sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (02/07/90)
I constantly have this problem with people in the store at which I work. They brag about how the Amiga has all these 640*400 resolutions with 256 colors and how awesome the games would be. It takes easily an hour to explain how such a high resolution with so many colors is virtually impossible to animate at any speed which is worthwhile. The same thing occurs with IBM owners and their fabled VGA resolution. Most games for the IBM use what is comparable to an EGA resolution, and then they only animate about half the screen or less! Most (if not all) Amiga games are in a 320*200 mode in 16 colors. Some of the newer ones are 640*4X0 resolution still in 16 colors, and they sometimes over power the hardware. Do you know how much 640*400*16 takes up in memory? How about 256 colors per pixel... forget it. The higher resolution 640*400 (or whatever) is perfectly suited for desktop applications. Anything that uses the desktop would be suited for such a resolution. A HyperCard like application would love such a resolution.. Games in that higher resolution ESPECIALLY with more than 4 colors would be really pushing the machine (any machine).. think AWGS like programs, hypercard like applications.. but never games. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/09/90)
In article <10078.infoapple.net@pro-generic> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >Some of the newer ones are 640*4X0 resolution still in 16 colors, and >they sometimes over power the hardware. Do you know how much 640*400*16 takes >up in memory? How about 256 colors per pixel... forget it. 640*400*4 bits (for 16 colors) = 128K bytes 640*400*8 bits (for 256 colors) = 256K bytes Hardly out of the question.
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (02/10/90)
In article <12109@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <10078.infoapple.net@pro-generic> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >>Some of the newer ones are 640*4X0 resolution still in 16 colors, and >>they sometimes over power the hardware. Do you know how much 640*400*16 takes >>up in memory? How about 256 colors per pixel... forget it. > >640*400*4 bits (for 16 colors) = 128K bytes >640*400*8 bits (for 256 colors) = 256K bytes > >Hardly out of the question. ...unless you're trying to animate it. There *are* some interesting things you can do with color cycling, especially if you have 256 different values for each pixel (any chance of getting 8-bit values for each R,G,B while we're at it...?). Unfortunately it gets more complicated if any of the images overlap. Still, you could do some things (like moving "stars" to give the impression of motion) this way while using more conventional means to do others. Anyway. While it certainly isn't beyond the //gs (present or future), I'd have to wonder of 640*400*8 bits is really necessary for anything other than static pictures (how many desktops really need that much color? How many desktops does it take to screw in a lightbulb?) -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ...!ucbvax!cory!fadden
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/10/90)
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: > I constantly have this problem with people in the store at which I work. >They brag about how the Amiga has all these 640*400 resolutions with 256 >colors and how awesome the games would be. It takes easily an hour to explain >how such a high resolution with so many colors is virtually impossible to >animate at any speed which is worthwhile. The same thing occurs with IBM First, the stock Amiga can only get 32 colors out of a raw display. Forget 256, because the current Amiga video is done via DMA, and to get much more than 4 bit color they have to suck bandwidth from the video buffer (this is only a problem when the 68K is running in the buffer, though. expansion RAM takes care of it because it is devoted to the CPU much like the fast RAM and standard RAM in the //gs, only more efficiently designed. (Much of the //gs was so improperly implemented that there had to be political factors involved.) 640x400 is accomplished on the Amiga by (a) reducing the number of bitplanes, and (b) interlacing the video. >screen or less! Most (if not all) Amiga games are in a 320*200 mode in 16 >colors. Some of the newer ones are 640*4X0 resolution still in 16 colors, and >they sometimes over power the hardware. Do you know how much 640*400*16 takes >up in memory? How about 256 colors per pixel... forget it. 640x400x16 colors takes up almost 128K of buffer. 