4 ms·

I know this is about Mac's transitions and call me sentimental but I'm a little sad there was no mention of the 6502 and 65816.

by trimbo 7y ago

jdswain 7y ago
And quite a bit of MacOS was ported back to the IIgs, most notably QuickDraw. The IIgs had ADB before the Mac, and colour QuickDraw years before the Mac had colour graphics. At the time it looks like the 65816 was deliberately speed limited so as to not overshadow the Mac. Mac was 8MHz, IIgs was 2.8MHz, the 65816 eventually got to 14MHz+, if Apple released an 8MHz IIgs it would have compared very well against the Mac. Woz is even quoted as saying that. Also, the Mac IIfx had two 10MHz 6502 based I/O processors to offload work from the main CPU.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  > The IIgs had ADB before the Mac Marginally. The IIgs was released in September 1986; the Macintosh SE and II (which were the first Macs to support ADB) came out in March 1987. The 65C816 eventually made it up to 14 MHz, but I'm not sure those speed ratings were available in 1986. Even when they did, integrating them into the IIgs took some significant effort by accelerator manufacturers. > if Apple released an 8MHz IIgs it would have compared very well against the Mac. Woz is even quoted as saying that. Perhaps against an 8 MHz 68000 -- even then, the 16-bit data bus, 32-bit registers, and hardware multiply/divide on the 68000 would have made it stiff competition for the 65C816, which still used an 8-bit data bus, 16-bit registers, and supported no arithmetic operations more complex than addition, subtraction, and comparison. Against the later 680x0 parts, there'd have been no contest.
- cable2600 7y ago
  Originally the Macintosh was going to be 6809 based, but Steve Jobs wanted more power and went with the 68000 series. GEOS was available on the Apple //e and Commodore 64 showing that even entry level CPUs that are 8 bit can do a GUI.
lproven 7y ago
Hi. Author of the piece here. The reason I skipped it is addressed in an earlier comment: there was no code transition. The 65C816 ran 6502 code natively. Yes there was a bit of native code, but if Apple had run the CPU at full speed, and devoted real effort to the IIGS, it would have killed the Mac off. It is, sadly, for the best that they didn't. I speak as someone who never owned or used an Apple ][. I was born in Britain. When the Apple ][ was new, it cost as much as a car in Europe. My first and second computers were Sinclairs, and my 3rd was an Amstrad (who bought Sinclair). The Apple ][ may have been the first home computer under US$1000 but in the UK that was a very large amount of money. Sinclair made the first home computers for under GBP 100, a far more important cost barrier for us.

I know this is about Mac's transitions and call me sentimental but I'm a little sad there was no mention of the 6502 and 65816.

by trimbo 7y ago

I know this is about Mac's transitions and call me sentimental but I'm a little sad there was no mention of the 6502 and 65816.

jdswain 7y ago

And quite a bit of MacOS was ported back to the IIgs, most notably QuickDraw. The IIgs had ADB before the Mac, and colour QuickDraw years before the Mac had colour graphics. At the time it looks like the 65816 was deliberately speed limited so as to not overshadow the Mac. Mac was 8MHz, IIgs was 2.8MHz, the 65816 eventually got to 14MHz+, if Apple released an 8MHz IIgs it would have compared very well against the Mac. Woz is even quoted as saying that. Also, the Mac IIfx had two 10MHz 6502 based I/O processors to offload work from the main CPU.

duskwuff 7y ago
> The IIgs had ADB before the Mac Marginally. The IIgs was released in September 1986; the Macintosh SE and II (which were the first Macs to support ADB) came out in March 1987. The 65C816 eventually made it up to 14 MHz, but I'm not sure those speed ratings were available in 1986. Even when they did, integrating them into the IIgs took some significant effort by accelerator manufacturers. > if Apple released an 8MHz IIgs it would have compared very well against the Mac. Woz is even quoted as saying that. Perhaps against an 8 MHz 68000 -- even then, the 16-bit data bus, 32-bit registers, and hardware multiply/divide on the 68000 would have made it stiff competition for the 65C816, which still used an 8-bit data bus, 16-bit registers, and supported no arithmetic operations more complex than addition, subtraction, and comparison. Against the later 680x0 parts, there'd have been no contest.
cable2600 7y ago
Originally the Macintosh was going to be 6809 based, but Steve Jobs wanted more power and went with the 68000 series. GEOS was available on the Apple //e and Commodore 64 showing that even entry level CPUs that are 8 bit can do a GUI.

lproven 7y ago

Hi. Author of the piece here. The reason I skipped it is addressed in an earlier comment: there was no code transition. The 65C816 ran 6502 code natively. Yes there was a bit of native code, but if Apple had run the CPU at full speed, and devoted real effort to the IIGS, it would have killed the Mac off. It is, sadly, for the best that they didn't. I speak as someone who never owned or used an Apple ][. I was born in Britain. When the Apple ][ was new, it cost as much as a car in Europe. My first and second computers were Sinclairs, and my 3rd was an Amstrad (who bought Sinclair). The Apple ][ may have been the first home computer under US$1000 but in the UK that was a very large amount of money. Sinclair made the first home computers for under GBP 100, a far more important cost barrier for us.