Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?

[bluejay]

5 minutes ago, leech said:

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

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. How is the III a II?

[leech]

11 minutes ago, bluejay said:

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today. How is the III a II?

It's an Apple II with an extra I at the end? 

Should we see if we can ask Woz if the IIGS is an apple II?

[bluejay]

1 hour ago, leech said:

It's an Apple II with an extra I at the end? 

Should we see if we can ask Woz if the IIGS is an apple II?

I've sent an email to webmaster@woz.org. This is the correct email, right?

[leech]

26 minutes ago, bluejay said:

I've sent an email to webmaster@woz.org. This is the correct email, right?

Ha, sure?  But I would guess he'd be the one to say Yay/Nay on such a question.  I honestly don't care either way, I was, and always have been an Atari guy.  Out of all my old computers, I only own one Apple II era one (the IIGS, the end of that era), and while I own several macs, the only one I personally bought was a G4 Powerbook so I could put MorphOS on it.  Though I do dual-boot it with Tiger(?) so it can run Mac Classic stuff too.  The other two Macs I have were given to me, and they're from 2009/10, of which I've put Linux on because I really don't like macOS   Reminds me of running commercial *nix.

Would be awesome if Woz answers.  I personally think the IIGS was the direction Apple should have gone in, instead of selling Jobs' toaster. 

[DeathAdderSF]

3 hours ago, leech said:

I thought I saw a fan header on the motherboard.

 

Well, there is a fan header, buuuuut if you're using a wimpy, stock Apple PSU, I would recommend using a fan with its own power source. Especially if your slots are packed with cards.

[leech]

Just now, DeathAdderSF said:

 

Well, there is a fan header, buuuuut if you're using a wimpy, stock Apple PSU, I would recommend using a fan with its own power source. Especially if your slots are packed with cards.

Nah, I have one of the new ones from reactivemicro.  https://wiki.reactivemicro.com/Universal_PSU_Kit

[DeathAdderSF]

1 minute ago, leech said:

Nah, I have one of the new ones from reactivemicro.  https://wiki.reactivemicro.com/Universal_PSU_Kit

 

Good man. Way to show your IIgs you care. ?

[bluejay]

 

25 minutes ago, leech said:

Ha, sure?  But I would guess he'd be the one to say Yay/Nay on such a question.  I honestly don't care either way, I was, and always have been an Atari guy.  Out of all my old computers, I only own one Apple II era one (the IIGS, the end of that era), and while I own several macs, the only one I personally bought was a G4 Powerbook so I could put MorphOS on it.  Though I do dual-boot it with Tiger(?) so it can run Mac Classic stuff too.  The other two Macs I have were given to me, and they're from 2009/10, of which I've put Linux on because I really don't like macOS   Reminds me of running commercial *nix.

Would be awesome if Woz answers.  I personally think the IIGS was the direction Apple should have gone in, instead of selling Jobs' toaster. 

Turns out I sent it to the wrong email so I just sent it again to a general inquiry email(teamwoz@woz.org)

[leech]

Just now, DeathAdderSF said:

 

Good man. Way to show your IIgs you care. ?

Ha, yeah I was having some weird stability issues with the Ultima games.  Of course I discovered later that I just needed a GS patched version...  (some of the GS compatibility issues mentioned in this thread)

[Keatah]

The IIgs was discontinued in December 1992, the //eP November 1993. Thus making it the last of the II series.

 

I would expect Woz to say the IIgs is the direction Apple should have followed.

 

[DeathAdderSF]

3 hours ago, Keatah said:

I would expect Woz to say the IIgs is the direction Apple should have followed.

 

Steve Wozniak seems like a nice guy, so if he does actually entertain such a ridiculous question as, "Does the IIgs qualify as an Apple II?", I expect he'll do it in good humor.

Now if Steve Jobs were still with us, and someone asked him that question, I can imagine him responding curtly with, "What the hell are you talking about?"

Which actually wouldn't be so bad, seeing as how it's what the vast majority of us seem to be thinking about this thread. ?

Edited April 26, 2020 by DeathAdderSF

[+OLD CS1]

6 hours ago, bluejay said:

 

Turns out I sent it to the wrong email so I just sent it again to a general inquiry email(teamwoz@woz.org)

If we could get Woz to stop by here to lay out his ideas, this article leads me to believe what he has to say on the matter would be very interesting.

 

https://apple2history.org/history/ah10/#02

 

As well, the Wikipedia entry (take it for what it may be worth) has some interesting information.  In part, the reviews and opinions of magazines at the time place it as a direct descendant of the Apple II, as does its development and compatibility.

 

Having been alive at the time and benefiting from witnessing the introduction of the IIgs commercially and how it was accepted by the market, I firmly sit on the side of it being a genuine evolution of the Apple II.

