Apple II for into to microprocessors

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Thu Jul 12 07:55:47 2001

The Apple][ is not a terribly good system for introducing someone to
microcomputers for a couple of pretty simple reasons. (1) it was designed from
the ground up as a video game, with emphasis and many compromises on the
graphics and little real attention to the more basic aspects of computing. (2)
it was designed around BASIC, rather than around a more elementary
debugger/assembler, though there were, in the later models, provisions for
assembler, which is probably the best tool for learning about the architecture
and about microcomputers in general. That doesn't make it a bad choice as a
first computer, but it does mean one has to take a number of things into
consideration. I don't think it matters terribly whether one has an
Apple][, ][+, ][c, or ][e, in that regard. They all have the same entaglements
with the video hardware, hence, don't allow much understanding of the workings
of the system until a pretty complete understanding of how NTSC video works is
acquired.

The video-targeted compromises made in the Apple][, e.g. splitting the video
memory into separate portions, serve to make the process of learning about the
interaction of the video subsystem and rest of the machine more cumbersome,
though, ultimately, that's not a bad thing.

One trap it's easy to fall into is the confusion between whether to approach the
learning task from the top or the bottom. On one hand, it's pretty
straightforward to learn about the basics of programming by using BASIC.
However, though it teaches about the discipline associated with strict and
precise definition of a task, it teaches nothing at all about the microcomputer.
OTOH, if one attempts to learn the "basics" from a system that has only a simple
debug monitor, with the ability, perhaps, of doing limited substitution of hex
or binary within the existing memory map, it requires quite a bit of
understanding of the basics that one hasn't really learned yet. Neither
approach is perfect, and, unfortunately, there's little alternative to taking
one or the other. Trying to do both is probably worse than either.

A lot depends on what one wishes to learn. If one is an accomplished
programmer, then the low-level approach is certainly the one most likely to
produce learning about microcomputers, as contrasted with mini's and mainframes.
If, OTOH, one wishes to learn programming, the Apple feature set may get in the
way unless one starts with the very top-level, e.g. PASCAL or BASIC. Someone
else can present arguments between bebefits of BASIC and PASCAL, however.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Peschel" <dpeschel_at_eskimo.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Apple II for into to microprocessors


> On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:11:25PM -0400, Eric Chomko wrote:
> > Don't you really have to have a ROM monitor to play with? Assembly is fine,
but
> > one really should START with binary code on any starter mircoprocessor
system,
> > IMO. Its a bootstrap process. Assemebly language (6502 at that) comes
afterward
> > (learning process). Seems the Apple IIe is too high-level for beginners on
the
> > system. Isn't it native in BASIC? Can you get to a ROM monitor from BASIC? I
> > have a IIe that would be fun to play around at the ROM level.
>
> You have a ROM monitor and (either on original ][s or the enhanced //e and
> newer) a small assembler. There are more sophisticated assemblers too.
> From BASIC you just CALL -151. DOS works from the monitor too, and BASIC
> and machine language work together pretty nicely.
>
> -- Derek
>
>
Received on Thu Jul 12 2001 - 07:55:47 BST