Jump to content
bluejay

Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?

Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?

    • Yes, it is an Apple II.
      45
    • No, Apple should have called it the Macintosh Color.
      3


Recommended Posts

I really think the IIgs ought to have been part of the Macintosh line, sorry Woz, but it really would have sold better. Apple shouldn't've limited the IIgs's CPU, but make it a Macintosh, but in color, so they could sell it for more money, and people would be interested, and less rich people could buy the B&W Mac.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn't based on a 68000, so it'd have been tough calling it a Mac and running Mac software on it :)

 

It's a fitting swan song for the Apple //.  They took that machine to the next level with the GS, and it's still impressive in retrospect even today.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple II all the way!  Color Macs couldn't run Apple II software out of the box like the IIgs...  With the aid of an accelerator, it certainly behaves like a color Mac though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it's part of the Apple II line, but to me it was neither fish nor fowl.  It wasn't an Apple II even though it could run Apple II software, but it certainly wasn't a Mac.  It was it's own thing, Apple's answer to the ST and Amiga.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's an Apple II. It runs Apple II software, uses Apple II peripherals, takes Apple II expansion cards, and was designed by Woz. I don't know why this is even a question.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bastardized hybrid that's confusing and kludged together. The machine can't get out of its own way. It has some of the essence of a II, but certainly not enough to call it a II at heart.

 

The "gs" in IIgs doesn't even apply to the II portion of the machine. It's its own separate underpowered system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Keatah said:

It's a bastardized hybrid that's confusing and kludged together. The machine can't get out of its own way. It has some of the essence of a II, but certainly not enough to call it a II at heart.

 

The "gs" in IIgs doesn't even apply to the II portion of the machine. It's its own separate underpowered system.

Exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's a II.  It's the best II, and would have been the future of the II line.  It was designed to run at 14 MHz, but Jobs forced it to be hobbled to 2MHz during his stupid power grab with the Macintosh (which was originally supposed to be a cheap underpowered machine).  If it had been brought to fruition properly, it would have blown the Mac of the time out of the water, as well as being backwards compatible with all the previous II software.  A wonderful design.

 

The classic Mac UI, the Mac ROM toolkit, etc etc, were all stolen from the vastly superior IIgs design, which was then cast aside for political reasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap. Yes it is. If the Corvette is a Chevy, the IIgs is an Apple II.

 

Since it can run almost any Apple II software natively, and is the last in the line, why wouldn't it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with the Macintosh. It's a II with some extra stuff on it. 
 

The Atari 7800 is its own thing, but it can run 2600 software. It is not, however, an Atari Jaguar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

It has nothing to do with the Macintosh. It's a II with some extra stuff on it.

Thing is the II side can't really access any of the gs stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Keatah said:

Thing is the II side can't really access any of the gs stuff.

I don't know what that means. Are you saying because previous II's aren't *forward* compatible, that makes the IIGS something other than an Apple II?

 

That's like saying the PlayStation 4 isn't really a PlayStation because the PS3 can't play PS4 games, or hell, the Mac Pro isn't really a Macintosh because PowerPC and 68030 Macs can't run Intel software.

 

Not to be blunt, but this is one of the more ridiculous topics I've seen on this site.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Software programed around the original Apple II roms & firmware & memory map can't use any of the enhanced hardware like 3200 colors or the 16-bit mode or the Ensoniq hardware.

 

For that you have to switch over to the "gs" side of things. And from there you can't access stuff like Applesoft Basic ROM and the vast library of II, II+, and //e software.

 

2 computers in one, with significantly different capabilities.

 

And any company can call any product by any name if they want to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might require some flipping of softswitches, but the GS graphics, at least are accessible to emulated mode - all the switches are in the C0x0 space, and the video memory is in the same place as DHGR.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Because it is a 16 bit processor machine.  The Apple II has always been the 8 bit 6502.  Apple could have released a very inexpensive, ($400 - $500)  Apple II system in 1986 but instead they threw in a new CPU and never took advantage of it.  The Apple IIgs is a machine that looks more interesting and appealing in hindsight, than it actually did back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Keatah said:

Thing is the II side can't really access any of the gs stuff.

