Elfen
Well-known member
Because I want to build me an Apple II Parallel Processing SuperComputer!
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/AppleCrateII.html
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/AppleCrateII.html
-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
Apple IIe Trade - IIGS
- Thread starter Joad
- Start date
Joad
Well-known member
I have quickly realised that my IIe says 1982 on the motherboard. Is it something common or rare? What about a ROM3 IIgs? By the way mine doesn't have a Caps Lock key, it's stuck at lower keys. It's too boring to press Shift every time. But a guy who doesn't wants it so bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
Elfen
Well-known member
What's the case color, how big is the keyboard (does it have a numeric key pad), does the power light have the "Enhance sticker on it?
1982 was the first year of the Apple IIe, but it was not a 65C02 //e. That requires a ROM Switch and a CPU Switch upgrade. Apple did sell Upgrade Kit for the IIe to become a //e. There was not much in difference between the two but the 65C02 ran things a tiny bit faster for the same clock speed and and some unsupported Machine Operational Code are supported.
You need to open up the case (remove bottom screws and the case goes up) and look at the CPU. If it says 6502 then it is not an enhanced //e. If it says 65C02 then somebody up upgraded the machines sometime in its past.
Another test is to turn it on and see what it says on the of the screen. If it is Apple ][ or Apple II, then it is not an upgraded Apple IIe with a 6502. If it says Apple //e then it is an upgraded Apple with a 65C02.
1982 was the first year of the Apple IIe, but it was not a 65C02 //e. That requires a ROM Switch and a CPU Switch upgrade. Apple did sell Upgrade Kit for the IIe to become a //e. There was not much in difference between the two but the 65C02 ran things a tiny bit faster for the same clock speed and and some unsupported Machine Operational Code are supported.
You need to open up the case (remove bottom screws and the case goes up) and look at the CPU. If it says 6502 then it is not an enhanced //e. If it says 65C02 then somebody up upgraded the machines sometime in its past.
Another test is to turn it on and see what it says on the of the screen. If it is Apple ][ or Apple II, then it is not an upgraded Apple IIe with a 6502. If it says Apple //e then it is an upgraded Apple with a 65C02.
Elfen
Well-known member
ROM 03 IIgs are gold, it's the machine that everybody wants because it can run GSOS (Apple II version of the Mac Graphic System). There are other things it can do that the other two IIgs' can't. I think you can upgrade it to 8Megs while the ROM 0/1/2 can only go up to 2Megs, even if the card supported more RAM, the computer did not.
Back to the Apple IIe; some people would buy a 65C02 and put them into the IIe because it was cheaper but they did not have the ROMs to make it an official //e. In 1982 you could get a 65C02 for $35 ($20 by 1984), while the Apple Upgrade was $199. A 6502 went for $12 - $20 depending on which one it was (MOS, Synertek, Rockwell, Western Digital, etc.) I used to put 65C02s into my Commodores (Vic 20, 1540/1541 Drives, PET so on) and Ataris (800s and 400s), and they ran faster and in the case of the 1540 & 1541 disk drives, ran cooler.
Back to the Apple IIe; some people would buy a 65C02 and put them into the IIe because it was cheaper but they did not have the ROMs to make it an official //e. In 1982 you could get a 65C02 for $35 ($20 by 1984), while the Apple Upgrade was $199. A 6502 went for $12 - $20 depending on which one it was (MOS, Synertek, Rockwell, Western Digital, etc.) I used to put 65C02s into my Commodores (Vic 20, 1540/1541 Drives, PET so on) and Ataris (800s and 400s), and they ran faster and in the case of the 1540 & 1541 disk drives, ran cooler.
Uhm, no.
Just to be clear: The version of the GS that can't run GS OS is the ROM 0 and ROM 0 *only*. The ROM1 is perfectly capable of it; the ROM3 has a slight advantage because its ROM includes several toolbox items the ROM1's doesn't, so the ROM3 doesn't have to spend time/RAM loading those items from disk, but that's it. There are also some minor hardware improvements (they slightly modified the video system to improve performance of the IIe text modes, the keyboard controller supports StickyKeys and setting the the LED state on the Enhanced keyboards, etc) and since the mainboard includes 1MB instead of 256k of RAM it's possible to run the GS OS without a RAM card. (But realistically, if you really want to run GS OS you'll want a card anyway since 1MB is pretty much the minimal requirement for GS System 6.) But, again, a ROM 1 *CAN* run System 6, accomodate 8MB of RAM, etc, etc. Not to say the ROM3 isn't "better", it certainly is, but that's mostly because of the hardware bugfixes, not because it offers any huge functionality gains over a comparably upgraded ROM1.
