From: ylee@columbia.edu   
      
   D Finnigan wrote:   
   > He further said: "The Mega II "Apple II on a chip" is the Ball and Chain of   
   > the GS -- it was originally designed for a low cost //e but wasn't cheap   
   > enough to make the //e any cheaper. (to Apple, apparently. Certainly not to   
   > us.)   
   >   
   > When they get rid of it and implement the logic where it belongs (i.e. all   
   > over the machine and integrated into the custom chips that handle each part   
   > of the system already) it will blow away the performance limitations of the   
   > current design and cost a hell of a lot less.   
      
   Apple made the same mistake that Commodore did a year earlier: Implement   
   backward compatibility in a discrete "system on a chip" (such as Mega II) that   
   advances in VLSI made possible. While providing 100% compatibility, by walling   
   off the "old" and "new"    
   modes from each other, software developers had to choose one to support and of   
   course chose the mode with the far larger installed base.   
      
   What both companies should have done is implement the new features within the   
   existing software and hardware interfaces, as Apple had done with double   
   hi-res, 80-column text, and lowercase. This would have decreased the level of   
   backward compatibility,    
   but developers would have released updated versions of existing software (just   
   as software incompatible with IIe and IIc quickly got updated), and the IIgs   
   would have benefited in the long run. Similarly, Commodore should have   
   designed the 128 as a 64    
   with more memory, 80-column support, and a better BASIC. Again, backward   
   compatibility would have been impacted, but over the long run there would have   
   been more incentive for developers to release software that supports the 128's   
   enhancements, and to    
   update existing incompatible software.   
      
   One can argue—probably accurately—that Commodore would not have done this   
   given its record of (lack of) backward compatibility, and that the 128 having   
   a 64-on-a-chip is the most to be hoped for. But Apple did have both the   
   history of incremental    
   improvements and commitment to backward compatibility, so there is less excuse   
   there. On the other hand, it's understandable how seductive the promise of   
   being able to provide 100% backward compatibility with a single chip was.   
      
   --   
   geo:37.783333,-122.416667   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)