DICKSON@HARTFORD.BITNET (03/07/88)
First a question: Someone whose name and node I've forgotten posted a message a while back mentioning that he was working on a VT220 emulator for the GS. Since this sounded like the answer to all my dreams, I requested more information, and he got back to me with a nice description that sounded very very good. If whoever you are is reading this, could you send me a note telling me how it's coming? And now, since it seems to be wish list time, here's what I want for the fabled GS+: 1) More speed. 2) 640x400 mode (at least) 3) a chip I heard about for the Unidisk 3.5 that will supposedly increase the speed to 4x normal (is this true?) 3) More speed. oops, sorry, that was number 4. 5) stereo output, which should cost another $2 or so, considering the chip already outputs stereo. 6) More speed. 7) MOST IMPORTANT!!!! I want the d*mn thing to be a relatively cheap upgrade of what we already have! Maybe just a faster 65816 to replace the old one with. Another (ugh) new VGC. A new output jack (Apple, I'll send you some from Radio Shack if you want!) I upgraded my //e to a GS just over a year ago, and the prospect of having to replace the motherboard sickens me..... especially since it might not fit inside my //e case! 8) Maybe put the tools in ROM? Is there any way to do this if apple doesn't? I know the GS has ROM expansion possibility, so is it possible to choose what goes into it? Thanks for listening to this, Bill Dickson DICKSON @ HARTFORD. oops. .bitnet.
sds@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG (Steven D. Splinter) (03/11/88)
From article <8803061316.aa29780@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>, by DICKSON@HARTFORD.BITNET: > 1) More speed. > 2) 640x400 mode (at least) > 3) a chip I heard about for the Unidisk 3.5 that will supposedly increase the > speed to 4x normal (is this true?) > 3) More speed. > oops, sorry, that was number 4. > 5) stereo output, which should cost another $2 or so, considering the chip > already outputs stereo. > 6) More speed. > 7) MOST IMPORTANT!!!! I want the d*mn thing to be a relatively cheap upgrade > of what we already have! Maybe just a faster 65816 to replace the old one > with. Another (ugh) new VGC. A new output jack (Apple, I'll send you some > from Radio Shack if you want!) I upgraded my //e to a GS just over a year > ago, and the prospect of having to replace the motherboard sickens me..... > especially since it might not fit inside my //e case! > 8) Maybe put the tools in ROM? Is there any way to do this if apple doesn't? Ok, we want a GS+. first, if (as one poster suggested) we don't care about IIe compatability, we buy an Amiga 500. end of problem. But, assuming we want an Apple II because we want to run some IIe software, 1,3,6) More speed. This is relatively simple, just a faster processor, and see 7 above), faster RAM, MegaII, FPI, etc. all the support chips will need to run at the higher clock rate. 2) 640x400 (at least!?!), well, the GS is already impossible to use in native mode w/o at least 768k. This request will make the 32k screen 64k (at least), and, since the size of everything (all bitmaps) will also double, will erase much of the effects of (1,3,6). This will also require a *much* more expensive monitor (see Mac II monitor prices). (remember, see 7 above), this means we need to make it MUCH faster, and make 1meg ram standard. 3) Stereo output. A nice idea, but since originally the sound chip was going to be optional, the lack of a stereo port can be forgiven. Since we're already redesigning the motherboard (for the extra RAM), we may as well put a stereo port in, and redesign the back of the case as well. 4) Tools in ROM. They're working on it. The new ROMS have more of the system in them, and, a hypothetical GS+ would certainly be an opportunity to put more in there. So, we have our hypothetical system: gs+: 1meg RAM, 800k drive, 640x400 color screen, 8-16mhz, stereo, cheap upgrade? MacII:1meg RAM,80k drive, 768x400 color screen, 16mhz, stereo. I hope you see my point. The GS+, if (when) it exists, will almost certainly not change the basic system constraints (esp. the screen size). most likely is a machine with 512-1meg standard, and a faster processor. (maybe 3 speeds?) It will almost certainly NOT be an inexpensive upgrade. At best it's another motherboard swap, at worst (if the change the ports, or the motherboard gets bigger), no upgrade path. That's the way I see it, -- -Steven D. Splinter UUCP sds@fizban, meccts!fizban!sds -MECC Technical Services or sds@meccts, meccts!sds -How about a vacation in Minnesota this year? See the (10,000) loveli lakes. The wonderful telephone system, and many interesting furry animals.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/12/88)
In article <37@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG> sds@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG (Steven D. Splinter) writes: >2) 640x400 (at least!?!), well, the GS is already impossible to use in > native mode w/o at least 768k. This request will make the 32k screen > 64k (at least), and, since the size of everything (all bitmaps) will > also double, will erase much of the effects of (1,3,6). This will also > require a *much* more expensive monitor (see Mac II monitor prices). My Apple RGB monitor has sufficient resolution for 640x400 already. The scan lines have a quite evident dark gap between them that interlacing would fill quite nicely. I don't know how much extra it would take to make an Apple RGB monitor interlace, but I don't think it would have cost very much more. The biggest problem with 640x400 at this point is the severe incompatibility with the initial IIGS. (fonts, etc.) The IIGS should have had this resolution all along (I hear that some of its designers wanted this), but I really don't see how they can fix it now.
lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (03/15/88)
Doug, I surely do not know that much about Mac IIs, but I was under the impression that the various video cards on these machines offered varying resolutions. Yet isnt it true that the Mac family all use the same fonts? I am confused as to how they do this if altering the resolution on the IIgs would cause major problems with software, fonts, etc.? Just dont understand these things very well - sorry. Could you explain ? Thanks! -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@PSUVAX1 (BITNET) We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/19/88)
In article <490@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >Yet isnt it true that the Mac family all use the same fonts? I am confused as >to how they do this if altering the resolution on the IIgs would cause major >problems with software, fonts, etc.? I don't know how the Mac II does this, if it does. The basic problem would be that the fonts are defined as bit-maps and if the resolution were doubled the 10-point bit-map (for example) would come out as 5-point on the display. The programming problem is more basic, in that the current GS display memory is contiguously allocated and addressed by software on the assumption that there are 200 scan lines per screen. There was no allowance made for more, so existing software could not find it. I suppose if one could arrange for the other 200 scans to be interlaced from a separate area of memory, then if it were set to all-black the appearance would mimic that of the current GS display, and any software written to know about the additional interlaced frame could stuff bits there to produce a higher-resolution image. Unfortunately this complicates programming of access to the display bitmap.
shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) (03/21/88)
In article <7463@brl-smoke.ARPA> you write: >In article <490@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >>Yet isnt it true that the Mac family all use the same fonts? I am confused as >>to how they do this if altering the resolution on the IIgs would cause major >>problems with software, fonts, etc.? > >I don't know how the Mac II does this, if it does. >The basic problem would be that the fonts are defined as bit-maps >and if the resolution were doubled the 10-point bit-map (for example) >would come out as 5-point on the display. The programming problem On a related question, does anybody know how the GS fonts are currently handled between the two different super-hi-res modes. Presumably, different fonts are needed for the 320X200 and 640X200 mode, but couldn't the 320X200 fonts be modified for use with a new 640X400 mode? I also once heard that the reason it can be done on a Mac II is that all monitors are required to have an aspect ratio of 1, although I'm not sure about that. The biggest problem I see with a 640X400 (>2 colors) is the amount of memory needed. Unless interlacing (yech) is used, it would need at least 64K for the screen memory, and an 8-bit bus doesn't give enough bandwidth for 60 frames/sec with that kind of resolution (unless of course, the screen memory is seperate like the older apple's).
ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) (03/22/88)
In article <7463@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <490@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >>Yet isnt it true that the Mac family all use the same fonts? I am confused as >>to how they do this if altering the resolution on the IIgs would cause major >>problems with software, fonts, etc.? > >I don't know how the Mac II does this, if it does. >The basic problem would be that the fonts are defined as bit-maps >and if the resolution were doubled the 10-point bit-map (for example) >would come out as 5-point on the display. The programming problem >is more basic, in that the current GS display memory is contiguously >allocated and addressed by software on the assumption that there are >200 scan lines per screen. There was no allowance made for more, so >existing software could not find it. Existing software shouldn't be trying to find it, except through the Toolbox. The Mac toolbox provides calls to find out the screen resolution, and the font toolbox allows the programmer and user to select and specify font size (scaling if the size isn't directly on the machine) On the Mac, programs that assumed the screen buffer was in a certain location (and a certain size) would fail to run on anything but a 128K Mac. With the Mac XL (aka Lisa) and Mac II, I think the Mac community is reasonably well educated in this area. Maybe someone should clone the GS in a hurry so that programmers don't get used to the display being a certain way. That's one thing the Toolbox is for, to protect the programmer from future hardware changes. >I suppose if one could arrange >for the other 200 scans to be interlaced from a separate area of >memory, then if it were set to all-black the appearance would mimic >that of the current GS display, and any software written to know >about the additional interlaced frame could stuff bits there to >produce a higher-resolution image. Unfortunately this complicates >programming of access to the display bitmap. Yet Another reason to use the toolbox. BTW, I believe there's a hack for the ][ series that lets you get 280x384 (and maybe 560x384 on a //e) resolution with this. Flip hires pages during the vertical blanking interval, and the even frames you get one page, odd frames another. You'll want a high-persistence monitor for this. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
zach@mruxb.UUCP (J Z Shoher) (03/24/88)
> That's one thing the Toolbox is for, to > protect the programmer from future hardware > changes. > > ... > > Yet Another reason to use the toolbox. > > - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. > Anyone in this newsgroup doing C programming on the GS? If so, who's C are you using and where are you getting the compiler and tools from? Enquiring minds want to know!! What machines is the Toolbox designed for? Just GS? What reference material is available for understanding how to write relatively high-level code for (at least) the IIGS? I've seen a couple of mentions to some books/manuals from Addison-Wesley, but maybe there's something better. Zach Shoher (Bell Communications Research) (201-829-2866; ...!bellcore!mruxb!zach)
halp@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU ("Bruce P. Halpern") (03/24/88)
RE: Fonts Beagle Bros Timeout Superfonts uses the standard ][gs/Mac fonts on a ][e/][c. They are *NOT* displayed on the screen in AppleWorks, but might be in slower, graphically oriented programs. The results are terrific. However, if you want high print quality, done by taking, say, a 24 font and condensing it to a 12 font (I'm told this is how the Mac does it also), it's rather slow. Standard print quality, where one uses the fonts as they are, has good speed both on a ][c with Imagewriter I and a ][e with Epson FX-85. High-res and double H-R graphics can be inserted into text. I haven't used this much, but it appears that the full 80 column width is taken for the graphic. Superfonts *does* allow one to use only part of a graphic (by the somewhat complex procedure of specifying the coordinates of the upper left corner and lower right corner of that part of the graphic that you want to include)l~s
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/25/88)
In article <611@mruxb.UUCP> zach@mruxb.UUCP (J Z Shoher) writes: >Anyone in this newsgroup doing C programming on the GS? >If so, who's C are you using and where are you getting >the compiler and tools from? So far as I know, the only available C compiler for the IIGS's 16-bit environment is APW C, available through APDA. That's what I use. I also use Manx's Aztec C in the 8-bit environment. >What machines is the Toolbox designed for? Just GS? The IIGS ToolBox is IIGS-specific, but it resembles the Macintosh ToolBox closely enough to make it fairly easy to port many desktop-based applications between the two systems. >What reference material is available for understanding >how to write relatively high-level code for (at least) >the IIGS? I've seen a couple of mentions to some >books/manuals from Addison-Wesley, but maybe there's >something better. There are SEVERAL official Apple manuals from Addison-Wesley, and you pretty much need them all for IIGS programming. There are also a couple of "Inside the IIGS"-type books that are more tutorial, but you can't effectively program the IIGS using them alone.
lc@pbhyd.PacBell.COM (Larry Colton) (03/26/88)
In article <8803241258.AA24134@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU> halp@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU ("Bruce P. Halpern") writes: >RE: Fonts >Beagle Bros Timeout Superfonts uses the standard ][gs/Mac fonts on a ][e/][c. >They are *NOT* displayed on the screen in AppleWorks, but might be in Bruce, is correct that the fonts are not displayed on the screen in AppleWorks as they are in a graphic word processor such as Multiscribe. You can, however, print them to the graphics screen while still in AppleWorks. All of the Beagle Bros Timeout series does it's magic while you are still in Appleworks. One of the Superfont options is print to screen which allows you to preview the document yet not be burdened with a slow graphic based editor.