Also note that the upgrade from a ROM0 to a ROM1 *is* just a ROM chip; a friend of mine ended up getting a pile of IIgs' for free, that's where my two Woz Editions came from, and every Woz in the pile had a ROM1 installed even though allegedly most of them shipped with ROM0. Apple offered the chip as a free upgrade so if you *do* happen to run across a ROM0 it's actually something of a collectors' item.
Uhm... if you say so. Yes, the 65C02 is "faster" because it can be clocked faster, but if you just swap one in place of a regular 6502 you're almost certainly not going to see a lick of difference. (If you write new code using the new 65c02 instructions/addressing modes it can be faster than the same routine restricted to 6502-only opcodes, but for existing code the 65c02 is usually either identical or, in a few edge cases, one cycle *slower* than the old CPU.)
Also it must be noted that there's a small amount of software out there that leverages "undocumented opcodes" in the original 6502: the original chip didn't trap every possible binary instruction so when it encounters a binary value that doesn't translate to a valid instruction the results can be... unpredictable, and ocassionally useful. Of the small amount of Apple II/II+ software that doesn't run on the IIc or IIe some of it fails because it employs tricks like this, or otherwise depends on quirks specific to the original MOS 6502. (Another difference between them is the BDC arithmetic instructions on the original chip are buggy; they're fixed on the 65c02, but there was software out there that used the broken instructions and breaks with the behavior change.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Elfen
Well-known member
Thank you for the correction, Gornopos.
Back in the 1980s when I was with First Star and even before when I was in High School (BTHS), the arguments over the 6502 unsupported opcodes were rampant. These Opcodes were, well, different per manufacturer, as a few did try to correct them and even make them standard. But others either left them (Like MOS under Commodore) or turned them into NOPs (No Operation for 1 clock cycle)
Since the 1980s video game arena was with the top 3 (in the USA) = Apple / Atari /Commodore, these three were 6502 based machines, we programmers then would argue which machine code routine would be best as in theory, but it always did not work as because of the support chips to the 6502 were different and the system's Kernel ROMs were also different. An example is my Universal Joystick Routine - before then programmers would write the joystick program and then fit the program to it. This often ballooned a small game program into a big one. But I wrote a small subroutine there the joystick was read and direction determined before the game can process the input into its actions. This kept game programs small. And it was great for the Atari and Commodore though minor programming was needed or the fire button, at lest 90% of the routine was kept. But with Apple using analog joysticks the whole routine had to be rewritten to handle analog inputs and fire buttons presses (Apple had 2, Commodore/Atari had 1). So what turned out as a simple program subroutine for two machines was complicated for the third because of hardware differences.
On top of all that, some programmers used unsupported opcodes in their programs, which sometimes worked for the mass market and sometimes did not. We were looking for ways to shorten programs because at the time, all programs had to fit with 16K of RAM Space (expect for the Vic20, and for that it was either 8K or even down to its bare minimum of 4K).
Other machines like the RadioShack/Tandy Coco (6809 based, where the 6502 branched of the 6800 years before in the 1970s), Coleco and video game consoles like the Atari 2600 and Sege Game System
Here's a couple links of unsupported op codes, though it incomplete, and does not account for all the 6502s made.
http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/6502OpList.txt
http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=6502_Unsupported_Opcodes
(one really strange opcode in detail) http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=6502_Opcode_8B_(XAA,_ANE)
In large or repeating programs and even that (stupid) French Silk 6502 Assembler when it compiles, I noticed that that takes a minute to do on the 6502, took 58 seconds on the 65C02. Though this is not much in terms of performance, overall it was a big step in performance as it builds up over time. For me in those days was to run (or compile since that took a long time to do) a program for a couple of hours and see where it is at the end of time. In this the 65C02 was way ahead of the 6502. And the answer is simple - Being a CMOS processor, the 65C02 has a thinner silicon matrix and less resistance with that matrix. This gives is a faster processing speed on the nano-second level. Given time, nano-seconds adds up to microseconds and microseconds adds up to full seconds. But in today's world, who is going to worry about a couple nano-seconds? Back in the 1980s it was a necessity.