 

I also find it interesting the amount of animosity I have found over the years.  Even at the time I knew Mac devotees who panned it as a Mac knock-off.  There were Apple II purists who swore they would never accept the IIgs.  The owner of the computer store in one of the local malls which sold Apples swore his product line would remain "real" Apple II and Mac, never to include the IIgs, then around Christmas 1988 I saw a IIgs on demo in his window.  (I suspect the old codger's son had a hand in that.)  This kind of animosity was surprising to see between Apple users and normally exhibited by the Amiga/Mac/ST "cults," or the earlier console/desktop conflicts of the NES and Commodore 64.

 

My first high school transitioned from Apple IIe and //c to the IIgs for student use, while offices which were not running PCs for VT access to the school district central computer had transitioned from Apple IIe and Apple ][plus to Mac.  My second high school had an Apple IIe lab which went largely unused in favor of the new PS/2 lab, while its offices migrated from the Apple II to Mac, though I remember explicitly the Dean of Students grumbling about how the Mac in his office would not run his old Apple II software so he wound up taking a lot of work home to run on his IIgs.

 

As an aside, this guy was pretty tech savvy.  I had a lot of good talks with him at the time that I only just now recall.  Interesting how so much of what we do is simply incorporated into our repertoire.  During the school day I ran a BBS on my personal phone line (which also tended to make it not very popular as most people who would use it worked and were in school during the same hours -- it mainly became a hub for kids my age who could dink around at school.)  I will never forget the day I came home to find a new user.  It was the Dean.  I had given my phone number as my home number which, of course, was expected to be the number to reach my parents.  New users were required to leave the sysop feedback as part of the sign-up process to introduce themselves.  He mentioned he found the situation amusing and that he had updated my record with the correct number for my parents.  (As a further aside, I find it interesting that I remember our family house phone number but not mine.)

[leech]

11 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

If we could get Woz to stop by here to lay out his ideas, this article leads me to believe what he has to say on the matter would be very interesting.

 

https://apple2history.org/history/ah10/#02

 

As well, the Wikipedia entry (take it for what it may be worth) has some interesting information.  In part, the reviews and opinions of magazines at the time place it as a direct descendant of the Apple II, as does its development and compatibility.

 

Having been alive at the time and benefiting from witnessing the introduction of the IIgs commercially and how it was accepted by the market, I firmly sit on the side of it being a genuine evolution of the Apple II.

 

I also find it interesting the amount of animosity I have found over the years.  Even at the time I knew Mac devotees who panned it as a Mac knock-off.  There were Apple II purists who swore they would never accept the IIgs.  The owner of the computer store in one of the local malls which sold Apples swore his product line would remain "real" Apple II and Mac, never to include the IIgs, then around Christmas 1988 I saw a IIgs on demo in his window.  (I suspect the old codger's son had a hand in that.)  This kind of animosity was surprising to see between Apple users and normally exhibited by the Amiga/Mac/ST "cults," or the earlier console/desktop conflicts of the NES and Commodore 64.

 

My first high school transitioned from Apple IIe and //c to the IIgs for student use, while offices which were not running PCs for VT access to the school district central computer had transitioned from Apple IIe and Apple ][plus to Mac.  My second high school had an Apple IIe lab which went largely unused in favor of the new PS/2 lab, while its offices migrated from the Apple II to Mac, though I remember explicitly the Dean of Students grumbling about how the Mac in his office would not run his old Apple II software so he wound up taking a lot of work home to run on his IIgs.

 

As an aside, this guy was pretty tech savvy.  I had a lot of good talks with him at the time that I only just now recall.  Interesting how so much of what we do is simply incorporated into our repertoire.  During the school day I ran a BBS on my personal phone line (which also tended to make it not very popular as most people who would use it worked and were in school during the same hours -- it mainly became a hub for kids my age who could dink around at school.)  I will never forget the day I came home to find a new user.  It was the Dean.  I had given my phone number as my home number which, of course, was expected to be the number to reach my parents.  New users were required to leave the sysop feedback as part of the sign-up process to introduce themselves.  He mentioned he found the situation amusing and that he had updated my record with the correct number for my parents.  (As a further aside, I find it interesting that I remember our family house phone number but not mine.)

Yeah, pretty sure that Woz will say it is an Apple II, going by that article.  As it was designed as an Apple II, but modernized as such.

[zzip]

On 4/25/2020 at 3:03 AM, spacecadet said:

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

Yes there is.  Button is on the top right of the topic

[zzip]

On 4/24/2020 at 3:32 PM, Keatah said:

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.

This would be a luxury on 8-bit systems because of limited memory.   Mostly the "OS" consisted of just basic IO functions and you "called" them by doing a JSR in assembly or something.    But since the IIgs had a GUI, I imagine it must have had a more complex OS?

[Lee Adamson]

It had a bunch of toolbox routines in ROM, that the disk OSen could use to get at the hardware in an abstract way.

