Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.apple2.programmer > #3778 > unrolled thread

1.21 Giga watts!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.apple2.programmer

Contents

  1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 07:05 -0700
    Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2017-08-12 11:09 -0500
      Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 16:09 -0700
        Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 16:20 -0700
        Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Brian Patrie <bpatrie@bellsouth.spamisicky.net> - 2017-08-13 05:31 -0500
          Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2017-08-13 03:45 -0700
            Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Brian Patrie <bpatrie@bellsouth.spamisicky.net> - 2017-08-13 05:54 -0500
          Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 04:26 -0700
            Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2017-08-13 13:59 -0700
        Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Charlie <charlieDOTd@verEYEzon.net> - 2017-08-14 10:59 -0400
    Re: 1.21 Giga watts! gids.rs@sasktel.net - 2017-08-12 12:35 -0700
      Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 15:23 -0700
        Re: 1.21 Giga watts! gids.rs@sasktel.net - 2017-08-12 22:27 -0700
          Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 02:07 -0700
            Re: 1.21 Giga watts! gids.rs@sasktel.net - 2017-08-13 16:34 -0700
              Re: 1.21 Giga watts! Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:58 -0700
                Re: 1.21 Giga watts! gids.rs@sasktel.net - 2017-08-13 17:20 -0700

#3778 — 1.21 Giga watts!

I've been thinking a lot about apple ii acceleration lately and how we can get 1.21 gigawatt-like speeds (I know, watt != hz) and remain cycle-accurate. After banging my head on this for a while a friend woke me up the the realization that we may not care about being cycle accurate anymore, that it's a relic from the old days as it certainly doesn't make sense in modern risc superscalar designs. Also, if we were given, say, a 250mhz 65C832 I would not want to run any old 1mhz timing sensitive apps or peripherals as they would just slow me down or the apps would be too fast. I would guess that apple drives would be pointless as the storage capacity and speed would not be sufficient in the modern era. I guess what I'm wondering is, if the gods graced us with a 250mhz chip, would there be riots in the street if fast mode acted the way I specified?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3782

Anthony Ortiz <anthonypaulo@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking a lot about apple ii acceleration lately and how we
> can get 1.21 gigawatt-like speeds (I know, watt != hz) and remain
> cycle-accurate. After banging my head on this for a while a friend woke
> me up the the realization that we may not care about being cycle accurate
> anymore, that it's a relic from the old days as it certainly doesn't make
> sense in modern risc superscalar designs. Also, if we were given, say, a
> 250mhz 65C832 I would not want to run any old 1mhz timing sensitive apps
> or peripherals as they would just slow me down or the apps would be too
> fast. I would guess that apple drives would be pointless as the storage
> capacity and speed would not be sufficient in the modern era. I guess
> what I'm wondering is, if the gods graced us with a 250mhz chip, would
> there be riots in the street if fast mode acted the way I specified?
> 

Soooo...exactly what part of the Apple II universe (hardware, software,
knowledge, etc.) do you hope to leverage, and to what end?

-- 
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II:  http://michaeljmahon.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3789

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-4, mjm...@aol.com wrote:
> Soooo...exactly what part of the Apple II universe (hardware, software,
> knowledge, etc.) do you hope to leverage, and to what end?
> 
> -- 
> -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II:  http://michaeljmahon.com

While writing the op I thought of you and was expecting this. :P

To begin answering your questions, let's change our perspective a bit to the x86. I grew up on the Apple II; it was my dream machine, my first and only love, and when the PC came out I grew up on that as well but always had a warm spot in my heart for the II. The PC back then ran at 4.7mhz, 64K RAM, ISA bus, CGA graphics, ssdd floppy drives, etc... Fast forward to today's 3.5ghz state-of-the-art 12-core beasts with cache and 64GB RAM, PCI Express bus, USB 3.0, QSXGA 2560x2048 graphics, NO MORE FLOPPY DRIVES, solid-state/multi-terabyte drives, 1gb ethernet, etc... Surely most if not all of us use these type of machines on a daily basis, so I ask you... to what end have we upgraded our machines over the years? This should answer the "to what end" part of your question.

