering if your NadaNet would work as a medium for
connecting/communicating between Apple II and non-Apple II PC's--Hardware/Software-wise?
[Is this a old or new topic already on CSA2? If so, when/where?]
James Davis
The topic comes up occasionally...
NadaNet is designed from the wire up to connect a few dozen Apple II's in a
peer-to-peer network. Its protocols rely on the timing determinism of the
Apple II, and it does not support gateways to other networks, or, for that
matter, to other NadaNet instances.
It would be possible to designate an Apple II on NadaNet as a proxy to
other networks, but systems on the other network(s) could not participate
in NadaNet as native members, and the proxy would be rather slow.
In principal, a microcontroller could serve as a proxy, but that would
require a re-implementation.
NadaNet supports a variety of data transfer and synchronization operation
between Apples, including client-server computing and parallel computing.
For example, I've implemented a "mailbox"-like message server and a ProDOS
file server that provides many of ProDOS's (stateless) services to other
Apples on NadaNet, whether they are running ProDOS, DOS, or no OS at all.
This is all documented on my website.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Thanks for that, Michael.
Now, I understand that NadaNet is a "Nothing Network"/"Not a Network"!
But that it is a medium for "Parallel Computing" and just your experiment
for exploration of that subject!
So, what good is it to the rest of the Apple II community?--Don't answer
that.--I really don't understand all the technicalities of your articles
about it (and other things).--You're just to brilliant for me.
James Davis
James,

At the time, I thought more Apple II folks would be interested in
client-server computing or cluster computing, as a way of using more than
one system productively, but mostly to experiment with these ideas using
familiar and easily-programmed hardware. Apparently I was mistaken, since
few people seem to have used NadaNet.

Today, "networking" means Ethernet and TCP/IP, which is a much more general
network scheme, suited to heterogenous computing--and also *much* more
complex and overhead-laden.

NadaNet, even including its Applesoft ampersand extensions, is just a tad
over 2KB, and runs right on the metal. It directly supports inter-machine
PEEKs, POKEs, and CALLs, plus a lot more, plus any functionality added to
the network by Apple II servers.
--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Tom Porter
2017-09-02 19:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I second the Cassette Ports... its a VERY useful thingamabob!
Post by Michael J. Mahon
...also, missing the cassette ports.
-michael -
Hugh Hood
2017-09-02 17:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Ortiz
Another question : I've been reading some older posts and there seems
to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well
designed or a worthy successor... is this just the opinion of a few
disgruntled fanatics or the general concensus?
Anthony,

I came relatively late to the IIgs party in the mid 1990's (after having
been a IIe and even a II+ holdout for many years), and, even if one were
to ignore the 16-bit stuff, I would say that the the Apple IIgs is a
'Super IIe'.

Considering things from an 8-bit programmer's viewpoint, I think the
IIgs' Control Panel with the 'Visitor Monitor' CDA is a fantastic
hacking tool to use in deciphering 8-bit program internals.

And, from the perspective of an 8-bit software user, I'd say that the
IIgs' built-in acceleration, (2) built-in serial ports (plus cards in
the same slots if you so desire), built-in mouse card, built-in clock,
built-in floppy controller, ADB keyboard controller capable of
supporting the better Mac keyboards with function keys and the built-in
memory expansion all enhance the 8-bit software user's experience.

I think, however, my favorite thing about the IIGS as a 'Super' IIe is
this — it can use the _wicked_ fast RamFAST Rev. D SCSI disk controller,
which gives one, even today, unmatched 8-bit ProDOS speed on an Apple II
computer.

The RamFAST design is over 25 years old, and still nothing has topped
(or even approached) its speed in running ProDOS 8 applications.

Check out Antoine's disk timings Google spreadsheet for the hard
numbers. It's eye opening. The RamFAST's combination of DMA and cache
hasn't been beaten yet (outside of emulation), but I'm hopeful that
maybe someday it will.

With a IIgs containing an accelerator and a RamFAST SCSI, the Apple II
'experience' is completely transformed, or at least it was for me.

I keep one enhanced IIe running (because I still have to use an old
Saturn/Titan 128K card with one application), but every other II I use
is a ROM 3 IIgs with a RamFAST SCSI. Most have accelerators, but not
all. It will be interesting to see what Plamen comes up with in that
regard, though.





