Jump to content
IGNORED

Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?


bluejay

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

  • Please sign in to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CaptainBreakout said:

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.

If regular Applesoft BASIC (and without cryptic peeks and pokes) then I stand much corrected. I've always been under the impression the hybrid was two hard & separate systems.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2020 at 1:20 AM, 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?

 

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.

Then why are you in this thread?  Yes the majority of people have voted that it is indeed an Apple II, but does continuing discussion about it bother you?  Don't like it, then don't read it.  There's a turn off notifications button just for these sort of things.  Talk about giving it a rest...

 

To me the IIgs seems like a separate thing.  It's Apple II compatible for sure, but to say it's just a supercharged Apple II doesn't seem right.  It's not a Mac and it's not an Apple II, it was it's own thing.   Now if it had a 6502 in it then maybe I could agree with everyone, but I consider it a stand alone platform.  I keep my IIe out as well as my IIgs for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2020 at 4:42 PM, 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.

This is going to (d)evolve into a debate on the definition of emulation.  The C128 has a C64 "mode," in which the functionality of the original silicon in the C64 is replicated in hardware, not using any kind of microcode or program, but real, gate-switched silicon.

 

If you hold that the integration of the C64 PLA into the C128 PLA is emulation, then you would have to hold that the SuperPLA in the C64 Rev E "short board" emulates the PLA and control circuitry of the previous C64 boards.

 

Similarly with the 1571.  It has a "mode" which may emulate the limitations of the 1541, but 1541 mode does not emulate the circuitry of the 1541.  The circuity of the 1571 performs the exact same functions in silicon as the 1541 when in this limited mode.

 

Also, I believe the answer and /thread is built into the IIgs ROM. :)

AppleIIYell.wav

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keatah said:

If regular Applesoft BASIC (and without cryptic peeks and pokes) then I stand much corrected. I've always been under the impression the hybrid was two hard & separate systems.

 

 

It did involve some cryptic peeks and pokes... I think the mod player and the SHGR routines were about half a page of basic each (very roughly, it's been a long time).

 

So I guess it's a matter of interpretation.  But in any case I was able to do it and make simple demos on bootdisks in Applesoft using some of the 16-bit functionality. Personally I think it's too bad this code wasn't discovered and spread until the very end of the GS's life.

 

It was definitely fun to tinker with, and gave the gs a little more of a lease on life for me while most of my friends were drooling over 486s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

I believe what made a II a II was the simplicity of the architecture of the machine. There was so little between the programmer and the processor + ram. No videocard. No soundcard. No firmware to access custom chips. No complex libraries or APIs either. Not that APIs were a thing at that early juncture. The IIgs just doesn't have that overarching simplicity.

 

And it's not bad thing that everybody was getting into the PC. Nothing against the IIgs in that respect. All 16-bit (and most 32-bit) machines were succumbing to the superior PC.

 

I only got into the PC because I wanted to do more, play with higher resolutions, find tools and utilities to, well, do more. I wanted to work in a standard 640x480 or 800x600 resolution. And no previous machine allowed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2020 at 6:22 PM, bluejay said:

I really think the IIgs ought to have been part of the Macintosh line, sorry Woz, but it really would have sold better.

 

IIgs was initially outselling the Mac, despite Apple's best efforts to keep that from happening.

 

IIgs wasn't a victim of its name. Rather, it was a victim of a snooty company that was jealous of its own product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeathAdderSF said:

 

IIgs was initially outselling the Mac, despite Apple's best efforts to keep that from happening.

 

IIgs wasn't a victim of its name. Rather, it was a victim of a snooty company that was jealous of its own product.

Good point. But what I meant by "if it were a Mac" that would also mean that Apple wanted it to sell better. I think Apple only named the IIgs the IIgs so people would think it was part of the outdated II line and it didn't matter(which didn't work, 'cause it turns out people bought what *thought* they were familiar with; the Apple IIgs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DeathAdderSF said:

 

IIgs was initially outselling the Mac, despite Apple's best efforts to keep that from happening.

 

IIgs wasn't a victim of its name. Rather, it was a victim of a snooty company that was jealous of its own product.

Sounds like Nokia with Symbian and Maemo...

Yeah for what it's worth, I started learning 65816 assembly, and it basically is a 6502 with 16bit extensions, much like as was previously mentioned the 80286 is with the 8086+.

Interestingly enough, there were plans for WDC to make the 65832, which would have been basically a 32bit extended version of the 6502.  Not sure why exactly it just never was made, but by then Motorola had the 68030, and most systems had moved either to 68k or x86.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Byte Knight said:

It not only runs Apple II software, but the seven expansion slots run Apple II hardware as well.  It's definitely an Apple II taken to the "next level"!

It's basically an Apple II, with built in features to cover most of the normal upgrades people would add to an Apple II (like a mouse port, printer, modem, sound, etc.)  Messing with my IIGS makes me wonder how Apple IIs were so popular.. I mean they had a LOT of software written for them, but since they didn't really have dedicated sound cards or graphics built in, not much software actually takes advantage of the third party ones that were available, so most of the sound effects are on par with PC Speaker, and graphics were CGA quality at best.

Between the Ultimate64, Apple IIGS and decked out 130XE I have on my table right now, the IIGS is definitely the least stable.

But yeah, it IS an Apple II.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2020 at 9:51 PM, bluejay said:

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.

Then is the current Mac really a Mac? Is the current PC really a PC? Is the current anything really anything?