The PC's we have today are nothing like the PC's of old, and yet at no point have I ever stopped believing that my PC today is anything but a PC. After all, I am no longer the 10 year old I was 33 years ago, I've replaced a lot of old thoughts with newer ones, substantially added to my knowledge base, got rid of some old habits, hopefully added some new good ones, etc... I'm still me, just an enhanced me, but I'm *ME*. Our PC's no longer have the ISA bus, but I don't see people rioting in the streets because they can no longer leverage all their old ISA peripherals and their ISA knowledge; same can be said for EISA, VESA, and AGP. Our PC's no longer have floppies, and I can't say I miss them or have any need for them and I don't think anyone is lamenting our inability to leverage that technology anymore. The list goes on and on, I'm sure you get my point.

To answer the "what part of the Apple II universe (hardware, software, 
knowledge, etc.) do you hope to leverage" part of your question, I don't think any consideration should be given towards leveraging any of the old devices (when in "FAST" 1.21 gigawatts mode) any more than we should give any consideration towards leveraging  360K floppies and ISA based peripherals in our current PC's. 

Imagine an Apple II that you can switch on in native mode and have it be exactly what it is, that Apple II from 30+ years ago in it's original form, but then you can switch it to "FAST" mode and it's a supercharged 250mhz 65C832-based (or some other derivative that makes sense nowadays given the advancements since that design was conceived) Apple II that ditches the old bus and has a new bus that supports gigs of RAM, 32-bit color SXGA graphics, Sound-blaster sound, terabyte hard drives, USB, Ethernet, etc... You use native mode to leverage all your nostalgia-based programs and peripherals and you use fast mode to extend it into the future.

I have a dream!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3790

I posted this to the wrong group to boot... meant to post this to comp.sys.Apple2 instead

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3794

On 2017-08-12 18:09, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> Imagine an Apple II that you can switch on in native mode and have it be exactly what it is, that Apple II from 30+ years ago in it's original form, but then you can switch it to "FAST" mode and it's a supercharged 250mhz 65C832-based (or some other derivative that makes sense nowadays given the advancements since that design was conceived) Apple II that ditches the old bus and has a new bus that supports gigs of RAM, 32-bit color SXGA graphics, Sound-blaster sound, terabyte hard drives, USB, Ethernet, etc... You use native mode to leverage all your nostalgia-based programs and peripherals and you use fast mode to extend it into the future.

Since you bring up the 65832, i'll first point out that you're using 
"native mode" oppositely to the way that WDC do.  In the 65816 
nomenclature, "native mode" is the new mode, and "emulation mode" 
emulates a 65C02.

Meanwhile, you're talking about making a whole new non-Apple II, for 
which new software would need to be developed to exploit its potential, 
and bolting it to an Apple II.  Whilst this is, to some extent, what an 
Apple IIgs is, it's not all that pointful these days--especially when 
you can have a 250MHz virtual Apple II via any of several emulators. 
(You can even put a Raspberry Pi inside your Apple II and have a lot of 
what you're suggesting.)

(Meanwhile, i'm sleep deprived and not fully forming my thoughts.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3795

For a French speaking person, what does "jibberish" mean, please? It does not seem very positive.

Thank you,
Antoine

ps. I know I could have google-translated it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3796

On 2017-08-13 05:45, Antoine Vignau wrote:
> For a French speaking person, what does "jibberish" mean, please? It does not seem very positive.

Jibberish (or gibberish) is meaningless language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3797

Agreed, I just thought "emulation" mode would be too distasteful for the hardcore user, lol!

I don't think it pointless since, as you pointed out, the Apple Pi does some of this already; we want our Apple II experience to feel like an Apple II experience, and what better way than to run in an expansion slot rather than on your PC? The Pi doesn't do everything however; it doesn't offer you the 65C832 instruction set, 32-bit graphic capabilities such as we enjoy today on modern PCs, USB, at least 32-bit addressing space and gigs of ram, etc... Of course, new programming would need to be done to utilize all this newfound goodness (or modification/recompilation of existing sources) and it might motivate French Touch into getting back in business! :P

