Jump to content
bluejay

Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?

Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?  

55 members have voted

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

    • Yes, it is an Apple II.
      52
    • No, Apple should have called it the Macintosh Color.
      3


Recommended Posts

from wikipedia:

 

"In 1984, after the cancellation of the Apple IIx project, Dan Hillman and Jay Rickard, engineers at Apple, were assigned to lower the cost of the Apple II. They were able to compress the design of almost the entire Apple II onto one chip which they named Mega II"

8 hours ago, airsoftmodels said:

Apple could have released a very inexpensive, ($400 - $500)  Apple II system in 1986

 

instead they raised it.

Share this post


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

I thought the 65c816 emulated the 6502.

 

It just masks the more advanced features. It doesn't process 6502 instructions through a faster processor. "Emulation" doesn't apply here.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

Not really the point of this thread, but the 128 doesn’t so much emulate a C64 as it turns itself into one.  When you change to 64 mode, you aren’t emulating the 64’s rom code - you are running it.  The 128 contains BASIC 2.0 and C64 Kernal ROMs along with BASIC 7.0 and C128 Kernal ROMS, along with C64 character ROM.  

 

But the differences between a 128 and a 64 are a lot less than the differences between an Apple IIgs and the preceding Apple II lines.

Edited by Casey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zzip said:

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.

Arguably it was 3 computers in one with a Z80A or B and could run CP/M, albeit rather slow compared to most other CP/M systems.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the IIgs came out.  There was a demo that ran all day long, which said "Bonjourno!!!!" really loud which was impressive.  I was working at a computer store that sold IBM PC/XT/AT and Apple Computers.  We sold the overpriced, and overhyped Macintosh Plus for $2,499 and the IIgs for almost $2,000 with monitor and disk drive.  You could still buy the Apple IIc for about $1,299, which was significantly less.  I had purchased the IIc in 1984, right when it had come out, and was extremely happy with it.  I actually used it as my primary machine up until 1994 with Appleworks.  It didn't make sense, to me, to buy a machine that its main claim to fame was its backward compatibility.  It wasn't a smart upgrade path from the IIe/IIc models as far as I was concerned.  We couldn't sell them to save our lives.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

It just masks the more advanced features. It doesn't process 6502 instructions through a faster processor. "Emulation" doesn't apply here.

I guess here's where my lack of knowledge on the IIgs shows up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The polls have spoken - 26 to 2!

 

Just because the CPU changed doesn't mean that it isn't an Apple II.  Look how many times the Mac has changed chipsets and they're all still considered Macs...  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

The polls have spoken - 26 to 2!

 

Just because the CPU changed doesn't mean that it isn't an Apple II.  Look how many times the Mac has changed chipsets and they're all still considered Macs...  

It's not just the different cpu. It's got a totally different design, in a whole different generation, and its got its own share of original software older Apple IIs can't run. I think it's just like the C128, except the difference is bigger.

Edited by bluejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, JamesD said:

The IIgs doesn't run Mac software, so how can you call it a Mac?

 

Guess why I said, "What was I thinking" somewhere in the 1st page of this thread?

Share this post


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

Guess why I said, "What was I thinking" somewhere in the 1st page of this thread?

but does it bother you that your poll is now completely bogus?

 

its like asking:

 

is the new corvette a supercar?

 

yes, its a great supercar.

 

no, its a grapefruit.

 

(people can't answer no, its a grapefruit because thats just silly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, airsoftmodels said:

but does it bother you that your poll is now completely bogus?

 

its like asking:

 

is the new corvette a supercar?

 

yes, its a great supercar.

 

no, its a grapefruit.

 

(people can't answer no, its a grapefruit because thats just silly.)

i know, but there's nothing I can do about it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of the Apple II line in the same way the Falcon is still part of the ST line.   A much more powerful version, but based on the same basic design and backwards compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 4:14 AM, 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.

Research the program Call Box.  Get back to us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Duhast said:

Research the program Call Box.  Get back to us.

 

Howabout save time and just tell us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Byte Knight said:

The polls have spoken - 26 to 2!

 

Just because the CPU changed doesn't mean that it isn't an Apple II.  Look how many times the Mac has changed chipsets and they're all still considered Macs...  

 

Only because I disagree with "Macintosh Color" more than Apple II.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO changing chipsets and processors doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a new lineup/name.

 

The 2021 MACs are likely to have ARM chips since intel has fallen far behind the energy efficiency curve and generally stagnated overall. But they will remain MACs because of the philosophy behind them.

 

The IIgs philosophy was to be a bridge computer or that's how the public took it. Since Apple was in turmoil about its path forward at the time I don't know wtf they were thinking. It was different that's for sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks this is a pretty silly poll, but @ least it got us talking about the Apple II: one of my favorite subjects.

 

While I don't personally need the IIgs, it is fun to tinker with and learn about how it works and how to use it. It helps a lot that it's a compact computer with external keyboard, because I do need a II with slots and the IIe is just too big a beast for my taste.

 

As far as the IIgs being "kludgy" and such, as has been suggested here, I agree. As an Apple II, something about it just doesn't feel right. Added to which, you have to waste precious slots & space adding upgrades like stereo sound and faster processing, that should have been there to begin with. That's wack, yo.

 

But even with its purposely hobbled design and quirkiness, it's still a proud Apple II. And because of that, I salute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beatles and AppleRecords put a stop to having stereo-out. The thinking at the time was that the IIgs was capable making too good a sound. So it got crippled by law.

 

A saving grace of the IIgs is its size. Bigger than a //c, smaller than a //e. And much better than the sprawling expanse that were real 16-bit rigs like the Amiga or ST. Or even the 15kilogram beast that was/is my first 486 PC. 20 Kilos if you include all the accessories and monitor.

 

And we all know Apple Computer Co. didn't want the IIgs eclipsing the Mac at the time. So that explains the slow processing speed.

 

IMHO why even make the IIgs in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not an Apple II guy.  I’ve used them of course, but I never owned own, having been given a TI 99/4A first and then a Commodore 128 as a kid.  And I know I could google this, but with it being a discussion forum....

 

My recollection is that Applesoft was never modified/enhanced to use the enhanced graphics and sound that the IIgs offered.  Is that correct?  If so, I agree - why release it?  Maybe you could make the argument that when it came out, less people were programming in BASIC, but why make the best features of the machine hard for people to use?  The Commodore 64 and VIC-20 suffered from this as well, but at least Commodore BASIC was enhanced in later versions with graphics and sound commands, and even the VIC and 64 had cartridges to do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Casey said:

My recollection is that Applesoft was never modified/enhanced to use the enhanced graphics and sound that the IIgs offered.  Is that correct?

Yes that is right. And Applesoft is a HUGE part of the core essence of the Apple II. So many things were done with it. Especially scientists' mathematical experiments, beginning programmers, BBS sysops, and educators. So much!

 

5 minutes ago, Casey said:

 If so, I agree - why release it?

A management mistake. Directionless guidance. Suits rarely know what's best for a product. They made a half-assed attempt to enter the 16bit world with a kludge of a machine.

 

5 minutes ago, Casey said:

Maybe you could make the argument that when it came out, less people were programming in BASIC, but why make the best features of the machine hard for people to use?

It would have taken a lot more $$$ to either make the "gs" side of things compatible with Applesoft. And just as much $$$ to either upgrade Applesoft or write Applesoft II or Applesoft GS. Basically cost and shortsightedness. And spectre of the MAC was hanging over the II series. The IIgs was the computer Apple didn't want to make.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IIGS is an Apple II. Just as the C128 is a C64. Just because the IIGS (and C128) have an alternate mode of operation do not make them any less than an Apple II or a C64....rather the opposite. That said, you know how I voted! ;)

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...