Toinet wrote:
> On 3 fév, 01:29, Alex Freed  wrote:
>> Anybody interested so far?
>>
>> -Alex.
> 
> Alex and al.,
> 
> The idea is interesting just like all other Apple II hardware
> projects, mainly because I do not understand a bit of them.
> 
> From my user's point of view, I have to admit that I am not interested
> in seeing another floppy controller, nor Z80 card nor any other cards
> similar to the thousands of Apple II cards out there.

Of course, what Alex has proposed would be an "ultra" floppy
controller, capable of handling GCR and MFM on modern drives
of any size.

Considering that the AppleDisk 3.5 Controller (Superdisk Controller)
is so hard to come by, this would be a real benefit to many.

> Nowadays, I believe people use and work with their Apple II through an
> emulator and will continue unless a real Apple II facilitates
> exchanges with todays' platforms (wifi, usb, bluetooth) or enhances
> its current limitations (enhanced video board, enhanced sound boards).
> That is why I believe the lattest useful Apple II cards are the
> Ethernet ones.

I guess I don't see the value in "facilitating exchanges" when it is
already so easy with 1) a 115kbps serial link, 2) Ethernet, 3) CFFA +
CiderPress, and 4) Superdisk and sneakernet.

Since I can walk 128MB (a CF card) between machines in less than a
minute, that's about 2MB/second effective transfer rate!

The real interoperability issue isn't data transfer, but data
*exchange*, meaning that formats, headers, coding, etc., is handled
to make the data transfer useful.  In the PC world, CiderPress does
a virtuoso job of that--good enough that I never feel any inconvenience
in moving code, data, images, etc., between the Apple world and the
modern world.  (And as I've mentioned before, I have no desire to
hamper my access to the modern world by doing it *through* an Apple II.)

> But hardware is only one part of the subject and the most useful/
> feature complete card in the universe offers limited interest if it
> has no drivers nor developers supporting it: see the Second Sight
> video board: it offered powerful features and great video enhancements
> and no support... then it died.

You are absolutely right--hardware is useless without software, and
it is the lack of a compelling software story that discourages most
hardware extensions (many of them quite appropriately ;-).

> Still, from my user's point of view, I would like the following:
> - Apple II emulators remove their "standard" limitations by offering
> enhancements (e.g. Apple IIgs emulators link other softswitches to get
> enhanced video resolutions, or ease file exchanges between the host
> computer and the emulated Apple II)

There you lose me.  Adding architectural extensions to an emulator is
equivalent to adding architectural extensions to the hardware.  Unless
there is robust development to support it, the value goes unused.

This is quite different from building extensions to map existing,
well-supported features to modern hardware--like allowing ProDOS to
use a CF card as a multi-volume hard disk, or allowing hi-res graphics
to be faithfully displayed on a modern VGA display.

This latter type of extension is instantly usable by the entire
community with the panoply of Apple II software, while the former
type is usable only by a few to run only a few special apps.

> - Hardware gurus build Wifi, USB or Bluetooth boards. I would be
> delighted to help for the driver's part (even though my knowledge on
> the matter is "short")
> 
> I am an Apple IIgs developer (hum) and I would like to see IIgs
> emulators evolve like AppleWin does. It offers emulation enhancements
> by handling expansion cards, which is really convenient.
>
> Last but not least, what I *really* would like is that Apple releases
> the complete Apple II source code (especially the IIgs one ;-) in some
> sort of GPL. That would ease a developer's access to our platform,
> which is, according to me, the weakness of our platform, especially on
> the IIgs.

I don't expect this to happen--ever.

> I cannot count the number of hours for the disassembly of the IIgs
> toolsets in ROM, understanding QuickDraw II's internals has been a
> huge work, the work on the FSTs has been even heavier and some parts
> still remain unclear. Having the official Apple source codes would be
> useful to all of us.

I certainly would, but I expect any better understanding of this code
to continue to be the result of valiant efforts like your own.

> I might be wrong, I enjoy doing my sort-of useless work, that changes
> my mind from my interesting real job but if we keep on creating the
> same hardware parts not bypassing our beloved platform's limits, then
> we shall lose interest in the software part.

I disagree.  It is precisely the static architecture of the platform
that makes it interesting to provide new capabilities through software!

If I have a great idea for the Apple II that only requires a 240MHz
processor, a 64K-color megapixel display, and 32MB of RAM, I suggest
that it's not actually an idea for an Apple II.  ;-)

Maybe this is a difference between IIgs users and //e (and earlier)
users--more IIgs users want to be riding the Moore's "Law" wave, and
more //e users are content to program the machine that Woz designed.

If so, then perhaps it is at least partially due to the IIgs GUI, and
all the MacWindows associations it implies.

Just as you find it appealing to relax using a IIgs after a day's work,
I find it relaxing to use the command line text interface of the //e
after a lot of GUI-based computing.  ;-)

-michael

******** Note new website URL ********

NadaNet and AppleCrate II for Apple II parallel computing!
Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32