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3800

Thank you for the explanation,
Antoine

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3810

On 8/12/2017 7:09 PM, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-4, mjm...@aol.com wrote:
>> Soooo...exactly what part of the Apple II universe (hardware, software,
>> knowledge, etc.) do you hope to leverage, and to what end?
>>
>> --
>> -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II:  http://michaeljmahon.com
>
> While writing the op I thought of you and was expecting this. :P
>
> To begin answering your questions, let's change our perspective a bit to the x86. I grew up on the Apple II; it was my dream machine, my first and only love, and when the PC came out I grew up on that as well but always had a warm spot in my heart for the II. The PC back then ran at 4.7mhz, 64K RAM, ISA bus, CGA graphics, ssdd floppy drives, etc... Fast forward to today's 3.5ghz state-of-the-art 12-core beasts with cache and 64GB RAM, PCI Express bus, USB 3.0, QSXGA 2560x2048 graphics, NO MORE FLOPPY DRIVES, solid-state/multi-terabyte drives, 1gb ethernet, etc... Surely most if not all of us use these type of machines on a daily basis, so I ask you... to what end have we upgraded our machines over the years? This should answer the "to what end" part of your question.
>
> The PC's we have today are nothing like the PC's of old, and yet at no point have I ever stopped believing that my PC today is anything but a PC. After all, I am no longer the 10 year old I was 33 years ago, I've replaced a lot of old thoughts with newer ones, substantially added to my knowledge base, got rid of some old habits, hopefully added some new good ones, etc... I'm still me, just an enhanced me, but I'm *ME*. Our PC's no longer have the ISA bus, but I don't see people rioting in the streets because they can no longer leverage all their old ISA peripherals and their ISA knowledge; same can be said for EISA, VESA, and AGP. Our PC's no longer have floppies, and I can't say I miss them or have any need for them and I don't think anyone is lamenting our inability to leverage that technology anymore. The list goes on and on, I'm sure you get my point.
>
> To answer the "what part of the Apple II universe (hardware, software,
> knowledge, etc.) do you hope to leverage" part of your question, I don't think any consideration should be given towards leveraging any of the old devices (when in "FAST" 1.21 gigawatts mode) any more than we should give any consideration towards leveraging  360K floppies and ISA based peripherals in our current PC's.
>
> Imagine an Apple II that you can switch on in native mode and have it be exactly what it is, that Apple II from 30+ years ago in it's original form, but then you can switch it to "FAST" mode and it's a supercharged 250mhz 65C832-based (or some other derivative that makes sense nowadays given the advancements since that design was conceived) Apple II that ditches the old bus and has a new bus that supports gigs of RAM, 32-bit color SXGA graphics, Sound-blaster sound, terabyte hard drives, USB, Ethernet, etc... You use native mode to leverage all your nostalgia-based programs and peripherals and you use fast mode to extend it into the future.
>
> I have a dream!

Follow your dream and make your 'Gigawatt Apple II'.
Others will try to talk you out of it but what do they know.  :-)

Charlie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3786

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:05:23 AM UTC-6, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> I've been thinking a lot about apple ii acceleration lately and how we can get 1.21 gigawatt-like speeds (I know, watt != hz) and remain cycle-accurate. After banging my head on this for a while a friend woke me up the the realization that we may not care about being cycle accurate anymore, that it's a relic from the old days as it certainly doesn't make sense in modern risc superscalar designs. Also, if we were given, say, a 250mhz 65C832 I would not want to run any old 1mhz timing sensitive apps or peripherals as they would just slow me down or the apps would be too fast. I would guess that apple drives would be pointless as the storage capacity and speed would not be sufficient in the modern era. I guess what I'm wondering is, if the gods graced us with a 250mhz chip, would there be riots in the street if fast mode acted the way I specified?


You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do on a computer.  The only time I have ever felt a need for speed is during graphics rendering of some kind, find and replace, and I really can't think of a third reason.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3788

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 3:35:36 PM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do on a computer.  The only time I have ever felt a need for speed is during graphics rendering of some kind, find and replace, and I really can't think of a third reason.

When you say 1mhz is more than fast enough for most anything "we" do, who's the "we" you're referring to? Do you mean the royal "we", as in just you? If so, I don't doubt you, but my post wasn't directed at you, it was to people in general. Do you mean "we" as in the extremely small subset of people who find 1 Mhz more than enough, and possibly even unnecessary (as in the Amish), for their needs? If so, it's not directed at them since it's aimed at people in general. "we" as in Apple II users, or people in general? If so, this is easily disproved by looking all around you and trying to find a device that works at 1mhz anymore. To answer your question, I don't know that, and I'm glad we haven't stopped, as many advances in the sciences have occurred precisely because we've gone well beyond 1mhz.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3791

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-6, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 3:35:36 PM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> > You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do on a computer.  The only time I have ever felt a need for speed is during graphics rendering of some kind, find and replace, and I really can't think of a third reason.
> 
> When you say 1mhz is more than fast enough for most anything "we" do, who's the "we" you're referring to? Do you mean the royal "we", as in just you? If so, I don't doubt you, but my post wasn't directed at you, it was to people in general. Do you mean "we" as in the extremely small subset of people who find 1 Mhz more than enough, and possibly even unnecessary (as in the Amish), for their needs? If so, it's not directed at them since it's aimed at people in general. "we" as in Apple II users, or people in general? If so, this is easily disproved by looking all around you and trying to find a device that works at 1mhz anymore. To answer your question, I don't know that, and I'm glad we haven't stopped, as many advances in the sciences have occurred precisely because we've gone well beyond 1mhz.