256 colors is double that (256K), and 640x480x256 colors takes a whopping 307200 bytes. (24 bit color? triple that.) The only way to handle that much resolution with any acceptable speed is to have (a) blindingly fast CPU (i.e. Mac //ci) or (b) to use a cheap blitter with hardware memory moves and logic operations hardwired into it (the Agnus chip in the Amiga). Apple needs to develop a simple custom blitter to handle all the QuickDraw grunge which is the real reason the desktop is so slow. Blitters are always better because they don't have the instruction stream overhead of a general purpose processor, and thus do much more per clock, and are cheap to make. Plus they run in the background, so the CPU just has to load the control registers, just like the DOC. > The higher resolution 640*400 (or whatever) is perfectly suited for desktop >applications. Anything that uses the desktop would be suited for such a >resolution. A HyperCard like application would love such a resolution.. > Games in that higher resolution ESPECIALLY with more than 4 colors would be >really pushing the machine (any machine).. think AWGS like programs, hypercard >like applications.. but never games. Well... many games on the Amiga require the blitter to be as fast as they are. I am continually amazed at what people have done with the //gs's 65816. The desktop would be a lot cleaner if Apple would rewrite most of the desktop routines to use the block move instructions and VBL, so we would get nice fast and clean looking redraws. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (02/10/90)
In article <10078.infoapple.net@pro-generic> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: > > I constantly have this problem with people in the store at which I work. >They brag about how the Amiga has all these 640*400 resolutions with 256 The Amiga doesn't have a 640x400x256 resolution mode. The only mode that supports > 16 colors is the 320 horizontal resolution mode (it can support 32 or 4096 colors). To use the 4096 colors is a little awkward, and usually only good for still images (like a slide show). >colors and how awesome the games would be. It takes easily an hour to explain >how such a high resolution with so many colors is virtually impossible to >animate at any speed which is worthwhile. The same thing occurs with IBM For most computers that is almost true. The Amiga has dedicated video hardware which makes it very possible. There are also many animation techniques which make this possible on machines like the IBM and Apple II family. > Games in that higher resolution ESPECIALLY with more than 4 colors would be >really pushing the machine (any machine).. think AWGS like programs, hypercard >like applications.. but never games. Ever seen OIDS on the Mac II? Ever seen Gaunlet on the Mac II? Ever seen any games on the Amiga? I don't mean to sound too critical, but it is important not to make such generalizations about other computers. If you don't understand the strengths of other products and the weaknesses of your own products, you can't improve on your products. -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/10/90)
In article <21930@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Andy McFadden) writes: >Anyway. While it certainly isn't beyond the //gs (present or future), I'd >have to wonder of 640*400*8 bits is really necessary for anything other than >static pictures 640x400x8 is the minimum I would consider acceptable for use as a "poor man's frame buffer". Static displays are quite important, certainly more so for most purposes than animation. Just look at the thousands of GIF images on BBSes if you don't belive this. Try displaying those images with only 16 colors and see how awful they look. Then try 256 colors and see how much better it is, even without optimization of the palette. With 256 colors, there is virtually no need to play complicated games with individual SCBs, the way you pretty much have to on the current IIGS. 8 bits per pixel has one other attractive advantage: It makes pixel operations very easy to program, and consequently relatively fast. Thus dynamic images (menus, scrolling, etc.) are reasonable with a modest CPU (even a fast 65816) doing the byte shuffling.
