Accomplishments: Apple Macintosh Group (6/'83 – 8/'87)
byrdsight.com
byrdsight.com
Wild! For some reason I just assumed everyone was making the world's largest Karnaugh maps before VHDL.
What I miss about VHDL is the ability to design the full logic as a schematic. Schematics were our bread and butter back then.
I didn’t know about the pivot that the Newton project had taken
"RISC based implementation of the Apple II 6502 Processor:
In mid ’85 I performed an analysis that showed a simple RISC style implementation of a 16‐bit binary compatible superset of the 8‐bit microprocessor used in the Apple II 6502, along with some judicious use of on‐chip caching, could substantially improve performance – to the point of potentially outperforming the 68000 used in the Mac, and given the simplicity of the 6502 the implementation was “doable” by a small team. "Apple went on to use the '816 in the Apple IIgs, though.
IIRC, there was another computer idea floated around in Apple based on the 65816 that was killed before the IIgs project was started.
Making a faster Apple II would eat away Mac sales without providing a path to evolve. That’s also why the IIgs was never allowed to have the higher clocks the 65816 could use.
The path for the 68000 was much clearer - it already starts from a clean 32-bit architecture with a 16-bit data bus and a 24-bit address bus. The 68000 and its offspring also powered multiple Unix workstations at the same period, creating a critical mass of development tools that didn't exist for the 65816. It went on to 32-bit data and address buses, FPU, MMU and extra instructions and survived for some time after Apple, IBM and Motorola mostly gave up on it and went on with the PowerPC. All in all, the 68K architecture carried the Mac line for more than 10 years.
That would be very unlikely to be possible with Apple II software compatibility. In this case, the PDS Apple II board was probably the best option for Apple. It could have been designed to have a version of GS/OS using the Mac an an IO device in a software-friendly way, but the GS/OS software base was not there to justify the extra effort.
Based on the Commodore 128 64 mode it is backwards compatible. The Mega 65 is the fastest 8 bit computer out there.
The C65 would have been a much nicer computer than the C128.
Unfortunately, for Apple II users, the fact it doesn't match 6502 timings perfectly makes it difficult to use as a drop-in replacement, as time-critical ops in joystick sensing and floppy IO may need some adjustment.
The Commodore 64 has a 65816 Super CPU add on that some games can take advantage of. It is needed for that Super Mario Brothers clone to get proper scrolling.
This is the actual reality when job adverts ask for passion.
Better to work for the boring stuff.
But for some people, there is also a time in their life for irrational overcommitment. I would argue that it's even -- not necessarily healthy, but -- productive, valuable, worthwhile. You can learn a lot about yourself by finding the limits of your abilities, tolerances, and willingness.
GP is oversimplifying. Most "passion" ads do not mean "irrationally overcommit for my profit". They mean "don't bother if you think our project is boring".
There are probably a couple dozen "OMG so worth it" projects that spring to my mind from the annals of computer history. If the project arrived at the right time in your life, and you had the skills and desire to pursue it to the point of irrational overcommitment, the rewards (non-financial) would be lifelong.
Developing the Macintosh is definitely one of those.
Back in 2011 or so I went all-in on a job. It was fun and exciting. Then one time I pulled a few all-nighters in a row, AND management started to get abusive ("if this code doesn't work in 48 hours you're all fired") and something snapped in me. I felt physically ill for a week. But even more astoundingly, I couldn't program for a solid 3 months. The feeling of revulsion to the computer was so powerful, I just couldn't, wouldn't program anything (obviously I quit that job so programming that project was not what I was attempting). Interacting with computers for any reason, like email, or journaling, was dicey for a while.
On the bright side, I got out more during that time, went to the beach, played music at open mic nights, and enjoyed real life. And I recovered. But it was slow. I wasn't really "normal" for a solid 18 months. And now I simply will not do that to myself again. I still push hard, but I push smart - I know what my breaking point is, and I'm not interested in experiencing that again.
I'd also add that, technically speaking, that kind of effort is terribly inefficient. "Slow down to speed up" and "if you don't have time to do it right, you better have time to do it again" are true statements. Often that effort is characterized as a furtive exploration of a vast combinatorial space looking for a specific outcome - a kind of intellectual gambling. Far better to master techniques individually and then combine them cleanly and with confidence for the desired effect.