Your jibberish is exactly my point.  Bet you didn't use any more than 1 Mhz of power to type in this long winded nonsense.  But I sure need Gigawatts of power to process it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3792

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 1:27:21 AM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> Your jibberish is exactly my point.  Bet you didn't use any more than 1 Mhz of power to type in this long winded nonsense.  But I sure need Gigawatts of power to process it.

My jibberish is your point? So your point is jibberish? Why do you have to be offensive and insulting? Your forced opinion-as-fact "You do know that 1mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do..." flies in the face of everything we've experienced to date and is, quite frankly, ridiculous, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to ascertain exactly who "we" is from your perspective; how does that amount to jibberish and long-winded nonsense? You speak of jibberish so let's break your post down :

>You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do on a computer.  

No, I don't! Why would anyone in their right mind think that 1mhz is more than enough for most anything we do on a computer when history proves otherwise? If "we" thought such a thing than why do "we" find the need to own 3.5ghz PCs and 1.5 ghz phones, and it never seems like it's enough? I'll answer that : it's because at some point we hit the limit of what can be done in 1mhz and so someone provided us with 2mhz and we immediately wrote programs that would do more than ever before and start pushing the limits of 2mhz and on and on we went. Is that jibberish too?

>The only time I have ever felt a need for speed is during graphics rendering of some kind, find and replace, and I really can't think of a third reason

The only time? Then you must not do much else other than play on the Apple II because any time you use your modern phone, TV, PC, internet, you name it, you're using computing resources that go well beyond 1mhz. I'd love to hear what you imagine is running the world wide web as we know it, or your Google search... In any case, because you don't feel the need for speed that translates to your blanket statement that "we" don't feel the need for speed either?

gid, you may be an Apple II expert (I particularly enjoyed your posts regarding colors that "violates the rules"; very informative!) but you surely lack in people skills and, in this particular post, common sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3802

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 3:07:42 AM UTC-6, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 1:27:21 AM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> > Your jibberish is exactly my point.  Bet you didn't use any more than 1 Mhz of power to type in this long winded nonsense.  But I sure need Gigawatts of power to process it.
> 
> My jibberish is your point? So your point is jibberish? Why do you have to be offensive and insulting? Your forced opinion-as-fact "You do know that 1mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do..." flies in the face of everything we've experienced to date and is, quite frankly, ridiculous, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to ascertain exactly who "we" is from your perspective; how does that amount to jibberish and long-winded nonsense? You speak of jibberish so let's break your post down :
> 
> >You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do on a computer.  
> 
> No, I don't! Why would anyone in their right mind think that 1mhz is more than enough for most anything we do on a computer when history proves otherwise? If "we" thought such a thing than why do "we" find the need to own 3.5ghz PCs and 1.5 ghz phones, and it never seems like it's enough? I'll answer that : it's because at some point we hit the limit of what can be done in 1mhz and so someone provided us with 2mhz and we immediately wrote programs that would do more than ever before and start pushing the limits of 2mhz and on and on we went. Is that jibberish too?
> 
> >The only time I have ever felt a need for speed is during graphics rendering of some kind, find and replace, and I really can't think of a third reason
> 
> The only time? Then you must not do much else other than play on the Apple II because any time you use your modern phone, TV, PC, internet, you name it, you're using computing resources that go well beyond 1mhz. I'd love to hear what you imagine is running the world wide web as we know it, or your Google search... In any case, because you don't feel the need for speed that translates to your blanket statement that "we" don't feel the need for speed either?
> 
> gid, you may be an Apple II expert (I particularly enjoyed your posts regarding colors that "violates the rules"; very informative!) but you surely lack in people skills and, in this particular post, common sense.



You need to get a grip.  There is nothing I said that should have irked you.  Your original post talked about using the Apple II with GHz speeds.  The comment that "1 Mhz is more than fast enough for anything we do on the Apple II computer" is valid and holds totally true.

