S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) (02/15/90)
I have been watching the discussion on this newsgroup for some time now, and the general feeling seems to be this: 1) Apple must give users a 1-year warranty. 90 days is barely long enough to break the machine in! A 1-year warranty is something that I would expect from any computer company I bought from. 2) The GS must be clocked at 8Mhz at least to be a machine that is able to support a graphically-oriented environment (GS/OS, AWGS as examples). There is no machine currently on the market that is as slow as 2.8Mhz! 3) Since the GS is named for both "graphics" and "sound", each of these areas needs improvement. The GS should come with two RCA plugs for stereo built into the box. And, some RF sheilding for cutting down noise wouldn't hurt either. 4) Higher graphics mode resolution, for what application, it doesn't matter. 640 X 480 is at times very impressive and something the GS needs! 5) Some support from Apple is definately needed. More features and a *lower price* (this is a taboo at Apple, I know.) Apple could establish the GS as the standard in educational and home computing if the computer could meet market standards and come cheaply enough for a school or a family to swing. 6) The GS IS NOT a Macintosh! The average family might be able to buy an Amiga and use it for something besides figuring credit payments! The GS needs a new target: it needs to be made into a machine that a kid could grow up with, until he/she graduates into the MacIntosh. (Wasn't the Apple II the computer most of you grew up on? It was for me.) The main theme: Apple, get a grip on where the IIGS is going...what kind of a future it has. Markie Mark Rineck S707503@UWEC.BITNET CS Major at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire "I see death at my door, and whenchforth, I flail."
JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") (02/15/90)
On Wed, 14 Feb 90 16:35:00 CST MARK RINECK said: >6) The GS IS NOT a Macintosh! The average family might be able to buy >an Amiga and use it for something besides figuring credit payments! >The GS needs a new target: it needs to be made into a machine that >a kid could grow up with, until he/she graduates into the MacIntosh. >(Wasn't the Apple II the computer most of you grew up on? It was for me.) Yes, I grew up on the II... and I wanna know *WHY* must I 'graduate' into a Mac? Isn't my gs good enough? >Mark Rineck S707503@UWEC.BITNET >CS Major at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire >"I see death at my door, and whenchforth, I flail." /**********************************************************************\ |* Joe "Gonzo" Wankerl |*| The views expressed here are *| |* BITNET => JWANKERL@UTCVM |*| not necessarily yours... *| |* |*| ...but they should be. *| \**********************************************************************/
ghost@bucsf.BU.EDU (Jay Adelson) (02/15/90)
I also "grew up" on the II. Now are you saying that the II couldn't grow with me? I had a //e, and now a IIGS. My needs, as a student, or even (cough) as a software developer, have been more than satisfied by the GS, without losing the incredible qualties I've grown to love in a a-II. The Macintosh, although good "for it's own thing"...is not the type of computer which a child should LEARN to use anyway. Anybody who tries to tell me a Macintosh is more difficult to use than a GS is being utterly foolish, and I certainly don't think my experience with the II would ever be considered an "introduction." -J :-)
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (02/15/90)
In article <900214.16355107.044715@UWEC.CP6> S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) writes: stuff deleted > >4) Higher graphics mode resolution, for what application, it doesn't >matter. 640 X 480 is at times very impressive and something the GS >needs! > Everyone agrees that the gs needs higher resolution. There are several ways to do it however. You can add more pixels or add more colors per pixel (color is a form of resolution), or both. Adding greater vertical resolution would require a more expensive monitor unless you do it in interlace mode with all of the problems that involves. Adding more colors would be compatible with existing equipment and improve things a lot. Some of the 320 by 200 pictures on the gs are pretty impressive in 16 colors. 