 

Sheesh. This whole thread is nonsense. Is there an "ignore thread" option somewhere that I don't know about?

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Then is the current Mac really a Mac? Is the current PC really a PC? Is the current anything really anything?

 

Sheesh. This whole thread is nonsense. Is there an "ignore thread" option somewhere that I don't know about?

The current Mac not exactly a Mac but anything running OS 9.2.2 is a Mac. It supports original 800k disks(although not 400k iirc), it runs on a similar operating system as the old Macs, so it is a Mac. The current PC is really a PC because the current PC supports old MS-DOS formatted files. If you can write a game into a floppy drive on a modern PC and read it on an old PC, I'd say that the modern really is a successor to the old one. So yeah, the new Mac pretty much is a Mac and the PC is a real PC. But this isn't the point.

Do you think the Gameboy Color is a Gameboy? No, because it is technically more advanced and it has its own range of proprietary software. The difference becomes more drastic when it comes to the II and the IIgs. They're from two different generations! Yes, the IIgs is technically compatible with the II but so was the III. The Apple III isn't an Apple II. It has its own original, incompatible software, just like the IIgs. The only reason Apple didn't name the IIgs the IV is because they thought it would compete with the Mac. Think about it. If the IIgs was named the IV(which Apple sure could have named it that), would everyone be having this argument? It would be its own separate computer, that just happens to be compatible with the II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they didn't name it the Apple IV because the Apple III was a shit show.  Bad design decisions like having no vents or fans would cause it to overheat and crash.

On which note, but a bit off topic, how dies everyone cool their IIGS?  Mine was making smells the other night...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, leech said:

how does everyone cool their IIGS?

 

System Saver IIgs. The sealant around the edges tends to degrade to nasty black goo after all these years, and cleaning it all out can be a bitch. But once that's done and replaced, it's a fine cooling solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluejay said:

Do you think the Gameboy Color is a Gameboy? No, because it is technically more advanced and it has its own range of proprietary software. The difference becomes more drastic when it comes to the II and the IIgs. They're from two different generations! Yes, the IIgs is technically compatible with the II but so was the III. The Apple III isn't an Apple II. It has its own original, incompatible software, just like the IIgs.

That's a good point, the incompatible software.

 

And nothing absolutely nothing written for the "gs" part of "IIgs" is backward compatible with the "plain'ol" II series. NOTHING!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Keatah said:

That's a good point, the incompatible software.

 

And nothing absolutely nothing written for the "gs" part of "IIgs" is backward compatible with the "plain'ol" II series. NOTHING!

 

Yes, because it's a whole new computer! A redesign (IIc) or upgrade(//eP) doesn't have its own set of incompatible, proprietary soft/hardware. It is just a smaller, simpler, cost reduced version of the old system with some new features and upgrades. The IIgs has its own new CPU(although the 65816 is similar to the 6502, it's still different in many ways), new, incompatible graphics and sound, incompatible expansion cards, incompatible accessories, etc. It's a whole new computer that's backwards compatible with the previous generation! Is the PS2 a PS1? No. Is the GBA a GB? No. Is the Wii a Gamecube? No. Is a Mac with an A//e card an Apple II? No. Is the IIgs an Apple II? No.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluejay said:

Yes, because it's a whole new computer! A redesign (IIc) or upgrade(//eP) doesn't have its own set of incompatible, proprietary soft/hardware. It is just a smaller, simpler, cost reduced version of the old system with some new features and upgrades. The IIgs has its own new CPU(although the 65816 is similar to the 6502, it's still different in many ways), new, incompatible graphics and sound, incompatible expansion cards, incompatible accessories, etc. It's a whole new computer that's backwards compatible with the previous generation! Is the PS2 a PS1? No. Is the GBA a GB? No. Is the Wii a Gamecube? No. Is a Mac with an A//e card an Apple II? No. Is the IIgs an Apple II? No.

I figure it's a better Apple II than the Apple II.  There are many Apple II clones too, would you still consider them Apple IIs?  This allows me to play Apple II games on real hardware with real peripherals, yet not have to deal with having yet another machine.  So for that, I count it as an Apple II :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DeathAdderSF said:

 

System Saver IIgs. The sealant around the edges tends to degrade to nasty black goo after all these years, and cleaning it all out can be a bitch. But once that's done and replaced, it's a fine cooling solution.

I'm aware of those things, unfortunately they seem to go for high prices.  Maybe I should design something and 3D print it, I'll have to look, but I thought I saw a fan header on the motherboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leech said:

I figure it's a better Apple II than the Apple II.  There are many Apple II clones too, would you still consider them Apple IIs?  This allows me to play Apple II games on real hardware with real peripherals, yet not have to deal with having yet another machine.  So for that, I count it as an Apple II :)

Yes, and the Apple III is a worse Apple II than the Apple II. As I have said, calling the IIgs a II is like calling a III a II. The III allows you to play Apple II games on real hardware with real peripherals. So according to your logic, the Apple III is an Apple II, which I think you'd agree; it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bluejay said:

Yes, and the Apple III is a worse Apple II than the Apple II. As I have said, calling the IIgs a II is like calling a III a II. The III allows you to play Apple II games on real hardware with real peripherals. So according to your logic, the Apple III is an Apple II, which I think you'd agree; it isn't.

Sure the Apple III is an Apple II where expansion cards go to die.  Like an Apple II mausoleum.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...