[01tracker]

On 4/27/2020 at 12:42 PM, zzip said:

This would be a luxury on 8-bit systems because of limited memory.   Mostly the "OS" consisted of just basic IO functions and you "called" them by doing a JSR in assembly or something.    But since the IIgs had a GUI, I imagine it must have had a more complex OS?

GS/OS 6 was a pretty complex OS for its day, and more advanced in some ways (due to being developed later) than System 6 on the Mac.  It's also the most complex OS written for a 65816 based machine.

[leech]

13 hours ago, 01tracker said:

GS/OS 6 was a pretty complex OS for its day, and more advanced in some ways (due to being developed later) than System 6 on the Mac.  It's also the most complex OS written for a 65816 based machine.

To be fair, what other computers actually used the 65816?  The Rapidus adds one to the A8 line, but I cannot think of any other conputer that acually used one that was mainstream.

[KG7PFS]

 

My absolute favorite computer ever is - shocking as it may seem here - not an Apple but a Tandy Color Computer 3.

 

It's about 90% backward compatible with the CoCo 1 & 2. What percentage of IIe software will the IIgs run?

 

The CoCo 3 combines the support chips of the 1&2 into a single super chip called the GIME (Graphic Image & Memory Enhancer.) This chip is compatible with CoCo 1 & 2 bank swithcing but adds the ability to access up to 2MB RAM. It supports the old graphics modes (256X192 in 2 colors, 128X192 in 4 colors, 8 colors total) but adds 320X192 in 16 colors, 640X192 in 4 colors, out of 64 colors total. Software written for the CoCo 1 & 2 can't use any of these advanced features.

 

Now some of you claim that the similarly upgraded Apple III and IIgs are not Apple II's because of the additional hardware. That is logically identical to saying the CoCo 3 isn't a CoCo, an amusing claim no one in the CoCo Community has ever made.

 

BTW, software written for the Apple II+ can't access the additional features of the IIe or IIc. I guess those aren't Apple II's either.

 

Ok, Now go ahead and flame me. I didn't come here to add to the mysterious hostility of this discussion, but if all you want to do is argue, I guess that's what you're going to do. Have a nice day.

[leech]

To be fair, I don't even think Apple wants to claim the Apple III was made by Apple...

[Keatah]

1 hour ago, KG7PFS said:

My absolute favorite computer ever is - shocking as it may seem here - not an Apple but a Tandy Color Computer 3.

Nothing wrong in that.

 

1 hour ago, KG7PFS said:

BTW, software written for the Apple II+ can't access the additional features of the IIe or IIc. I guess those aren't Apple II's either.

 

Ok, Now go ahead and flame me. I didn't come here to add to the mysterious hostility of this discussion, but if all you want to do is argue, I guess that's what you're going to do. Have a nice day.

It's a matter of two computers in one vs architecture enhancements. And II+ software is more easily modified or patched to work with the //e's & //c's expansions compared to the IIgs. The IIgs side is so different it only makes sense to start over.

 

[The Usotsuki]

5 hours ago, KG7PFS said:

 

My absolute favorite computer ever is - shocking as it may seem here - not an Apple but a Tandy Color Computer 3.

 

It's about 90% backward compatible with the CoCo 1 & 2. What percentage of IIe software will the IIgs run?

 

The CoCo 3 combines the support chips of the 1&2 into a single super chip called the GIME (Graphic Image & Memory Enhancer.) This chip is compatible with CoCo 1 & 2 bank swithcing but adds the ability to access up to 2MB RAM. It supports the old graphics modes (256X192 in 2 colors, 128X192 in 4 colors, 8 colors total) but adds 320X192 in 16 colors, 640X192 in 4 colors, out of 64 colors total. Software written for the CoCo 1 & 2 can't use any of these advanced features.

 

Now some of you claim that the similarly upgraded Apple III and IIgs are not Apple II's because of the additional hardware. That is logically identical to saying the CoCo 3 isn't a CoCo, an amusing claim no one in the CoCo Community has ever made.

 

BTW, software written for the Apple II+ can't access the additional features of the IIe or IIc. I guess those aren't Apple II's either.

 

Ok, Now go ahead and flame me. I didn't come here to add to the mysterious hostility of this discussion, but if all you want to do is argue, I guess that's what you're going to do. Have a nice day.

Compatibility is like 95%.  The Apple //e hardware is packed into a single chip called Mega II.  Incompatibility usually has to do with memory wrap tricks, I think.

[leech]

10 hours ago, The Usotsuki said:

Compatibility is like 95%.  The Apple //e hardware is packed into a single chip called Mega II.  Incompatibility usually has to do with memory wrap tricks, I think.

I haven't tried a lot of software, but the Ultima games seemed to have issues without some IIGS patches.  But at this point I bet the compatibility is fantastic, as most things have been patched to work, which is why for my real hardware, I went for the IIGS, only 8/16 bit systems I allow myself to have multiples of are the A8 and ST/Amiga.  ?