640 by 200 in 256 colors would be very impressive, work on existing low cost monitors, etc. The cost of monitors goes up exponentially with greater numbers of horzontal and vertical screen pixels. Adding colors doesn't change the monitor require- ments at all. Adding extra colors is more useful for desktop video, painting etc. More pixels is better for detailed work like CAD large text displays etc. One thing I've seen on the Mac is that lots of pixels make the text smaller on a given size monitor. Either that or more detailed fonts of the same screen size can be used. I've seen Mac users with their noses pressed up against 19 inch monitors because the characters were so small they were hard to read. The characters were well formed because of the resolution but they were real small, hence dificult to work with. Hopefully a happy medium can be reached with more pixels for the text and CAD folks and more colors for the other applications. If Apple is smart they will make the video usable with VGA type monitors so that they will have a good selection of cheap monitors to buy. $500 for the IIgs monitor is too high. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (02/16/90)
In article <9002150627.AA16436@apple.com> JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") writes: >On Wed, 14 Feb 90 16:35:00 CST MARK RINECK said: >>6) The GS IS NOT a Macintosh! The average family might be able to buy >>an Amiga and use it for something besides figuring credit payments! >>The GS needs a new target: it needs to be made into a machine that >>a kid could grow up with, until he/she graduates into the MacIntosh. >>(Wasn't the Apple II the computer most of you grew up on? It was for me.) > >Yes, I grew up on the II... and I wanna know *WHY* must I 'graduate' >into a Mac? Isn't my gs good enough? > >>Mark Rineck S707503@UWEC.BITNET >>CS Major at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire >>"I see death at my door, and whenchforth, I flail." > >/**********************************************************************\ >|* Joe "Gonzo" Wankerl |*| The views expressed here are *| >|* BITNET => JWANKERL@UTCVM |*| not necessarily yours... *| >|* |*| ...but they should be. *| >\**********************************************************************/ yes, I grew up with Apple //s too, and I will NEVER graduate to a Mac (unless some one five me one as a gift, then I'd say a Mac //ci is not that bad) Yes, the GS is still my choise of future purchase when I earn enough $$. Uh... well, maybe I will consider a Unix box first (see my .signature) -- |I want Rocket Chip 10 MHz, Z-Ram Ultra II, UniDisk 3.5 | cyliao@wam.umd.edu | |I want my own NeXT, 50MHz 68040, 64Mb RAM, 660Mb SCSI, | Chun Yao Liao | | NeXT laser printer, net connection. | Accepting Donations!| /* If (my_.signature =~ yours) coincidence = true; else ignore_this = true; */
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (02/16/90)
In article <9002150627.AA16436@apple.com> JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") writes: >>The GS needs a new target: it needs to be made into a machine that >>a kid could grow up with, until he/she graduates into the MacIntosh. >>(Wasn't the Apple II the computer most of you grew up on? It was for me.) >Yes, I grew up on the II... and I wanna know *WHY* must I 'graduate' >into a Mac? Isn't my gs good enough? Ditto. I "graduated" to a IIgs. For the price of a "decent" Mac system (ie: IIcx/ci) I could buy my IIgs a laser printer, or a few very large (1 gig) hard drives and a tape backup system and oodles of software, or a decent second car, or a long summer vacation. My computer keeps on doing exactly what it does best, serve my needs. A Mac (for me) would only serve Apple's needs, mainly their bank account. The next time I graduate to a computer, it's going to be a NeXT or Sun Sparc station. At least the price for those is justifiable. Of course, that's allowing that Apple continues a path of ignorance of the Apple II line (which I pray does not happen). -k
S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) (02/16/90)
The point that I was trying to make is not that the average person *must* buy a MacIntosh. However, the MacIntosh *is* Apple's competitor in the business market. I know that when I graduate, any work I do on micros will probably involve either IBM or Mac. This is what I meant by "graduating" to the Macintosh. Not that I would get rid of the GS and "upgrade" to a Mac. I seriously doubt seeing a GS in a networked/large business environment. (Of course some small businesses may use one or two GS's and Appleworks...) $500 for a GS monitor is ridiculous. $300 would be more like it. I am just the kind of person that doesn't believe in paying more than a reasonable price for something...640 X 480 is still something I would like to see. I realize that this is quite complicated...some graphics-specialized chips might be needed...multi-sync monitors would do that resolution ( and higher) better than a normal-sync would...it's all taken into consideration. Markie S707503@UWEC.BITNET CS Major at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire "Why is a mouse when it spins?"