Apple II software whether being run with the use of an emulator or real hardware has limited functionality and memory.  This topic has been discussed many times in these forums, and always with the same final result and outcome.

The main subject I assume you want an answer to is having advanced hardware that can run Apple II software.  That is called emulation mode.  The Apple III has it, the IIGS has it, Older Macs that have the IIe card has it.

Topics like accessing the internet with the Apple II have already been also discussed.  If I wanted to be rude, I would have pointed you to those other topics and told you to read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3805

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 7:34:42 PM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> You need to get a grip.  There is nothing I said that should have irked you.  Your original post talked about using the Apple II with GHz speeds.  The comment that "1 Mhz is more than fast enough for anything we do on the Apple II computer" is valid and holds totally true.
> 
> Apple II software whether being run with the use of an emulator or real hardware has limited functionality and memory.  This topic has been discussed many times in these forums, and always with the same final result and outcome.
> 
> The main subject I assume you want an answer to is having advanced hardware that can run Apple II software.  That is called emulation mode.  The Apple III has it, the IIGS has it, Older Macs that have the IIe card has it.
> 
> Topics like accessing the internet with the Apple II have already been also discussed.  If I wanted to be rude, I would have pointed you to those other topics and told you to read.

Your entire post was rude, and I quote :

"Your jibberish is exactly my point.  Bet you didn't use any more than 1 Mhz of power to type in this long winded nonsense.  But I sure need Gigawatts of power to process it. "

If calling someone's post jibberish and needing Gigawatts of power to process such long winded nonsense isn't rude to you then please don't be nice.

> Your original post talked about using the Apple II with GHz speeds.  The comment that "1 Mhz is more than fast enough for anything we do on the Apple II computer" is valid and holds totally true.

That's revisionism and clearly not what you said since you didn't qualify it as applying to the Apple II, instead you made a blanket statement covering all computers, and I quote :
"You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do ON A COMPUTER."

However, even if you did mean to qualify the Apple II I would *respectfully* disagree and point out the various Apple II accelerators that exist and are still being made *to this day* as proof that 1mhz is not more than fast enough for most anything we do on it, and definitely not enough for what we would like to do on it.

I don't want to harp on this anymore, let's put it behind us and chalk it up to a "miscommunication".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3807

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 5:58:18 PM UTC-6, Anthony Ortiz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 7:34:42 PM UTC-4, gid...@sasktel.net wrote:
> > You need to get a grip.  There is nothing I said that should have irked you.  Your original post talked about using the Apple II with GHz speeds.  The comment that "1 Mhz is more than fast enough for anything we do on the Apple II computer" is valid and holds totally true.
> > 
> > Apple II software whether being run with the use of an emulator or real hardware has limited functionality and memory.  This topic has been discussed many times in these forums, and always with the same final result and outcome.
> > 
> > The main subject I assume you want an answer to is having advanced hardware that can run Apple II software.  That is called emulation mode.  The Apple III has it, the IIGS has it, Older Macs that have the IIe card has it.
> > 
> > Topics like accessing the internet with the Apple II have already been also discussed.  If I wanted to be rude, I would have pointed you to those other topics and told you to read.
> 
> Your entire post was rude, and I quote :
> 
> "Your jibberish is exactly my point.  Bet you didn't use any more than 1 Mhz of power to type in this long winded nonsense.  But I sure need Gigawatts of power to process it. "
> 
> If calling someone's post jibberish and needing Gigawatts of power to process such long winded nonsense isn't rude to you then please don't be nice.
> 
> > Your original post talked about using the Apple II with GHz speeds.  The comment that "1 Mhz is more than fast enough for anything we do on the Apple II computer" is valid and holds totally true.
> 
> That's revisionism and clearly not what you said since you didn't qualify it as applying to the Apple II, instead you made a blanket statement covering all computers, and I quote :
> "You do know that 1 Mhz is more than fast enough for most anything we do ON A COMPUTER."

> However, even if you did mean to qualify the Apple II I would *respectfully* disagree and point out the various Apple II accelerators that exist and are still being made *to this day* as proof that 1mhz is not more than fast enough for most anything we do on it, and definitely not enough for what we would like to do on it.
> 
> I don't want to harp on this anymore, let's put it behind us and chalk it up to a "miscommunication".


I thought it was clear and understood here.  This is an Apple II forums.  When we say computer, it is clearly understood we are talking about the Apple II unless otherwise stated.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.apple2.programmer

csiph-web