- - - - (Back to subject)
If the IIgs ROM 0 is gold because of people upgrading them, I need to test out my IIgs-Woz as it was given to me as a ROM 0. Whether it was updated over the years remain to be seem. I'm not even sure if it can turn on as the last time it was turned on was over 20 years ago. It might need a recapping of those two large caps that Uniserver mentioned needs recapping on the IIgs.
I'm not looking for a machine that runs GSOS though it would be nice to have.
But compared to a IIe, it depends on the IIe. If Joad has a not-upgraded IIe from 1982, it would be more valuable than the IIgs or IIc. This particular IIe would be better to own as a collector's item. If the ROM and CPU has been upgraded, then its value drops as a collector's piece. But like I believe you stated, what is the machine needed for - as a daily driver or as a museum piece?
A IIc is nice, but its not the perfect machine. Unless its a Rev 2 or 3 or it is a IIc+, it can not be upgraded. And those that can, only the memory can be upgraded. The Laser 128 (VTec's IIc Clone) has a slot on the side of the case to add a standard Apple II card to. On top of everything else the IIc has plus it has a Turbo Mode which the runs the CPU at 2Mhz (or 4MHz) which the IIc does not unless you put in a Rocket Chip or Zip Chip into the IIc! These accelerators alone are in the $500 range on ebay.
Back in the 1980s when I was with First Star and even before when I was in High School (BTHS), the arguments over the 6502 unsupported opcodes were rampant. These Opcodes were, well, different per manufacturer, as a few did try to correct them and even make them standard. But others either left them (Like MOS under Commodore) or turned them into NOPs (No Operation for 1 clock cycle)
Since the 1980s video game arena was with the top 3 (in the USA) = Apple / Atari /Commodore, these three were 6502 based machines, we programmers then would argue which machine code routine would be best as in theory, but it always did not work as because of the support chips to the 6502 were different and the system's Kernel ROMs were also different. An example is my Universal Joystick Routine - before then programmers would write the joystick program and then fit the program to it. This often ballooned a small game program into a big one. But I wrote a small subroutine there the joystick was read and direction determined before the game can process the input into its actions. This kept game programs small. And it was great for the Atari and Commodore though minor programming was needed or the fire button, at lest 90% of the routine was kept. But with Apple using analog joysticks the whole routine had to be rewritten to handle analog inputs and fire buttons presses (Apple had 2, Commodore/Atari had 1). So what turned out as a simple program subroutine for two machines was complicated for the third because of hardware differences.
On top of all that, some programmers used unsupported opcodes in their programs, which sometimes worked for the mass market and sometimes did not. We were looking for ways to shorten programs because at the time, all programs had to fit with 16K of RAM Space (expect for the Vic20, and for that it was either 8K or even down to its bare minimum of 4K).
Other machines like the RadioShack/Tandy Coco (6809 based, where the 6502 branched of the 6800 years before in the 1970s), Coleco and video game consoles like the Atari 2600 and Sege Game System
Here's a couple links of unsupported op codes, though it incomplete, and does not account for all the 6502s made.
http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/6502OpList.txt
http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=6502_Unsupported_Opcodes
(one really strange opcode in detail) http://visual6502.org/wiki/index.php?title=6502_Opcode_8B_(XAA,_ANE)
In large or repeating programs and even that (stupid) French Silk 6502 Assembler when it compiles, I noticed that that takes a minute to do on the 6502, took 58 seconds on the 65C02. Though this is not much in terms of performance, overall it was a big step in performance as it builds up over time. For me in those days was to run (or compile since that took a long time to do) a program for a couple of hours and see where it is at the end of time. In this the 65C02 was way ahead of the 6502. And the answer is simple - Being a CMOS processor, the 65C02 has a thinner silicon matrix and less resistance with that matrix. This gives is a faster processing speed on the nano-second level. Given time, nano-seconds adds up to microseconds and microseconds adds up to full seconds. But in today's world, who is going to worry about a couple nano-seconds? Back in the 1980s it was a necessity.
- - - - (Back to subject)
If the IIgs ROM 0 is gold because of people upgrading them, I need to test out my IIgs-Woz as it was given to me as a ROM 0. Whether it was updated over the years remain to be seem. I'm not even sure if it can turn on as the last time it was turned on was over 20 years ago. It might need a recapping of those two large caps that Uniserver mentioned needs recapping on the IIgs.
I'm not looking for a machine that runs GSOS though it would be nice to have.
But compared to a IIe, it depends on the IIe. If Joad has a not-upgraded IIe from 1982, it would be more valuable than the IIgs or IIc. This particular IIe would be better to own as a collector's item. If the ROM and CPU has been upgraded, then its value drops as a collector's piece. But like I believe you stated, what is the machine needed for - as a daily driver or as a museum piece?
A IIc is nice, but its not the perfect machine. Unless its a Rev 2 or 3 or it is a IIc+, it can not be upgraded. And those that can, only the memory can be upgraded. The Laser 128 (VTec's IIc Clone) has a slot on the side of the case to add a standard Apple II card to. On top of everything else the IIc has plus it has a Turbo Mode which the runs the CPU at 2Mhz (or 4MHz) which the IIc does not unless you put in a Rocket Chip or Zip Chip into the IIc! These accelerators alone are in the $500 range on ebay.
Digital computers derive their timing from a clock; every operation happens according to that cadence so small "analog" differences in the conductivity/responsiveness/whatever between components have *zero* impact on the speed of the machine, everything else being equal. Said differences certainly can "matter"; after all, the difference between, say, 200ns and 150ns-rated RAM is the latter is physically able to respond within a smaller time window, thereby allowing it to be clocked faster, but *if* you have a machine that's designed to use 200ns RAM it's not going to run *ANY* faster with 150ns RAM installed unless you change the memory control circuitry to use faster timing. The same applies to 6502 vs. 65c02 CPUs: if an instruction takes 6 clock cycles on both CPUs it's going to take 6 ticks of the 1Mhz clock, period.
Perhaps the code you were working with happened to use instructions that used fewer clocks on the 65c02, it's certainly possible, but *that* would be the source of the difference, not "less resistance in the silicon".
(The one case where an analog difference might matter is in the case of a peripheral chip that has a "data ready" line the CPU polls and loops on until said data is ready; if the silicon process lets said peripheral stabilize more quickly than the code loop would complete faster, but that's waiting on a *peripheral*. Pretty sure there's nothing *inside* the 65c02 that would apply to.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Elfen
Well-known member
You might be right on the lesser clock ticks being used, Gorgonops. But that would be strange as they are supposed to run at the same rate of clock ticks per op code.
Just to throw confusion into the mix - there are 5 or so 6502s: the 6502, 6502A, 6502B, 6502C (Not to be confused with the 65C02), and 6502D. In these the differences is in how fast they can be clocked. Many accelerators like the ZipChip used the 6502C and 6502D; older ones that ran at 2MHz used the 6502B. It was interesting to see them developed, to back they did not go further, a 25MHz 6502 would simply kick ass! (IMHO.)
Just to throw confusion into the mix - there are 5 or so 6502s: the 6502, 6502A, 6502B, 6502C (Not to be confused with the 65C02), and 6502D. In these the differences is in how fast they can be clocked. Many accelerators like the ZipChip used the 6502C and 6502D; older ones that ran at 2MHz used the 6502B. It was interesting to see them developed, to back they did not go further, a 25MHz 6502 would simply kick ass! (IMHO.)
For me it would depend on what you want to do with the Apple II. If you like 6502 or 65816 assembly better or you want to play with GS/OS, or you have games for one but not the other.
I have a GS that now has a Focus card in it. The Focus, CFFA, or SCSI cards are probably better than the floppyemu for speed and flexibility, and the CFFA/CFFA3000 does neat things like let you mount/unmount images while the machine is running.