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (02/12/90)
In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM > Ever seen any games on the Amiga? > I don't mean to sound too critical, but it is important not to make > such generalizations about other computers. If you don't understand the > strengths of other products and the weaknesses of your own products, you > can't improve on your own products. Cary, your proud to work for Apple aren't you? :) I work in a store where we do sell Amiga's, ST's, IBM's, IIgs's, Mac's and AT compatibles. I see most of the new software (for the non-apple CPU's anyways) and have worked with all of them to resonable lengths. What I have to put up with is that the Amiga and IBM's, have all these high resolution modes which are perfect for still shots, and desktop applications, but not for games. But a specific employee in my store, insists it's great for games. He's hardly unique, many customers believe that because you have a higher resolution, the games are better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hardly ANY amiga games use anything about 320*200*16 (or 256), and those that do are just starting to appear. The Amiga has the ability with better programming techniques to do some decent animation in these higher resolutions, but techniques are developed over time (Prince of Persia is a good example). What the problem is now, is all these rumors of the new //gs having 640*400 resolution is getting those trigger fingers itchy, and they shouldn't be. Unless they want to wait a few years and watch animation techniques progress to a point where it could be done. I would enjoy 640*400 resolution, because I can see it being used for what it is being used on other machines for, high-resolution text, word processors, sim-city like entertainment software, hypercard like applications. But games? Don't expect the world yet! Ever wonder how Dragons Lair was done on the Amiga? I can only come to the assumption that there is a lot of uncompression and copying into the screen buffer being done, nothing more. (That's why it is something like 6 disks long). Dragons Lair on the Amiga is in 320*200*16. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (02/14/90)
In article <10583.infoapple.net@pro-generic> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: > >Cary, your proud to work for Apple aren't you? :) If I wasn't proud to work for Apple, if I wasn't proud to work on the Apple IIGS, do you think I would spend my personal time here on this newsgroup? Apple doesn't require that me to answer questions here, it's something I do because I enjoy it. The point of my article, which you obviously *MISSED*, was that you can't sit in a locked room and ignore the competition. If someone out there comes out with something better, then you'd better be prepared to either update your product or come out with a new one. You can't operate in this world with your head buried in the sand, as some people would like to do. If you ignore the competition, they are not going to go away or become any less the competition. > >UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop >ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil >INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/14/90)
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > you can't sit in a locked room and ignore the competition. If > someone out there comes out with something better, then you'd > better be prepared to either update your product or come out > with a new one. You can't operate in this world with your > head buried in the sand, as some people would like to do. If > you ignore the competition, they are not going to go away or > become any less the competition. THIS PARAGRAPH BELONGS OVER EVERY DOORWAY AT APPLE. In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: develop a blitter to nuke the Amiga and make the desktop reasonable on slower machines make its monitors worth buying, by adding NTSC in and stereo speakers to the already excellent picture tube put Apple's clout behind Bill Mensch since he desperately needs it to produce fast 65816's and maybe even develop the 65832 redesign the //gs from scratch and make the ultimate low end market contender refine the //c+ into the ideal education workstation price the Video Overlay Card so its main market can buy it push the Apple // in every market that won't take the Mac make the 1 year warranty a standard product feature ...and the list goes on. I understand the turmoil at Apple recently, and I think most of these items are in the planning stages, but now more than ever APPLE NEEDS TO REALIZE HOW DISTRUSTFUL ITS CUSTOMER BASE IS, AND HOW LAUGHABLE SOME OF ITS PRODUCTS REALLY ARE, AND TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Non-disclosure is a lame excuse to keep from saying, "trust us" which is all we really want to hear!!! But no one's even so much as said that. I have confidence in Apple, especially now that they are cleaning house, and hope to see great things in the future and perhaps a little honesty about the past few years... Just a simple "trust us" would be enough. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/14/90)