Hugh Hood
Brian Patrie
2017-09-03 12:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
plus cards in the same slots if you so desire
OR cards in the same slots. Whilst it's theoretically possible to
switch cards in and out on the fly, in practice it's a bit of a
nightmare--especially if interrupts are involved.
Hugh Hood
2017-09-04 03:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Patrie
plus cards in the same slots if you so desire
OR cards in the same slots. Whilst it's theoretically possible to
switch cards in and out on the fly, in practice it's a bit of a
nightmare--especially if interrupts are involved.
Brian,

Actually, it works pretty well under ProDOS 8 for switching between the
built-in serial ports and cards in Slots 1 and 2, provided you practice
save hex.

I know because it's been part of my usual work routine in AppleWorks
(with UltraMacros) for over 10 years now, and it works so very well for
what I need.

I use it on both ports, switching between a Unix terminal connection to
a Mac (processes print jobs that go to .pdf) on the Printer Port and a
parallel card to an impact forms printer in Slot 1, and between an HP
Laserjet 4050 on the Modem Port and a parallel card to the same LaserJet
in Slot 2 (strips bit 7 for AppleSoft stuff).

John Brooks and I discussed this very issue in comp.sys.apple2programmer
within the last 6 weeks, IIRC.

FWIW, before switching I always check the state of the Slot Register
$C02D), save it, make the change, ensure the job is complete, and then
restore the original state. John suggested that I also save and restore
the screen holes, and that may be an excellent idea that I should
consider, although I have yet to be bitten by any problems from not so
doing.

OTOH, even I wouldn't suggest switching between the built-in disk ports
and cards Slot 5 and 6 cards on the fly, because, as you say, it sounds
nightmarish.

Apple actually envisioned 'Dynamic Slot Arbitration' for use of 14
devices (7 slots x 2) under GS/OS, and even issued a IIGS Tech Note on
it here:

<http://apple2.boldt.ca/?page=til/tn.iigs.069>

Unfortunately, it was never implemented but it does make for an
interesting read.






Hugh Hood
Brian Patrie
2017-09-04 05:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hugh Hood
Apple actually envisioned 'Dynamic Slot Arbitration' for use of 14
devices (7 slots x 2) under GS/OS, and even issued a IIGS Tech Note on
<http://apple2.boldt.ca/?page=til/tn.iigs.069>
Unfortunately, it was never implemented but it does make for an
interesting read.
Brian Patrie
2017-09-04 05:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hugh Hood
Apple actually envisioned 'Dynamic Slot Arbitration' for use of 14
devices (7 slots x 2) under GS/OS, and even issued a IIGS Tech Note on
<http://apple2.boldt.ca/?page=til/tn.iigs.069>
Unfortunately, it was never implemented but it does make for an
interesting read.
[Apologies for my previous post of just the quote. Wayward cat foot.]

Wow. I had previously gathered that it was a no-no to switch slots on
the fly--especially with GS/OS running, as it could be yanking the rug
out from under a driver. Nice to see that stuff was laid down to
actually do it--even if it was never implemented.
MG
2017-09-03 16:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hugh Hood
I think, however, my favorite thing about the IIGS as a 'Super' IIe is
this — it can use the _wicked_ fast RamFAST Rev. D SCSI disk controller,
which gives one, even today, unmatched 8-bit ProDOS speed on an Apple II
computer.
An Enhanced //e can use the RamFast Rev. D, my main //e has one.

It is wickedly fast on the //e, as well.
Hugh Hood
2017-09-03 23:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MG
Post by Hugh Hood
I think, however, my favorite thing about the IIGS as a 'Super' IIe is
this — it can use the _wicked_ fast RamFAST Rev. D SCSI disk controller,
which gives one, even today, unmatched 8-bit ProDOS speed on an Apple II
computer.
An Enhanced //e can use the RamFast Rev. D, my main //e has one.
It is wickedly fast on the //e, as well.
MG,


You are correct. In _some_ cases, an Enhanced IIe can use a Rev. D
RamFAST. In fact, I have one in a IIe.

My mistake, made in the hope of being concise, was to paint with too
broad of a brush. So, ...