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb15.152154.22827@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >Adding greater vertical resolution would require a more expensive monitor >unless you do it in interlace mode with all of the problems that involves. There are no real problems with interlacing! Your home TV set proves it. The regular Apple Color monitor sold for use with the IIGS has sufficient phosphor density and beam focus already to support interlacing (I can clearly see the dark gaps between the scan lines on mine, and they're almost as wide as the scan line). I don't know if the Apple Color monitor happens to be able to handle the particular sync that interlacing requires. >Adding more colors would be compatible with existing equipment and improve >things a lot. Some of the 320 by 200 pictures on the gs are pretty impressive >in 16 colors. 640 by 200 in 256 colors would be very impressive, work on >existing low cost monitors, etc. I agree that more colors is important; however, apparent visual resolution is not much improved by increasing the color resolution; better spatial resolution is also required. 640x400 is roughly what a good NTSC TV set provides, and while not terrific at least it is about what the public is accustomed to seeing on CRT devices. >The cost of monitors goes up exponentially with greater numbers of horzontal >and vertical screen pixels. Adding colors doesn't change the monitor require- >ments at all. Both of these statements are incorrect for the general case. Interlaced 640x400x8 should not require additional monitor expense beyond what is already provided by the Apple Color monitor. >Adding extra colors is more useful for desktop video, painting etc. No question there. >More pixels is better for detailed work like CAD large text displays etc. Even modest text displays need better vertical resolution! 10-point Shaston on the IIGS is much harder to read than people should reasonably be expected to deal with, even on a fairly low-end machine. >One thing I've seen on the Mac is that lots of pixels make the text smaller >on a given size monitor. Either that or more detailed fonts of the same >screen size can be used. I've seen Mac users with their noses pressed up >against 19 inch monitors because the characters were so small they were hard >to read. The characters were well formed because of the resolution but they >were real small, hence dificult to work with. Programmers can be stupid no matter what facilities they have to work with. I think Mac displays tend to have "squarer" pixels, at least the B&W models. That gives a crisper impression even though the resolution may really be the same. Interlacing on a monitor like the Apple Color monitor would help approach the same effect.
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/16/90)
In article <9002150627.AA16436@apple.com> JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") writes: >On Wed, 14 Feb 90 16:35:00 CST MARK RINECK said: >>The GS needs a new target: it needs to be made into a machine that >>a kid could grow up with, until he/she graduates into the MacIntosh. >>(Wasn't the Apple II the computer most of you grew up on? It was for me.) > >Yes, I grew up on the II... and I wanna know *WHY* must I 'graduate' >into a Mac? Isn't my gs good enough? Indeed. My IIe followed me to college! Why would I want to "graduate" to a Mac? Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple IIe: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (02/16/90)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I agree that more colors is important; however, apparent visual resolution >is not much improved by increasing the color resolution; better spatial >resolution is also required. 640x400 is roughly what a good NTSC TV set >provides, and while not terrific at least it is about what the public is >accustomed to seeing on CRT devices. There is MUCH to be said for using NTSC compatible output! 1)You can use your TV as a cheap monitor (though low-res). 2)You can use your expensive NTSC monitor as an awesome TV when you add a VCR. 3)640*400 provides nice, almost square pixels. Adjust the VHeight on the monitor and they become square. 4)Since your computer is already NTSC-based, you can cheaply use the computer to modify video. If you go non-NTSC, you'll fall into the Mac trap: $3000 for a board to display TV on your $600 monitor. (oh yeah, a $3000 24-bit video card is required for that other $3000 frame-grabber to work.) I really don't think the extra 80 pixels on the bottom of a 640*400 monitor are worth it: I'd be willing to lose 1" off of the bottom of my Mac II monitor if I could watch TV on it!
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (02/16/90)
In article <12154@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Feb15.152154.22827@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >>Adding greater vertical resolution would require a more expensive monitor >>unless you do it in interlace mode with all of the problems that involves. > >There are no real problems with interlacing! Your home TV set proves it. >The regular Apple Color monitor sold for use with the IIGS has sufficient >phosphor density and beam focus already to support interlacing (I can OB>clearly see the dark gaps between the scan lines on mine, and they're >almost as wide as the scan line). I don't know if the Apple Color monitor >happens to be able to handle the particular sync that interlacing requires. > I disagree here. If you look at an Amiga in the interlace mode or a IIgs with a video overlay card significant jittering of the image occurs because of interlace. Long persistence phosphors help as does turning the brightness down and darkening the room (the poor mans way of increasing the relative persistence of the phosphors). For some reason, some people notice this more than others. It really annoys some people. Maybe Apple can come up with a method of allowing interlace on low cost monitors while letting monitors with greater bandwidth show the screen in non-interlaced mode. Thanks for your comments, Rick
c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (02/17/90)
In article <12154@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Feb15.152154.22827@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >>Adding greater vertical resolution would require a more expensive monitor >>unless you do it in interlace mode with all of the problems that involves. > >There are no real problems with interlacing! Your home TV set proves it. >The regular Apple Color monitor sold for use with the IIGS has sufficient >phosphor density and beam focus already to support interlacing (I can >clearly see the dark gaps between the scan lines on mine, and they're >almost as wide as the scan line). I don't know if the Apple Color monitor >happens to be able to handle the particular sync that interlacing requires. > I've seen interlacing on the Amiga and it really sucks... I just dont understand how some AMiga users actually find it presentable... It is OK to display video images (ie the kinds u see on TV) but it's unusable for DTP or CAD work. I have this feeling that the Apple RGBColor is identical. There's this ancient card the Videx Ultraterm 160-column card that uses interlace display. It's fine but requires something like the MOnitor ///. Without a long-persistence monitor, the flickering is unexceptable. Yes, the 72dpi on the compact Macs is already a source of complain by some. The 80dpi typical of big screen monitors is worse... and the NeXT comes at 94dpi... It can be hard... I saw it... Let's hope the day will come with 144dpi or even 300dpi monitors.
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (02/17/90)
In article <12154@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Feb15.152154.22827@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >>Adding greater vertical resolution would require a more expensive monitor >>unless you do it in interlace mode with all of the problems that involves. > >There are no real problems with interlacing! Your home TV set proves it. >The regular Apple Color monitor sold for use with the IIGS has sufficient >phosphor density and beam focus already to support interlacing (I can >clearly see the dark gaps between the scan lines on mine, and they're >almost as wide as the scan line). I don't know if the Apple Color monitor >happens to be able to handle the particular sync that interlacing requires. You can sometimes see the effects that interlacing has on computer graphics by tuning into your local cable company channel guide. If the screen layouts are poorly designed, you can see the interlace flicker on horizontal lines. The standard way to get around this is to make sure your horizontal lines are at least two or three scanlines high, but then you've just killed your gain in vertical resolution. If the field rate was bumped up to 50Hz or more, the interlace jitter effects would go away, but with that much bandwidth you might as well go with a noninterlaced display scheme. Another way you can reduce the effects of interlaced video is by designing your graphics with low contrast in mind. Sticking a bright red pixel on top of a bright blue pixel would jitter like crazy. A dark pixel over a light pixel would have the same effect. If you drew something with a spread or "wash" of soft blues, your jitter would be less apparent. That's why broadcast TV looks OK...the millions of colors blend together. I wonder if the 12 bit color resolution of the GS could prevent really effective use of this technique. One could find out, I imagine, by stomping over to the nearest Amigoid and demanding to see their absolutely greatest 4096 color HAM mode picture and see how much it jitters. As for sync, I'm guessing that the current monitor could handle it. If you've ever dropped the monitor into 50Hz vertical sync and watched the scanlines go looney-tunes, perhaps you'd guess the same thing. Interlaced video requires only a small change in the video timing. >>Adding more colors would be compatible with existing equipment and improve >>things a lot. Some of the 320 by 200 pictures on the gs are pretty impressive >>in 16 colors. 640 by 200 in 256 colors would be very impressive, work on >>existing low cost monitors, etc. > >I agree that more colors is important; however, apparent visual resolution >is not much improved by increasing the color resolution; better spatial >resolution is also required. 640x400 is roughly what a good NTSC TV set >provides, and while not terrific at least it is about what the public is >accustomed to seeing on CRT devices. If an interlaced video mode is allowed, I'd like to see it with 256 color capability for the reasons discussed above. While Apple's working on that, I'd like to see them expand the color resolution to 8 bits per R,G,B component. We don't have to have 24 bit color DISPLAY capability, but the color registers should be 24 bit RGB internally for future expandability. Currently, we have 4 bits for each Red, Green and Blue stored in two bytes. These could be treated as the most significant nibbles, while taking another byte and the extra 4 bits could provide the least significant nibbles. I can just see programmers complaining 10 years from now, "Why didn't those jackasses in engineering put ALL THE #*@&#^$ BLUE COMPONENT BITS IN ONE BYTE???", to which we'd lamely reply, "well, it maintained compatibility with the old modes" :-) [cost of monitor debate deleted] >>More pixels is better for detailed work like CAD large text displays etc. > >Even modest text displays need better vertical resolution! 10-point >Shaston on the IIGS is much harder to read than people should reasonably >be expected to deal with, even on a fairly low-end machine. Yeah! The vertical resolution on our text display is really crummy compared to that of even the cheapest IBM clone. I wonder if the current monitor can be pushed to 350 lines of vertical resolution with a corresponding redefinition of the character set...that would be nice. >>One thing I've seen on the Mac is that lots of pixels make the text smaller >>on a given size monitor. Either that or more detailed fonts of the same >>screen size can be used. I've seen Mac users with their noses pressed up >>against 19 inch monitors because the characters were so small they were hard >>to read. The characters were well formed because of the resolution but they >>were real small, hence dificult to work with. > >I think Mac displays tend to have "squarer" pixels, at least the B&W models. >That gives a crisper impression even though the resolution may really be >the same. Interlacing on a monitor like the Apple Color monitor would help >approach the same effect. The pixels are gloriously square for both color and black and white Macs. They also had 512x342 or some bizarre number like that on the old 9 inch black and white tube...much crisper-looking because of the pixel density on such a small screen. I believe that reading text on a 640x400 interlaced screen would give a person tremendous eyestrain. Try using the Amiga's "Intuition" desktop-like environment set to 640x400 interlaced res... the fonts are crisp and well defined - and jump up and down like a cat on a barbecue. -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/17/90)
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) writes: >In article <12154@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: (1) >>The regular Apple Color monitor sold for use with the IIGS has sufficient >>phosphor density and beam focus already to support interlacing (I can >OB>clearly see the dark gaps between the scan lines on mine, and they're >>almost as wide as the scan line). I don't know if the Apple Color monitor >>happens to be able to handle the particular sync that interlacing requires. (2) >I disagree here. If you look at an Amiga in the interlace mode or a IIgs with >a video overlay card significant jittering of the image occurs because of >interlace. 1. Apple's monitor uses an excellent sony tube and your description of the beam focus and gaps matches that of my DEC VR241 which I have been told handles interlace wonderfully. (The DEC monitor is really expensive but I grubbed it from a professor who didn't use it anymore.) So now I want an interlaced video board to see for myself. If Apple's monitor looks ok with interlace then it is more desirable: add NTSC in and cheap stereo and you have a nice basic complement to the //gs. 2. Amiga monitors use _cheap_ picture tubes which look gross with interlace. If you found the Apple monitor unacceptable then mail me, and I'll find a way to check it. Interlacing is mostly horrible for desktop stuff. Phosphor persistance and Beam focus are the two main determinants of how acceptable interlace will look on a given monitor, and while it sounds weird I often wonder if people's eyes have varying persistance when they look at something that is interlaced. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (02/18/90)
In article <900214.16355107.044715@UWEC.CP6>, S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) writes: > I have been watching the discussion on this newsgroup for some time now, > and the general feeling seems to be this: > > 1) Apple must give users a 1-year warranty. 90 days is barely long enough > to break the machine in! A 1-year warranty is something that I would > expect from any computer company I bought from. > How do you "break in" a piece of electronic equipment? A warranties purpose is to protect the consumer from defects during manufacture or perhaps shipping. The accepted rule for any electronic equipment is that defects of this type will show up within 90 days, usually much sooner. Other problems, such as those caused by environment, rough treatment etc are not what the warranty was designed to deal with. I think that one factor leading to confusion in this area are companies that offer "extended warranties". What they are really selling are service contracts, a very different animal. ******************************************************************** * * * bob church bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu * * * * If economics isn't an "exact" science why do computers crash * * so much more often than the stock market? * * bc * ********************************************************************
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (02/19/90)
In article <1126@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) writes: >How do you "break in" a piece of electronic equipment? A warranties >purpose is to protect the consumer from defects during manufacture or >perhaps shipping. The accepted rule for any electronic equipment is that >defects of this type will show up within 90 days, usually much sooner. >Other problems, such as those caused by environment, rough >treatment etc are not what the warranty was designed to deal with. >I think that one factor leading to confusion in this area are companies >that offer "extended warranties". What they are really selling are service >contracts, a very different animal. A bad chip will fail as it slowly melts out. Either by driving the chip to its operating limit (running your computer as hard as you ever will) or for long periods of contiguous time you can cause a bad chip or a bad connection to rear its ugly head. Modern electronics are actually made of smoke, and if you let the smoke out they don't work anymore.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (02/19/90)
On Sun, 18 Feb 90 02:06:32 GMT Bob Church said: >In article <900214.16355107.044715@UWEC.CP6>, S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) > writes: >> 1) Apple must give users a 1-year warranty. 90 days is barely long enough >> to break the machine in! A 1-year warranty is something that I would >> expect from any computer company I bought from. >> >How do you "break in" a piece of electronic equipment? A warranties >purpose is to protect the consumer from defects during manufacture or >perhaps shipping. The accepted rule for any electronic equipment is that >defects of this type will show up within 90 days, usually much sooner. Defects in the manufacture of the electronics probably will show up in less than 90 days (particularly if the equipment is switched on and allowed to run continuously for the first week and then switched off at night during the second week). However, mechanical problems may take longer to appear. Not long ago, Macintoshes were plagued by a rash of hard drive failures that seemed to occur after about 95 days of use. As I recall, the problem was with the drive lubricant (inconvenient and annoying, but repairs could be made without loss of data) which has since been fixed. The one year warranty has become standard for nearly every producer except Apple. Hence, from a competitive standpoint, sticking with 90 days is not helping Apple's market position (which has not been noteably robust recently). /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (02/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from rnf@shumv1.uucp > One thing I've seen on the Mac is that lots of pixels make the text smaller > on a given size monitor. Either that or more detailed fonts of the same > screen size can be used. I've seen Mac users with their noses pressed up > against 19 inch monitors because the characters were so small they were hard > to read. The characters were well formed because of the resolution but they > were real small, hence dificult to work with. Thats only because the Mac user in question was not smart enough to get a 72 dpi resolution monitor. If you get one of those, no matter what resolution monitor you get, it will always be the same size (ratio wise) to the original 9 inch screen. Gary _______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-freedom!gsnow | ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Pro-Freedom: (206)253-9389 ARPANet: crash!pnet01!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Vancouver, Wa InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | _______________________________________________________________________________
IMS103@psuvm.psu.edu (Ian Matthew Smith) (02/24/90)
In article <8569@wpi.wpi.edu>, greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) says: >Modern electronics are actually made of smoke, and if you let the smoke >out they don't work anymore. No, no, no. Not just any smoke, it has to be *blue* smoke. Boy, some people just don't understand complex electronics... :-) :-) Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet>