info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/12/84)
Date: Fri, 11 May 84 10:47:37 PDT From: Kenneth Clark <uw-beaver!clark@AEROSPACE> To: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM Subject: flame about color Macs... I think that many of the people that wish for a color Mac are perhaps not seeing things in perspective. The Mac is part of a *system* concept, and is designed to integrate well with the other components of that system. You could not just add a color tube and hardware to Mac and have that be the end of it. Color tubes draw more power, add a larger power supply. Bit planes require more memory, and probably would require more horsepower from the CPU to crunch that extra memory. Maybe all this extra hardware/power would now require a fan, etc. Also, I think one of Mac's great features is the ability to print out just exactly what you see on the screen. So would we not need color printers also? Maybe even a color laser printer for networking? My point is that these enhancements are more appropriate to a system that is in general of a higher class than Mac. Such an enhanced system could easily end up two or three times as expensive as the Mac system. Let's face it, the Mac is the Volkswagen of the computer industry, which is a valid and necessary niche for a manufacturer to fill. But putting a Rolls Royce engine in a Volkswagen does not give you a cheap Rolls Royce, it gives you a very expensive Volkswagen...
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/15/84)
From: uw-beaver!ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 13 May 84 01:19:31 CDT (Sun)
To: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Subject: Re: flame about color Macs...
I'm reminded of something that Rob Pike, inventor of the Blit, said
when he was asked about color. He said (roughly), "I don't think
we know how to use small amounts of color well enough to make it
worthwhile". I think he's right. Color is dynamite for games, and
it's important for a very few specialized applications like VLSI
design, but otherwise it's not *at all* obvious that it's worth
the money and the performance penalty. (Yes, there is a performance
penalty when you have to update four times as many bits to change an
area of the screen.)
Most of the more mundane uses of color that I've seen demonstrated
have been flashy sales gimmicks rather than truly useful techniques.
Having the headers of a spreadsheet in a different color from the
cells does not strike me as worthwhile. In fact, it makes me retch.
A screen filled with gratuitous and unnecessary color changes is
worse than black and white.
*Real* color, at least 8 bits for each of red, green, and blue, is
a different story. But that is much more expensive than monochrome,
and again many applications don't need it.
Face it: color is a fad. Its modest usefulness is being completely
obscured by marketing hype. "Everybody knows" that monochrome is
obsolete and you've *just* *got* *to* *have* color, or your computer
is clearly a relic of the dark ages and positively an *antique*...
Gah. I'll take high-resolution monochrome any day.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryinfo-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/16/84)
Date: Tue, 15 May 84 08:05 PDT From: uw-beaver!Piersol.pasa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: flame about color Macs... In-Reply-To: <8405130619.AA15785@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP> To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA Cc: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA I agree with some of Henry Spencer's points in his message, but think some further points about color need to be made. The usefulness of color in a machine relates directly to the complexity of the information being displayed. For relatively simple information, like text or simple graphics, monochrome is fine, and indeed has advantages. For more complex information, such as VLSI, or high quality graphics displaying complex information, color is highly desirable. It is not at all clear to me that color is 'a fad' of limited usefulness generally. I think you'll find color a significant advantage in most programs if used sparingly. Highlighting errors, key words, commands, etc. are all valid and useful applications for color. If high quality color can be obtained, it should be. The range of color needed for such high quality applications is has as yet not been produced in what I'd call a personal machine. You can expect to spend at least $15k for a system with all the requisite bit planes, local intelligence, resolution monitor, etc., and that doesn't include the main processor. If you want such a system, don't expect it an a machine that sells for under $5k for a while. Since we have not seen good color on personal machines yet, resolution and clarity are the next items of importance. I'm glad Apple provided us with a superior black and white display package, rather than what would very likely be a mediocre if not poor color display package. The technology simply isn't around to do this at a reasonable price for a personal machine. However, when such machines arrive, we can look for a new first love besides Mac. Kurt
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/16/84)
Date: Tue 15 May 84 02:16:10-EDT
From: Michael Rubin <uw-beaver!RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: flame about color Macs...
To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Cc: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley" of Sun 13 May 84 01:19:31-EDT
In non-graphic applications, color tends to be used as a field
separator (a way of separating logically different parts of the screen)
or a standout mode (for highlighting invalid input or out-of-band
messages to the user like WARNING, DISK IS FULL). The Mac, unlike the
competition, can use font changes and separate windows for the former
and alert/dialog boxes for the latter.
However, if you are dealing with several planes of graphic data
(VLSI design, but also plotting more than two or three curves on a
graph, or drawing the electrical and plumbing plans of a building) you
just can't do it in black and white. Even minimal color is a huge help
-- witness the three-color (red, yellow, green) radar scopes used by air
traffic controllers.
Oh yes, four bit planes doesn't mean only 16 colors; ask any Atari
user about color look-up tables. The IBM PC doesn't use these because
[IBM was dumb, and] cheap monitors only understand composite video (low
resolution) or digital RGB (can only display 16 colors anyhow). The
present Mac has its own homebrewed video electronics anyhow; who cares
about standard video signals?
Not to mention games... then again, us serious folks *never* play
games on our computers.
--From the butane torch of:
Mike Rubin <Rubin@Columbia-20.ARPA>
-------info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (05/17/84)
Date: Wed, 16 May 84 10:02 PDT From: uw-beaver!Thomka.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: flame about color Macs... In-Reply-To: "Piersol.pasa's message of Tue, 15 May 84 08:05 PDT" To: Piersol.pasa@XEROX.ARPA Cc: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA, info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Pertaining to your flame that "You can expect to spend at least $15k for a system with all the requisite bit planes, local intelligence, resolution monitor, etc., and that doesn't include the main processor. If you want such a system, don't expect it an a machine that sells for under $5k for a while" There is a NEC machine, I believe it is called the PC-100 that has a color screen resolution of 720x512. The color selection is any sixteen colors out of a total palet of 512 colors! It uses an 8086 micro and supposedly is PC-Dos compatable. There is even a mouse used on the machine. The price for this machine is about $3300, and that includes the monitor. Of course you can get the monochrome version for about $700 less. I found out about this machine by reading InfoWorld. There is small section in there stating that Woz (of Apple) was in Japan, late last year, looking the thing over. Chuck