With apologies to Anthony for detouring his thread a bit, here is the
'story' of the IIe / RamFAST (Rev D) combination, as I learned it from
Joseph Yandrofski and Jawaid Bayzar of Sequential Systems, and also Drew
Vogan of CV Tech.

1. The RamFAST Rev. D was a low power version of the RamFAST Rev. C. It
used HCT chips instead of LS chips and worked quite well in the Apple
IIGS. Unfortunately, the Apple IIe had what was described to me as a
'noisier' bus, and the lower power 74HCT chips could not deal with that
cleanly, and data transfer reliability suffered, which is terrible when
you're writing to hard disks.

Hence, at first the Rev. D was just marketed to IIGS owners. IIe owners
were instead instructed to use the Rev. C board.


2. Sequential Systems, hoping to sell just one RamFAST board, made a
special version of the Rev. D board that used 74LS chips to drive the
bus (there may have been another series chip as well, IIRC) in place of
the 74HCT chips.

One had to order that board separately. I have either (1) or (2) of
those, and they work fine in a IIGS as well as in a IIe.


3. Bus issues aside, the Rev. D would work with the AE Transwarp IIe
accelerator _provided_ the DMA feature of the RamFAST was disabled. I
have tested this combination and it works fine, although I'm not sure
how much speed is being lost by not using DMA. In any case, the caching
feature still works and it is very fast.

4. Here's the deal-killer, or at least it was for me at the time -- No
Rev. D board would work with the 8 MHz Zip Chip installed in the
machine. The machine would hang on boot, and not even disabling the DMA
feature would make it work.

Acknowledging that the problem existed, Joe Yandrofski asked me to send
him a Zip Chip so that he could see how the situation could be remedied.
Unfortunately, even after several months Joe never was able to get this
fixed, and eventually Sequential closed their doors.



FWIW, the Rev. C RamFAST _could_ be modified to work with the 8 MHz Zip
Chip. Jawaid required the board back at the shop and he would, IIRC,
re-program the DMA Pal and something else. I never owned a Rev. C (very
power hungry), but Chet Day (I think it was Day - 20+ years ago is
taxing me) did and he sent several back to have the mod done.

He was most pleased, as he was a IIe guy.

This very topic was discussed at length in the old GEnie Apple II
Rountables. Thanks to David Finnigan's MacGui.com, here is just one of
_many_ threads discussing the Rev. D in a IIe, and also the Rev. D with
the Zip Chip.

<http://macgui.com/usenet/?group=119&id=84208>

What will be *most* interesting to see will be if the Rev. D RamFAST (LS
chips) will work with Plamen's FastChip//e. I have yet to hear a report
on that combo.





Hugh Hood
Steven Hirsch
2017-09-04 00:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
FWIW, the Rev. C RamFAST _could_ be modified to work with the 8 MHz Zip Chip.
Jawaid required the board back at the shop and he would, IIRC, re-program the
DMA Pal and something else. I never owned a Rev. C (very power hungry), but
Chet Day (I think it was Day - 20+ years ago is taxing me) did and he sent
several back to have the mod done.
Back in the day I modified the Rev C firmware to maximize performance with the
ZipChip. Drew Vogan sent me the sources during the last days of CV Technology
and suggested a scheme that copied read/write loops from firmware to the stack
page. By placing the RamFAST in programmed I/O mode one could sidestep the
DMA issues completely. Since code in the stack page ran at full speed all the
time you also avoided any slowdowns during disk access. Worked quite well and
I used it for years.
MG
2017-09-04 07:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hugh Hood
1. The RamFAST Rev. D was a low power version of the RamFAST Rev. C. It
used HCT chips instead of LS chips and worked quite well in the Apple
IIGS. Unfortunately, the Apple IIe had what was described to me as a
'noisier' bus, and the lower power 74HCT chips could not deal with that
cleanly, and data transfer reliability suffered, which is terrible when
you're writing to hard disks.
The one in my //e is all HCT chips and even with 6 slots full of cards throwing even more noise on the bus, has never given me trouble.
Post by Hugh Hood
2. Sequential Systems, hoping to sell just one RamFAST board, made a
special version of the Rev. D board that used 74LS chips to drive the
bus (there may have been another series chip as well, IIRC) in place of
the 74HCT chips.
I looked at my spare (I have three total, one not accessible at the moment) and it does, in fact, have LS drivers. How very interesting.
Post by Hugh Hood
This very topic was discussed at length in the old GEnie Apple II
Rountables. Thanks to David Finnigan's MacGui.com, here is just one of
_many_ threads discussing the Rev. D in a IIe, and also the Rev. D with
the Zip Chip.
<http://macgui.com/usenet/?group=119&id=84208>
A rather interesting discussion, but clearly it is more of a YMMV thing.
Post by Hugh Hood
What will be *most* interesting to see will be if the Rev. D RamFAST (LS
chips) will work with Plamen's FastChip//e. I have yet to hear a report
on that combo.
I will tell you in about 10 days, but with the HCT-driver version. :-) If it gives me trouble, I will try switching it to the LS-driver version.