In article <1990Feb13.234603.3388@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: >> you can't sit in a locked room and ignore the competition. If >> someone out there comes out with something better, then you'd >> better be prepared to either update your product or come out >> with a new one. You can't operate in this world with your >> head buried in the sand, as some people would like to do. If >> you ignore the competition, they are not going to go away or >> become any less the competition. >THIS PARAGRAPH BELONGS OVER EVERY DOORWAY AT APPLE. That's not a bad idea. Maybe something like it already is. >In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: >develop a blitter to nuke the Amiga and make the desktop reasonable on slower >machines This reflects a hardware slave mentality. Blitting hardware is NOT necessary for reasonable graphics performance, and it adds expense and complexity which is probably a poor trade-off for low-end systems. Apple has sped up the IIGS desktop considerably through improvements to the toolkits and Finder. I doubt that many TWGS GS/OS 3.0 users are finding the desktop too slow. I work with high-end computer graphics for a living, and while I have complaints about the IIGS desktop, speed is not one of them. >make its monitors worth buying, by adding NTSC in and stereo speakers to the >already excellent picture tube What a concept. Why don't use use your TV set if you want such garbage bundled with the display. Apple's monitors are expensive enough as it is. >put Apple's clout behind Bill Mensch since he desperately needs it to produce >fast 65816's and maybe even develop the 65832 Apple doesn't seem to have the uncritical faith in Bill Mensch that you do. If the fate of the 658xx family remains entirely in WDC's hands, then it doesn't bode well for future Apple II family products! In fact, the 65* architecture is already creaking at the seams, and it is hard to imagine pushing it very much farther. >redesign the //gs from scratch and make the ultimate low end market contender The IIGS WAS designed essentially from scratch, with Apple II compatibility in mind. What are you proposing? >refine the //c+ into the ideal education workstation The //c+ was targeted at the competition from the Laser. I have no idea how one could possibly produce an "ideal education workstation" using the //c+ as its base! Surely you don't think it could support DynaBook? >price the Video Overlay Card so its main market can buy it What IS its "main market"? So far as I can tell the main thing the card is useful for is adding titling to videotapes in low-budget video operations. The video overlay card is the most complex Apple II card Apple offers; it would be hard to sell it much more cheaply and still obtain an adequate return on Apple's investment. >push the Apple // in every market that won't take the Mac And what markets are those? The supercomputer market? The IBM PC compatible market? >make the 1 year warranty a standard product feature That would be okay. 90-day warranties don't do much to foster customer confidence in the product. >Just a simple "trust us" would be enough. This newsgroup hasn't shown much inclination in the past to trust that Apple has their interests in mind.
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb13.234603.3388@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > >> you can't sit in a locked room and ignore the competition. If >> someone out there comes out with something better, then you'd >> better be prepared to either update your product or come out >> with a new one. You can't operate in this world with your >> head buried in the sand, as some people would like to do. If >> you ignore the competition, they are not going to go away or >> become any less the competition. > >THIS PARAGRAPH BELONGS OVER EVERY DOORWAY AT APPLE. > >In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: [do quite a number of things, some listed specifically.] Note that this isn't all in the II line.. Apple _still_ hasn't put a dedicated graphics cpu in the Macs yet, even though it is _graphics_ based. Instead, they just push the cpu speed up, and call that good. I really get the impression that politics play a _major_ part at apple. You can sure tell the engineers aren't running the company. (then again, if they were, Apple wouldn't be as big as it is today....) >I have confidence in Apple, especially now that they are cleaning house, and >hope to see great things in the future and perhaps a little honesty about the >past few years... Yes, me too. >Just a simple "trust us" would be enough. No, just a simple "Here's the GS+ we've been promising for years" and a marketing push behind it would be enough. >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu --Chan ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <or> radius!cwilson@apple.com Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu I don't speak for SRI, someone else does. ................