Like the Apple III with it's Apple II emulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Keatah said:

Software programed around the original Apple II roms & firmware & memory map can't use any of the enhanced hardware like 3200 colors or the 16-bit mode or the Ensoniq hardware.

 

For that you have to switch over to the "gs" side of things. And from there you can't access stuff like Applesoft Basic ROM and the vast library of II, II+, and //e software.

 

2 computers in one, with significantly different capabilities.

 

And any company can call any product by any name if they want to.

Not sure why software older than the Apple IIgs should support any of the enhanced hardware of a computer that came after it...

The exact implementation details seem irrelevant to this.

 

Bonus points for including the "s" in IIgs in the "underpowered" statement 😀

Edited by 01tracker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Keatah said:

Software programed around the original Apple II roms & firmware & memory map can't use any of the enhanced hardware like 3200 colors or the 16-bit mode or the Ensoniq hardware.

 

For that you have to switch over to the "gs" side of things. And from there you can't access stuff like Applesoft Basic ROM and the vast library of II, II+, and //e software.

 

2 computers in one, with significantly different capabilities.

But wasn't the Commodore 128 also basically "2 computers in one".   It was a thing companies were doing with their 8-bit lines at the time to give them some 16-bit capabilities, but keep it closer to 8-bit prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airsoftmodels said:

The Apple IIgs is a machine that looks more interesting and appealing in hindsight, than it actually did back in the day.

Actually for me, the IIgs always held a certain mystique back then.   On paper, it looked like a cross between an ST and an Amiga, with the bonus of Apple II backwards compatibility.   But I never got to actually use one.

 

But then a couple of years ago I decided to finally try it out under emulation, and I realized how much weaker than both the ST and Amiga it was, and it was awkward to use too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CaptainBreakout said:

Holy crap. Yes it is. If the Corvette is a Chevy

interesting comparison.  heard of the new mustang EV?  has nothing to do with the mustang except in name.  the heart of the machine has been replaced.  sound familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, yeah, the IIgs is definately not a Mac(what was I thinking when I first posted this?) but I still think it has nothing to do with an Apple II. It's just a computer that happens to be able emulate the Apple II, but it doesn't have a 6502(rather a cpu that emulates it) nor most components that made the original II tick.

It's kinda like calling a modern computer an Apple II because it can emulate it and run its software. Apple could modify a modern Mac to be compatible with original accessories and some extra hardware, install an emulator, and call it an Apple II, and I think it would be pretty much the same as calling the gs an Apple II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the Commodore 128 can emulate the C64, the 1571 can emulate the 1541, but the C128 isn't a C64, nor is the 1571 a 1541. 

3 hours ago, airsoftmodels said:

interesting comparison.  heard of the new mustang EV?  has nothing to do with the mustang except in name.  the heart of the machine has been replaced.  sound familiar?

If the Mustang EV drives like the real mustang(Like the IIgs can run II software) it would be debatable whether if it's a real Mustang(like it's debatable whether the IIgs is II) But the Mustang EV would probably drive nothing like a real mustang(it's goddamn crossover SUV!), so it doesn't even qualify to enter the debate.

18 hours ago, CaptainBreakout said:

Holy crap. Yes it is. If the Corvette is a Chevy, the IIgs is an Apple II.

That's literally like saying the IIgs is an Apple II because it's an Apple computer. Is a Camaro a Corvette because they're both Chevys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bluejay said:

Now that I think about it, yeah, the IIgs is definately not a Mac(what was I thinking when I first posted this?) but I still think it has nothing to do with an Apple II. It's just a computer that happens to be able emulate the Apple II, but it doesn't have a 6502(rather a cpu that emulates it) nor most components that made the original II tick.

There is NO emulation in the IIgs. The Apple II circuitry is alive and well in the form of the MEGA II chip.

 

Just like how the II & II+ chipcount was reduced to make the //e - same thing here. The //e chipcount was reduced to make the MEGA II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Keatah said:

There is NO emulation in the IIgs. The Apple II circuitry is alive and well in the form of the MEGA II chip.

 

Just like how the II & II+ chipcount was reduced to make the //e - same thing here. The //e chipcount was reduced to make the MEGA II.

I thought the 65c816 emulated the 6502.

https://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/computers/IIgs.html

Edited by bluejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...