MG
MG
2017-10-06 18:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MG
Post by Hugh Hood
What will be *most* interesting to see will be if the Rev. D RamFAST (LS
chips) will work with Plamen's FastChip//e. I have yet to hear a report
on that combo.
I will tell you in about 10 days, but with the HCT-driver version. :-) If it gives me trouble, I will try switching it to the LS-driver version.
I forgot to follow up on this after I got my FastChip //e installed.

My Platinum //e continues to work fine with the HCT-chipped RamFAST and the FastChip //e installed. DMA is off in the RamFAST, of course.

It's mind-blowing fast. The FastChip more than makes up for DMA being off in most situations (though, even when DMA is off the RamFAST is plenty fast).

My current configuration (parens have speed in FC control panel):

Aux: AE RamWorks III 1M
Slot 1: Apple II Workstation Card (fast)
Slot 2: FastChip //e (fast)
Slot 3: Empty <blocked by SCSI cable> (fast)
Slot 4: AE RamFactor 1M (fast)
Slot 5: Liron (slow)
Slot 6: Disk II (slow)
Slot 7: RamFAST (fast)

Power supply is an AE heavy-duty model.

MG
Hugh Hood
2017-10-06 18:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
MG,

Great report -- not just that the FastChip and the RamFAST are compatible,
but that the lower power HCT RamFAST D is behaving as it should.

If Plamen ever updates his firmware to add Saturn 128K RAM support, I'm in.
I been stuck at 3.6MHZ for 30 years (Titan/Transwarp) for my one
Saturn-dependent program, and maybe it's time for an improvement. Maybe.




Hugh Hood
Post by MG
Post by MG
Post by Hugh Hood
What will be *most* interesting to see will be if the Rev. D RamFAST (LS
chips) will work with Plamen's FastChip//e. I have yet to hear a report
on that combo.
I will tell you in about 10 days, but with the HCT-driver version. :-) If
it gives me trouble, I will try switching it to the LS-driver version.
I forgot to follow up on this after I got my FastChip //e installed.
My Platinum //e continues to work fine with the HCT-chipped RamFAST and the
FastChip //e installed. DMA is off in the RamFAST, of course.
It's mind-blowing fast. The FastChip more than makes up for DMA being off in
most situations (though, even when DMA is off the RamFAST is plenty fast).
Aux: AE RamWorks III 1M
Slot 1: Apple II Workstation Card (fast)
Slot 2: FastChip //e (fast)
Slot 3: Empty <blocked by SCSI cable> (fast)
Slot 4: AE RamFactor 1M (fast)
Slot 5: Liron (slow)
Slot 6: Disk II (slow)
Slot 7: RamFAST (fast)
Power supply is an AE heavy-duty model.
MG
Jorge
2017-09-03 03:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...] there seems to be some discussion regarding the Apple IIgs as not being well designed or a worthy successor... [...]
For me, every single one after the original II is rubbish :-)

The keyboard of the II plus is worse, and ~ everything feels cheaper in later II pluses.
The memory map of the IIe is a mess and its 80 columns are much worse than a Videx (7*9 + hardware scroll + crtc programmability).
The IIc was cute but had no slots... so rubbish. I like the IIc Monitor stand, though :-)
The IIe Plus even cheaper plastics yet. Rubbish.
The IIgs was a bad Mac and a not good enough II too, all at once.
The IIc plus is a IIc with a zipchip... at half the speed of the zipchip. Are you kidding me?

"Apple II Forever" ??? Total hypocrisy !
--
Jorge.
Loading...