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/15/90)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: [ In response to stuff I wrote, which is >>'d ] >>In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: >>develop a blitter to nuke the Amiga and make the desktop reasonable on slower >>machines >This reflects a hardware slave mentality. Blitting hardware is NOT necessary >for reasonable graphics performance, and it adds expense and complexity which >is probably a poor trade-off for low-end systems. I dare you to look at an Amiga 500 and say that again. I don't suffer from a hardware slave mentality, I just understand what the tradeoffs are. And the simple truth is that blitters are cheap and effective. >Apple has sped up the IIGS desktop considerably through improvements to >the toolkits and Finder. I doubt that many TWGS GS/OS 3.0 users are finding >the desktop too slow. I work with high-end computer graphics for a living, >and while I have complaints about the IIGS desktop, speed is not one of them. High-end computer workstations use graphics hardware which can do vastly more powerful things than what I suggest. The Amiga blitter is a simple memory mover designed to perform simple logic operations on Rect-style structures. A //gs or Mac with an adapted Amiga blitter would make the desktop rip off your screen, and add negligable cost to the price. I simply see a blitter as too cheap not to add. Especially when people are buying Amigas over //gs's because of it. >>make its monitors worth buying, by adding NTSC in and stereo speakers to the >>already excellent picture tube >What a concept. Why don't use use your TV set if you want such garbage >bundled with the display. Apple's monitors are expensive enough as it is. What TV set? I'm a student. I can't afford one. I have a borrowed VCR, and have to use it with the Apple Monochrome (green screen). If Apple added some speakers and NTSC in to their monitor they'd be selling an awesome half-TV and monitor in the same package. It would be much more worth the price. >>put Apple's clout behind Bill Mensch since he desperately needs it to produce >>fast 65816's and maybe even develop the 65832 >Apple doesn't seem to have the uncritical faith in Bill Mensch that you do. >If the fate of the 658xx family remains entirely in WDC's hands, then it >doesn't bode well for future Apple II family products! In fact, the 65* >architecture is already creaking at the seams, and it is hard to imagine >pushing it very much farther. So what if it is, what architecture isn't heading in that direction? The one advantage the 65xxx still has is that it is unbelieveably cheap to implement. The soon-to-prototype 20 mhz 65816 is a direct result of this. >>redesign the //gs from scratch and make the ultimate low end market contender >The IIGS WAS designed essentially from scratch, with Apple II compatibility >in mind. What are you proposing? The //gs was not designed from scratch in any sense of the word. The Mega // was originally designed to replace the //e chip set but wasn't cheap enough. The decision to run with the Mega // was the worst made by the //gs design team, and the next was the way they limited its expansion to the chips that were available when it first came out. 4 mhz 65816s were quickly available, and some very easy design changes could have been made which would have improved the video I/O performance. Since you have implied that you aren't a hardware guru I won't bore you with details, but I can support my contention that the //gs hardware was neutered in many places. >>refine the //c+ into the ideal education workstation >The //c+ was targeted at the competition from the Laser. I have no idea >how one could possibly produce an "ideal education workstation" using the >//c+ as its base! Surely you don't think it could support DynaBook? who needs dynabook? I'm talking about all the great DHR education software out there that teachers are already using! //c+ with no disk, but appletalk bootup and print. no disks to bother the students with, automatically uses the laserwriter, and is fast and compatible. such a machine would be pretty attractive to educators, since the stuff they don't need to pay for is gone. >>price the Video Overlay Card so its main market can buy it >What IS its "main market"? So far as I can tell the main thing the card is >useful for is adding titling to videotapes in low-budget video operations. >The video overlay card is the most complex Apple II card Apple offers; it >would be hard to sell it much more cheaply and still obtain an adequate return >on Apple's investment. Well, if the //gs had been designed properly, then the VOC wouldn't have a //gs video chip set duplicated on it, and it would have been a lot cheaper. The market I refer to is casual genlock users who might buy it to watch the VCR while they use the computer (If they can't afford a TV either), but only serious genlock users (as you suggest) wil pay what Apple asks. >>push the Apple // in every market that won't take the Mac >And what markets are those? The supercomputer market? The IBM PC >compatible market? The small business market, who don't want PCs but can't afford Macs. The home and hacker markets, because the machine is so accessible, and the Amiga is luring them away. When they make a real //gs many more may create themselves. Desktop multimedia (color TV and sound) are currently the Amiga's choice market, and the //gs is in a much better position to attack this than the Mac is. >>make the 1 year warranty a standard product feature >That would be okay. 90-day warranties don't do much to foster customer >confidence in the product. Especially when you pay Apple for a rebuilt drive, and Apple takes your broken one back to its supplier, who then honors _their_ one year warranty and Apple pockets the difference. Don't laugh, this has happened. Mac magazines are pretty miffed about it. >>Just a simple "trust us" would be enough. >This newsgroup hasn't shown much inclination in the past to trust that >Apple has their interests in mind. Because Apple hasn't shown much inclination in the past to act like it. This is about to change, I believe. I welcome it, unlike some of the bitter people. I just want to see Apple _listening_ and _responding_. They've been listening for the last month. Hopefully soon we will see the response. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (02/16/90)
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) writes: [ToddPWhitesel] >>In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: >[do quite a number of things, some listed specifically.] [Chan] >Note that this isn't all in the II line.. Apple _still_ hasn't put a >dedicated graphics cpu in the Macs yet, even though it is _graphics_ based. >Instead, they just push the cpu speed up, and call that good. Apple has a dedicated graphics CPU on one of the 24bit color cards Apple has just announced. The CPU is an AM29000 (DSP-- I think. ToddPW tells me this card is "Way Overpowered" with this processor. Any graphics coproccessor in a Mac with NuBus must be on the far side of NuBus. I.E.: It must be on the graphics card, because NuBus doesn't have the bandwidth to support the high speeds a coproccessor would allow. Therefore, the responcibilty of providing these graphics processors falls on all color card manufacturers. Blame Apple, Radius, and SuperMac. Actually, don't blame them... They all have already come out with graphics cards with graphics processors. (Actually Radius's is a 2 card system w/ a non-NuBus connection between the card, I think.) Therefore, Since Apple has a CoProcessor for the NuBus Macs, you cannot complain there. (Imagine: 24bits faster than B/W on a stock Mac II!) However, I agree Whole-Heartedly that Apple needs a coproccessor for the B/W Macs and the Apple //. How else to take the market from the Amiga!?!?! Later, Glenn Brown gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu Disclaimer: My views are mine, not ToddPW@tybalt.caltech.edu's
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (02/18/90)
In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM
> The point of my article, which you obviously *MISSED*..
I understand your point completely, sorry it didn't come across too
successfully. Actually I fully agree with your point. Looking at your
competition not only allows you to see how to improve but to judge your own
performance. For the good or for the bad, I am not sure, the point you
expressed is the main reason many CPU's have failed in recent years. This has
nothing to do with introduction of a new machine and addressing the needs of
users initially, but the upgrading of current existing CPU's to not only
address the needs of users but reflect changes in the competition. Atari's STE
represents an answer (albeit late) to Commodore's Amiga 500. Commodore has
done nothing to address the competition in recent years except addressing the
requests of certain users, i.e the 2500HD and the 2500/30HD.
The ROM3 I believe represents your thought process working on a corporate
scale.
ROM3 addressed the needs of users for a higher standard memory. ROM3 puts the
IIgs in a position of "ready to run out of box", something which it really
wasn't before without extra memory. Amiga 500's do work out of the box (if
they are not defective).
Continually looking around and responding to your competition is something
that Apple has only really done until recently. Apple has always been known
for a company that dug it's head INTO the perverbial sand and come up with
something revolutionary, something that leads the pack against the
competition. Apple used to lead all segments of the computer market in terms
of ease of use, graphics, speed and power.. and obviously Apple hasn't been
doing this recently and has been sitting in the back seat responding to other
companies and their new machines. Apple used to be a "moving target",
something which is not as readily obvious today.
When people say "we should of had System 5.0 three years ago", they are sorry
to see Apple loosing it's position as industry leader and that perverbial
moving target. Many fantastic rumors strike home because some people honestly
seem Apple comming out again and becoming that moving target. For the most part
Apple Computer today, with it's current line up of products is a sitting
target.
I don't think I am weird here..
UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil
INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.comSEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (02/20/90)
On Sat, 17 Feb 90 23:32:27 EST you said: >In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM >Continually looking around and responding to your competition is something >that Apple has only really done until recently. Apple has always been known >for a company that dug it's head INTO the perverbial sand and come up with >something revolutionary, something that leads the pack against the >competition. Apple used to lead all segments of the computer market in terms Strange syntax! Apparently Apple has looked around with it's head in the sand (not recommended) and come up with something revolutionary while not paying attention to the competition... Somehow I don't think that's what you meant to say. >of ease of use, graphics, speed and power.. and obviously Apple hasn't been Apple has been known for "user friendly" (even DOS 3.3 is friendlier than MS-DOS), but RARELY known for either speed or power. The original Macintosh was woefully underpowered. Even the Mac II is underpowered (expecially as a UNIX box). The 68030 Macintoshes have finally reached something resembling the state-of-the art from that point of view. Perhaps the Apple ][+ wasn't underpowered for its day, and the //e was at least comparable to the original IBM-PC, but by the time the IIgs arrived, lack of speed-power was (and has continued to be) its major drawback. >doing this recently and has been sitting in the back seat responding to other >companies and their new machines. Apple used to be a "moving target", >something which is not as readily obvious today. Until this year, everyone else has continued to try and clone (in one way or another) Apple's interface technology. Just last week, the Wall Street Journal referred to Windows 3.0 (not out yet) as a threat to Macintosh. In the past 18 months or so, Apple has introduced more new technology than "Big Blue" although the Wall Street Journal (same front page article on 8 February) says that Apple's innovative momentum is slowing. That may be so, but the Macintosh System 7.0 and "32-bit clean" software standard which can migrate unaltered to Apple's A/Ux (UNIX) environment impresses me as forward looking. >When people say "we should of had System 5.0 three years ago", they are sorry If Apple has slipped (and sales figures suggest some problems), it's been at the "low end" (hardly where one expects "revolutionary" innovation). Apple hasn't aggressively pursued the home and education market. System 5.0 (even 6.0 and the ROM 04 IIgs) are evolutionary. Given the nature of the market, evolving the hardware and innovating marketing probably is "where it's at" (at the home-education end). >to see Apple loosing it's position as industry leader and that perverbial "loosing" as in setting it free? >moving target. Many fantastic rumors strike home because some people honestly Apple's leadership has largely been in being ahead of its time. That's entertaining, but not always profitable. Being a "moving target" often confuses customers more than competitors (do you want to invest heavily in a system that's ggoing to be obsolete and unsupported before you even learn how to use it?). >seem Apple comming out again and becoming that moving target. For the most part >Apple Computer today, with it's current line up of products is a sitting >target. Apple seems to be moving along nicely at the "workstation" end of the market (especially if the Motorola 88000 workstation rumors are true). Where there's trouble it's at the technologically less dramatic "cash cow" end of the market. IBM got where they are by continually selling old customers new, more powerful computers (for the most part upward compatible -- both JCL and applications code developed on an IBM 360 in the '60's will still run with no more than minor modification on a 3090-600E supercomputer). So far, Apple has been less successful at doing that -- there are a LARGE number of //e, //c, and even ][+ owners out there who haven't bought a IIgs (and they haven't all switched to Amiga or MS-DOS) who *might* upgrade to a IIgs if it ever becomes the general purpose home computer it's capable of being. /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.)
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (02/21/90)
In article <12133@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Feb13.234603.3388@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>In the past few years, Apple has neglected to: >>develop a blitter to nuke the Amiga and make the desktop reasonable on slower >>machines > >This reflects a hardware slave mentality. Blitting hardware is NOT necessary >for reasonable graphics performance, and it adds expense and complexity which >is probably a poor trade-off for low-end systems. As I recall, the Atari 400 & 800 (and, of course, the STs) have blitters. They are/were reasonably priced - though I think the IIgs is better (than the 400 & 800) - just think how much the IIgs would be if it had a blitter - even better - let's have a IIgs with a blitter AND "sprites" in hardware. >>price the Video Overlay Card so its main market can buy it > >What IS its "main market"? So far as I can tell the main thing the card is >useful for is adding titling to videotapes in low-budget video operations. >The video overlay card is the most complex Apple II card Apple offers; it >would be hard to sell it much more cheaply and still obtain an adequate return >on Apple's investment. The last prices I got from an Apple authorized dealeron the IIgs and the Apple Video Overlay Card where both about $1000. I don't know what other prices might be obtained through mail order, but, given this price on the V.O.C., I agree that it is over priced. As for the complexity of the card, I was not able to actually look at it or a picture or a logic diagram; HOWEVER, back in 83, I built my own video overlay card using the TI-9918A video chip - the one TI used in their 99/4A computer. My card was only 5 chips plus 8 DRAMs, for a total of 13 chips. The TI video chip did all the hard work (I bought it for about $40) - the other 4 chips where TV components: a 14.3 MHz VCO (voltage controled oscillator), a phase-locked-loop detector chip, a TV sync generator (basically a frequency divider), and a quad op amp to sepperate the external composite video into vertical and horizontal sync, and buffer the video in and out conections. My total outlay to build the board: about $100. I also built a box to slave sync a modified video camera to another source of video and do split screens between the camera and the other video source. Again, about $100 for me to build. Given my experience, I would think that Apple's V.O.C. should cost no more than $300. - Ron Wilson
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/21/90)
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: [ snip ] >Given my experience, I would think that Apple's V.O.C. should cost no more >than $300. That's what I thought... until I got a look at the the thing. There's a Mega // and an VGC on it. You're paying for the whole //gs video system when you buy the VOC. That's how they put super hires on a //e. (Oh yeah.. the 400 line interlaced graphics are done by a cheap hack too. The super hires buffer in banks $E1 and $E0 -- really shadowed copies on the VOC -- are displayed alternately with even and odd frames of the video.) I wish they would nuke the //gs chip set and start from scratch. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (02/21/90)
In article <2483@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: > >The last prices I got from an Apple authorized dealeron the IIgs and the >Apple Video Overlay Card where both about $1000. I don't know what other >prices might be obtained through mail order, but, given this price on the >V.O.C., I agree that it is over priced. I think the retail is around $550 for the VOC, I thin I paid about $460 from Roger Coats (800) 438-2883. > >As for the complexity of the card, I was not able to actually look at it or >a picture or a logic diagram; HOWEVER, back in 83, I built my own video >overlay card using the TI-9918A video chip - the one TI used in their 99/4A >computer. My card was only 5 chips plus 8 DRAMs, for a total of 13 chips. >The TI video chip did all the hard work (I bought it for about $40) - the >other 4 chips where TV components: a 14.3 MHz VCO (voltage controled >oscillator), a phase-locked-loop detector chip, a TV sync generator (basically >a frequency divider), and a quad op amp to sepperate the external composite >video into vertical and horizontal sync, and buffer the video in and out >conections. My total outlay to build the board: about $100. > >I also built a box to slave sync a modified video camera to another source >of video and do split screens between the camera and the other video source. >Again, about $100 for me to build. > Gee, you ought to market both of those! Either that or write an article for Computer Shopper or Incider with directions on how to build it. If you liked it so will thousands of others. I guess the Apple card has to be a little more complex because t genlocks RGB and NTSC for the GS. >Given my experience, I would think that Apple's V.O.C. should cost no more >than $300. > >- Ron Wilson
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/21/90)
In article <1990Feb21.075626.4416@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >(Oh yeah.. the 400 line interlaced graphics are done by a cheap hack too. >The super hires buffer in banks $E1 and $E0 -- really shadowed copies on >the VOC -- are displayed alternately with even and odd frames of the video.) That's exactly the way I would expect it to be done. Why do you denigrate it as a "cheap hack"?
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/22/90)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: [ in response to this ] >>(Oh yeah.. the 400 line interlaced graphics are done by a cheap hack too. >>The super hires buffer in banks $E1 and $E0 -- really shadowed copies on >>the VOC -- are displayed alternately with even and odd frames of the video.) >That's exactly the way I would expect it to be done. >Why do you denigrate it as a "cheap hack"? Because it trashes the nice linear memory map they worked so hard to acheive. It's nit picking, I know, and there was no other way to do it without it being a _real_ pain. I just don't want this to become an official standard (that is, as the only interlaced mode in the next machine) because then we're just milking 128K for all its worth again and we don't have to do that in these enlightened days of cheap VRAMs. IMHO, we should be moving towards a fully programmable video generator with enough settings to take us quite a few years ahead. Custom logic is much cheaper to work with before it is cast in silicon. Read the Apple //f post because it has a much better description of this. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu