Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?

[bluejay]

5 hours ago, eightbit said:

The IIGS is an Apple II. Just as the C128 is a C64.

But the 128 is not a 64. It can function as a C64, but not a C64. A Tandy 1000 can function like a PC 5150, but it's not a 5150. A Macintosh Classic can function like a Mac 128k, but it's not a Mac 128k.

[Keatah]

It's easy to get into semantics here. But. Yes. The C128 is a C128, it retains C64 functionality from the older system itself. The C128 is called a C128 for a reason.

 

When my buddy had upgraded to the IIgs back in the day we had to start modifying programs from previous "II computers" in order to get them working trouble-free on it. Soon we found it wasn't an upgrade at all. But an entirely new machine with new genetics.

 

[CaptainBreakout]

The Apple IIgs is an Apple II. It also has a "gs" at the end.

 

This thread is kinda silly, the more I think about it. It's like asking if the space shuttle is still the space shuttle if it has a bunch of extra crap attached to it at launch.

 

I am guessing this will probably cause some other debate.

 

Anyways, the IIgs is kinda the last in the Apple II line. It's a point of history.

 

I am reminded of a conversation I had with my kids recently. The topic: "Is white a color?"

 

The answer is yes, or no.  It depends on context. White is a color. Also white is the absence of color, therefore it is no color.

 

I explained it to my kids like this ... 

 

Ok, what color is this banana?

Yellow.

 

This orange?

Orange.

 

This garlic?

White.

 

Yes... The color is white.

 

Therefore, white is considered a color of an object.

 

Okay...now let's take this empty clean piece of paper.

 

Does it have any color on it?

 

No. It is blank. It has no color.

 

Yes. It is blank. It has no color. It is only white.

 

Follow me?

 

Want to go full semantic reversal?  Take light.

 

White light is a mixture of ALL colors.

 

Right? Physics and wavelengths and all that... Hopefully you already know how light works and how perceived white light is a balance of several colors.

 

Therefore WHITE could be considered A color, NO colors, or ALL colors... Depending on context.

 

So wazza point? A matter of degree over context?  Anyways, an Apple IIgs is the last in the "II" line. That's a fact. I guess ya could say it's not a 'II' some ways, since it's unique in lots of hardware respects from the other models of the apple II, but for the most part, it's the last II.

 

Also, it's made by Apple.

[DeathAdderSF]

10 hours ago, CaptainBreakout said:

Anyways, the IIgs is kinda the last in the Apple II line.

 

The Tiger Learning Computer would beg to differ.

 

Hey!! There's a poll that would actually make sense: "Does the Tiger Learning Computer qualify as an Apple II?"

 

Under the hood it is an Apple IIe.

Licensed from Apple.

Running ProDOS.

 

But it's not made by Apple.

And it doesn't have a "II" in it.

 

Also, it's practically unusable: Talk about a WORTHLESS keyboard.

Edited April 18, 2020 by DeathAdderSF

[Keatah]

And yet it would be more of a II series computer than the IIgs.

 

The very name IIgs implies it's a II series computer specializing in graphics and sound. Yet the gs side of the IIgs has nothing, nada, zilch, in common with a real II series computer. And it does not do any kinds of "gs" magic on prior "II" software.

 

Its logically disconnected from and separate from the II side of things. There can be no discussion on that, no disagreement on that. The "gs" has its own ROM code and its own memory map. Apple stuffed two computers into one and shared some circuitry. That's all.

 

As a hybrid 2-in-1 computer it does alright. Laggy with a 3MHz processor. But there are accelerators and whatnot. So..

[DeathAdderSF]

11 minutes ago, Keatah said:

And yet it would be more of a II series computer than the IIgs.

 

Touché !

 

Also that statement made me chuckle, so thanks for that. I needed a good chuckle today.

 

But you make an intruiging point!

 

The IIgs definitely presents itself more along the lines that it's the, "Little Mac that couldn't," if only because of its name and incompatibility w/the Mac. And I never cared much for Macs. Ever. Which is part of the reason I've always felt a bit uncomfortable having a IIgs around. I really want to hold it in as high regard as I do the 8-bit models... but I just can't do it.

 

Hell, even the Trackstar line of unlicensed Apple II clones on PC ISA cards feel more like Apple II machines to me than the IIgs does, and that's saying something.

 

But in spite of it all, the IIgs is still an Apple II. And while I may not love it, I do own and operate one, and in that regard I do embrace it as part of the "family of II."