Apple IIgs stuff is not inexpensive. You have to kind of be really committed to the platform to want it. Even in the US where everything's most common, you "need", as has been said, a color monitor, some storage, an ADB keyboard/mouse (the older the better, apparently there are different ADB versions and the IIgs, even ROM03, only supports earlier ADB stuff. On my ROM03, I've used an AEKII without any problems, but I can't guarantee that will work on an 0 or 1.)
And then, you will want a RAM upgrade (because GS/OS and Teach will run with the ROM03's 1.25MB of RAM, but nothing else interesting will) and then you'll want storage. After all that, you'll likely want a CPU upgrade.
In all, I can easily envision spending $1000 on a IIgs. I got lucky because the system, 800k drive and monitor were all free at kfest. I got a Focus for $150 and a 4-meg RAM card for another $60 or so. All of the IIgses will use these expansion options, up to 8MB of RAM (which will require a better type of RAM card than what I have) and the 65816 CPU can be replaced/upgraded with a ZipChip or a TransWarp, which I am given to understand makes GS/OS and games a lot better.
For context: In total, you'll end up with something really slow and it will have eaten all of your money. It's really slow -- like, it'll be slower than a Mac LC.
The reason you get an Apple II series computer isn't because you think it'll be fast, it's because you specifically want the applications or you want to do programming or hardware hacking on it.
I have a GS that now has a Focus card in it. The Focus, CFFA, or SCSI cards are probably better than the floppyemu for speed and flexibility, and the CFFA/CFFA3000 does neat things like let you mount/unmount images while the machine is running.
Apple IIgs stuff is not inexpensive. You have to kind of be really committed to the platform to want it. Even in the US where everything's most common, you "need", as has been said, a color monitor, some storage, an ADB keyboard/mouse (the older the better, apparently there are different ADB versions and the IIgs, even ROM03, only supports earlier ADB stuff. On my ROM03, I've used an AEKII without any problems, but I can't guarantee that will work on an 0 or 1.)
And then, you will want a RAM upgrade (because GS/OS and Teach will run with the ROM03's 1.25MB of RAM, but nothing else interesting will) and then you'll want storage. After all that, you'll likely want a CPU upgrade.
In all, I can easily envision spending $1000 on a IIgs. I got lucky because the system, 800k drive and monitor were all free at kfest. I got a Focus for $150 and a 4-meg RAM card for another $60 or so. All of the IIgses will use these expansion options, up to 8MB of RAM (which will require a better type of RAM card than what I have) and the 65816 CPU can be replaced/upgraded with a ZipChip or a TransWarp, which I am given to understand makes GS/OS and games a lot better.
For context: In total, you'll end up with something really slow and it will have eaten all of your money. It's really slow -- like, it'll be slower than a Mac LC.
The reason you get an Apple II series computer isn't because you think it'll be fast, it's because you specifically want the applications or you want to do programming or hardware hacking on it.
Elfen
Well-known member
On the same token, you could get a LC, LCII or LCIII and get an Apple IIe card for it. Though you will be on System 6 or 7, you can access the Apple IIe card and run all your Apple Software on a Window for the Apple IIe. To access your 5.25 in disks, you will need the Apple II Drive with the DB-19 connector on it, not the flat ribbon cable drive (those drives use with the IIe).
The thing is, the ports the Apple IIe card uses will be the LC's Ports, so you can print on it. I believe that 80 columns and 128K is on the IIe card (there is on the card I have). But for adding cards or having the Apple IIe access other LC Options is not possible. It might be able to access the SCSI hard drive I don't remember.
But for this, there are Apple II Emulators for Mac & PC, and I dare say - spending $50+ for a Raspberry Pi and you can get it to emulate the Apple II with MAME, Cameleon Pi and Retro Pi.
The thing is, the ports the Apple IIe card uses will be the LC's Ports, so you can print on it. I believe that 80 columns and 128K is on the IIe card (there is on the card I have). But for adding cards or having the Apple IIe access other LC Options is not possible. It might be able to access the SCSI hard drive I don't remember.
But for this, there are Apple II Emulators for Mac & PC, and I dare say - spending $50+ for a Raspberry Pi and you can get it to emulate the Apple II with MAME, Cameleon Pi and Retro Pi.
Similar threads
