Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Here we go again. At the risk of offending Dick with historical fact, the
> Apple ][ was NOT "designed from the ground up as a video game".
> Certainly it implemented graphics and sound features, but these were just
> clever hacks by Woz that added these powerful features without significant
> additional circuitry.
>
> I don't know why I even welcome the eventual flood of nonsense from our
> friend Dick by even bothering to respond to his message, but nonsense
> coming from anyone should not go unanswered.
>
Sellam, as I would agree with you regarding Dick politically, I think in this
instance,
though you disagree with him regarding the Apple II and its ability to serve as a
microprocessor test system, I think we should at least acknowledge the on-topic
aspect of his post.
>
> > than around a more elementary debugger/assembler, though there were,
> > in the later models, provisions for assembler, which is probably the
>
> BZZZT. Wrong again, the original Apple ][, as I just previously
> mentioned, had an assembler built into the ROM.
>
Okay, this I'd like to play around with.
>
> Thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is a vat of molten iron.
>
> Just to keep things in perspective, when Woz designed the Apple-1, and
> subsequently, by way of evolving the design, the Apple ][, he very much
> had in mind the design elements and structure of mini-computers of the
> day. Woz told me personally that he was very inspired by the design of
> the Data General Nova (mostly because of the simplicity of it's
> circuitry). The big difference was that the Apple was designed around a
> cheap microprocessor, rather than implementing his own processor, which I
> think even you will agree makes more sense, considering the time
> (1975-76). The monitor feature was there from the start, and was the main
> interface by which the user interacted with or programmed the computer.
> Creating a BASIC interpreter was obviously an attempt to make the computer
> more immediately useful to the average computer geek of the time.
>
Yes, that made me interested. I think I sold the first one in No. VA, prior to
Computerland.
>
> > 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.
>
> More nonsense. The Apple ][ is a very good introduction to modern day
> PCs. It's cheap, abundant, and easy to use and program.
>
> > 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.
>
> What better way to learn about video than to HAVE to confront the video
> system limitations head on and basically write code to emulate what would
> amount to video hardware in other machines?
>
> Anyway, I'm putting my armor back on in anticipation of the impending
> battle.
>
Came from a family feud in Texas. Can't we all just get along?
Eric
>
> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
Received on Fri Jul 13 2001 - 22:35:21 BST