Edited April 18, 2020 by DeathAdderSF

[Keatah]

I never quite envisioned the IIgs as being Mac-like or a Color Mac, or really having anything to do with MAC. Though I see and understand how others attribute such likeness. And maybe there is. I just don't see it myself.

 

The absolute farthest I will go on a IIgs is to say it is 2 computers in one. A half-assed hybrid. One side having had a ~10 year run on things, getting ready to be eclipsed by new architectures. And the other side being underpowered and directionless, with no deep-rooted support from its parent company.

 

The II side of the IIgs is, I'm sure, just as "II series" as anything that came before. Just another implementation of the II. None of the "gs" stuff applies or can be applied or utilized there. It. Just. Can't.

 

Don't get the impression I dislike the IIgs. It may not be my preferred system, though I do have some nostalgia for the beastie. Someday I may dig out all my IIgs material and spiff it up and stuff. Hopefully the batteries haven't corroded. Just too lazy to check right now. Besides I'm on a vintage 486 kick again.

 

[The Usotsuki]

A few pokes, and you can access GS functionality from FPBASIC.  I did some stuff, but it's been years.

[DeathAdderSF]

29 minutes ago, The Usotsuki said:

A few pokes, and you can access GS functionality from FPBASIC.  I did some stuff, but it's been years.

 

Surely, this'll come as a surprise to some. You have certainly piqued my interest.

 

Are you aware of any examples online?

[The Usotsuki]

Not offhand.

 

The GS video mode's memory can be accessed through the AUXMEM page, though some setup is required iirc.  It wouldn't be too hard, I think, to make an & hook to do GS stuff from FPBASIC - but I don't know enough about the firmware to do what I really want to do with it.

[Lee Adamson]

Many IIgs floppy games boot ProDOS 8 and then switch the '816 to 16-bit mode and get at the extended hardware somehow.

 

I'm a little dubious of contributing to the argument, lol.  But it seems to me like saying that the IIgs isn't really an Apple II because it has extended features is somewhat akin to saying that a 286 isn't really a PC because you can run it in protected mode and install 16-bit expansion cards.

 

It is a crying shame that a 16-bit BASIC with a builtin toolkit calling convention never materialized, though.  But that would have made it even better than the Macs of the time, and Jobs would have never allowed that.  -_-'

[zzip]

On 4/17/2020 at 4:23 PM, Casey said:

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.

The IIgs seems like it was released in response to the ST and Amiga, and maybe Apple noticed what a joke of a BASIC the ST released with, and nobody really cared, so they didn't bother to release a proper GS basic?   Besides there were lots of third party development tools springing up at the time, including better BASICs

[airsoftmodels]

Some posting here seem to take it as an insult that the IIgs might not be in the spirit of the Apple II line.  They are insulted that it not be considered an Apple II.  

 

I would argue that it is not an insult but a compliment.

 

The Apple II+, IIe, and even the IIc had a simplicity to them.  On paper, they were not much different than the competition at the time, which costs hundreds less:

Indeed the Atari line had the same CPU, The Commodore 64 had a similar CPU.  These machines sold for $200 at the time. And they had better sound and graphics to boot.

 

C'mon guys, The graphics and sound on the Apple II line was primitive, even with double Hi-Res.  It was an 8 bit system.  One of the most popular add-on cards turned it into an 8 bit Z80 CPM machine.

 

But the IIgs technology was on another level!  It probably has more in common with a Tandy 1000 than an Apple IIe.  Surely, it trounced the IBM PC Jr. and gave the ST and Amiga a good run for the money.

 

Calling it the IIgs hindered the idea that this was a machine worthy of upgrading to.  The name and the backward compatibilty prevented this.  The general public was confused, software companies rested on

their laurels, and the machine did not flourish to the best of its ability.  

 

If only Apple had called this wonderful machine the Apple IV...

[Keatah]

Agreed that a new name denoting a new product number, like the IV, would have been good. It was certainly different enough to warrant it. And the bonus cut would have been it would run most Apple II series software.

 

Hardware wise the IIgs never was a competitor to the Amiga or ST. Those machines were more pure, less kludge-like and had powerful custom chips. And their overall architecture made more sense. AND used the 68000 which was a more capable processor.

 

I recall the casual conversation sourrounding the IIgs was that it had a super powerful sound chip and everyone wanted to hear it. Whether it lived up to hype in the sound department, I don't know. But it definitely did not with the graphics. 3000+ colors? Alright. But there were no animation or blitting capabilities, certainly not like on the Amiga or even ST. At least none I read about.

 

I always complain that the Amiga had little or no software, but the IIgs was a post-apocalyptic wasteland by comparison.

