🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <181@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes:
>In article <550@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU> ee161abt@sdcc18.UUCP (Grobbins) writes:
>>Doesn't seem likely.  Apple's earlier attempt at a more powerful
>>Apple II, the Apple IIx, was designed to support coprocessors
>>(primarily the 68000.)  But the //gs doesn't have a slot intended
>
>Other than as a term used to refer to the next Apple II model (the
>latest being the IIGS), I have not heard of the use of the name Apple IIx.
>You imply that there was such a computer.  Please give details.  Was
>this a prototype?  What are your sources?

Apple was, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, working
on a computer I believe was the mythical Apple IIx.  It was, I
understand, a //e with support for more memory and with a slot
specifically intended for the support of other microprocessors.  I'm
not sure if it was 6502 or 65816 based, though I'd guess the former,
as I don't think '816's have been long available.

My initial source for this was the Boston Computer Society's
Newsletter _Update_, the one with the cover story on the
introduction to the Macintosh (~March 1984.)  In it were, besides an
excellent early review of the Mac, several interesting tidbits,
including the story of the twiggy drive, and reports on the //c and
//x (note that the //c was released in the Fall of 1984, months
after the BCS report.)  I have since confirmed its existence and
demise through other channels.

I believe Woz had a hand in the work on the //x.  (He didn't in the
//gs, and it shows.)  Overall, a friend on the //GS team at
Apple has assured me, the //GS is a better machine (if, perhaps,
less expandable.)

Grobbins.

"No two children are ever born into the same family."
   -  Leo Rosten