 

1 hour ago, airsoftmodels said:

The Apple II+, IIe, and even the IIc had a simplicity to them.  On paper, they were not much different than the competition at the time, which costs hundreds less:

Indeed the Atari line had the same CPU, The Commodore 64 had a similar CPU.  These machines sold for $200 at the time. And they had better sound and graphics to boot.

 

C'mon guys, The graphics and sound on the Apple II line was primitive, even with double Hi-Res.  It was an 8 bit system.  One of the most popular add-on cards turned it into an 8 bit Z80 CPM machine.

The simplicity was part of what made the original II series appealing. Applesoft just worked and DOS seemingly integrated with it flawlessly. I personally thought it exciting and highly practical. In literally 4 seconds from power-on to the "command prompt" I could be programming in BASIC. Instantly if I choose not to load DOS.

 

But yes of course graphics and sound were indeed primitive. The II had no custom chips whatsoever. The C64 and Atari 8-bitters had them for both.

 

I was always under the impression that the most popular add-on cards by far were the Disk II Controllers AND some form of memory upgrade. I could be mistaken however..?

 

One thing that was nice about the Apple //e's memory expansion options was that all software could use whatever brand and size of memory card you got. There really were only 2 or 3 schemes overall. Going from 48K to 64K via a 16K RAMCARD. Going from 64K to 128K "//e style". And then above and beyond 128K to whatever capacity you could afford, "Applied Engineering style".

 

I point that out because IIRC on the C64 and Atari 8-bitters, there were many types of memory expansions. And the schemes weren't compatible with each other. Software typically only recognized one kind. And even worse, sometimes (I heard) that size made a difference too.

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Keatah
spelling

[DeathAdderSF]

Because I grew up with the IIc, I became used to and in fact charmed by its simple hardware and how well certain developers pushed it.

 

What I really appreciated was when games were actually programmed to feature music during gameplay, something that had to be perfectly timed as sound took up so much raw processing power. Some examples are Dig Dug and Force 7, among others. I just wish more programmers had challenged themselves with this, because, at least to me, it stood out and made the games more enjoyable.

 

Now if only Apple had embraced the Mockingboard, or something like it, and adapted it into later models of the 8-bit II, maybe we'd have seen some heavy support for enhanced Apple II music (hey, a guy can dream)... but c'est la vie.

Edited April 22, 2020 by DeathAdderSF

[spacecadet]

Who are the 3 people who voted no, it's not an Apple II? How is this still even a thread? Why is this still showing up in my unread list?

 

This is not even an opinion thing. It's called an Apple II, it runs Apple II software, it is an Apple II. Give it a rest.

 

I mean, should the IBM PC AT be called an IBM PC? It had a 286 instead of an 8088!

 

[DeathAdderSF]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

How is this still even a thread?

 

Because it's about the Apple II. And the Apple II is forever.

 

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I mean, should the IBM PC AT be called an IBM PC? It had a 286 instead of an 8088!

 

Hey, dig this: My IIgs has a NEC V30 in it, courtesy the PC Transporter card. While I'm using it: Does the IIgs quality as an Apple product? ?

Edited April 22, 2020 by DeathAdderSF

[DeathAdderSF]

6 hours ago, DeathAdderSF said:

quality as an Apple product? ?

 

*qualify

 

And thus, the joke is ruined.

[Keatah]

 

13 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I mean, should the IBM PC AT be called an IBM PC? It had a 286 instead of an 8088!

No. It's called and IBM PC AT. With reason. It's a 286 class machine. Hence the new AT designation. I know you knew that.

[Keatah]

12 hours ago, DeathAdderSF said:

Hey, dig this: My IIgs has a NEC V30 in it, courtesy the PC Transporter card. While I'm using it: Does the IIgs quality as an Apple product? ?

 

Absolutely it qualifies and remains an Apple product. A quality product at that. On two counts:

 

1- The Apple is now serving as a front-end or terminal or I/O device. A Host. The Transporter is a guest or peripheral to the "Apple side" of things. You are using your Apple to support and communicate with the Transporter. Another computer. This would be little or different from using a remote computer across campus. Except the Transporter and its V30 is just "inches remote" and not hundreds of meters or klicks.

 

2- Transporter fits in an expansion slot. And in the spirit of things it is an add-on product through and through. It is not part of the II design in any way shape or form other than it being an expansion card. It's that simple.

[Lee Adamson]

So if I put an Apple2Pi in my IIe and use it to run a IIgs emulator, it's still an Apple II.  ;3

 

BUT!  .....  What if I put an Apple2Pi in my IIgs and use it to run an Apple IIe emulator?  ?

Edited April 22, 2020 by Lee Adamson

[Keatah]

Yes it is an Apple II, playing host to the Apple2Pi. Whatever the 2Pi is running is its business.

 

As far as putting the Apple2Pi, into the IIgs to run a //e emulator. The IIgs remains a IIgs, the IIgs doesn't, hasn't become, and never will be a II. It's a non-II playing host to something emulating a II.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Keatah

[bluejay]

23 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Who are the 3 people who voted no, it's not an Apple II? How is this still even a thread? Why is this still showing up in my unread list?

 

Cause there are people who think it's not an Apple II. I don't get how it's different from a Macintosh Classic or something with the Apple //e card installed. It runs its own, incompatible operating system. It runs its own, incompatible software. It is backwards compatible with the previous generation. Speaking of generation, the IIgs is in an entirely different generation that the rest of the Apple II line.

I think that Gameboy and Gameboy Color is exactly like the Apple II and Apple IIgs. The Gameboy Color has its own, more advanced library of games that can't run on the original Gameboy, yet it is compatible with Gameboy software. Yes, a lot of people think the GBC is just an upgrade to the GB, but it is its own independent system with its own, sturdy library of games.(unlike the DSi or something)

If Apple sold the IIgs as the Apple IV(which they could have done but they probably only made it part of the "outdated" II line so it wouldn't compete with the Macintosh) nobody would have ever said, "The Apple IV is an Apple II."

23 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I mean, should the IBM PC AT be called an IBM PC? It had a 286 instead of an 8088!

 

I mean, should the Apple IIgs be called an Apple II? It had the 65c816 instead of a 6502!

Edited April 23, 2020 by bluejay

[CaptainBreakout]

On 4/22/2020 at 2:56 PM, Lee Adamson said:

So if I put an Apple2Pi in my IIe and use it to run a IIgs emulator, it's still an Apple II.  ;3

 

BUT!  .....  What if I put an Apple2Pi in my IIgs and use it to run an Apple IIe emulator?  ?

It kinda reminds me of something...

 

If Doc and Marty McFly put a flux capacitor into a DeLorean, is it still a DeLorean?  Kinda, right? ... But also now it's WAY more ... as a "thing".

 

Also someone posted earlier about applesoft and not being able to access 16bit GS modes from within basic.

 

I beg to differ.  I had a total field day with an 3.5 floppy I got from Big Red Computer Club back in the day.  It was a project demo disk from FTA, and I remember it had two incomplete games, one was a conversion of Pang, and the other was a game in progress called Bulla.

 

I poked around and found there was, also on this disk, some amazing code for displaying super-hi-res and playing MOD music using just Basic.

 

I made a bunch of self-booting 3.5" floppies (musicdisks and slideshows in demoscene-speak) in the mid 90's and distributed them amongst my friends ... All just by altering the FTA code on that floppy and adding content made within the GSOS environment.

 

I know the GS was kludgey... I won't deny that, but it was capable of some of the stuff Amiga and the ST could do in devoted hands, while still remaining an Apple.

 

I find it amusing to wonder what could have been if that code was included on the disk that came with the machine.

[Keatah]

On 4/21/2020 at 9:10 PM, DeathAdderSF said:

Because I grew up with the IIc, I became used to and in fact charmed by its simple hardware and how well certain developers pushed it.

Yes. The //c inherited the simplified //e minus the slots and some other changes (for semi-portable formfactor). It is very much a II series computer.

 

On 4/21/2020 at 9:10 PM, DeathAdderSF said:

What I really appreciated was when games were actually programmed to feature music during gameplay, something that had to be perfectly timed as sound took up so much raw processing power. Some examples are Dig Dug and Force 7, among others. I just wish more programmers had challenged themselves with this, because, at least to me, it stood out and made the games more enjoyable.

I thought that way, too, back in the day. Finding games that had realtime music in games without add-on hardware was secret pastime of mine more or less. It was indeed impressive.

 

On 4/21/2020 at 9:10 PM, DeathAdderSF said:

Now if only Apple had embraced the Mockingboard, or something like it, and adapted it into later models of the 8-bit II, maybe we'd have seen some heavy support for enhanced Apple II music (hey, a guy can dream)... but c'est la vie.

Not sure why that didn't happen. Cost? Interest? Or they just relied on the 3rd party guys to do it.. While I liked the Mockingboard back then I tended to feel it threw the system out of balance - because that the sound was suddenly so much better than the graphics.