marcus@weyl.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (02/13/87)
Mac II First Look
... a report from
the MacInTouch newsletter
Ford-LePage, Inc.
PO Box 786
Framingham, MA 01701
617-661-8609
Delphi: MACINTOUCH
CompuServe: [75056,1225]
copyright 1987, Ford-LePage, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Introduction This
is a first peek at Apple's Mac II computer, due to
be announced the first week in March. The Mac II is the "Open
Mac" known also as the "Paris." Its heart is a 68020 CPU and
its spine a 6-slot, 32-bit Nubus. High-resolution monitors can display
detailed color, gray, or black and white images.
Hardware the Box
The basic box is somewhat like an IBM PC system unit,
although the box will probably be plastic with metal RFI shielding on
the inside like the Hard Disk 20SC. The top lifts off for access.
Inside, there's a power supply and (loud?) fan on the left side,
with two standard 3-prong connectors (like the Mac's) for AC power.
Next to the power supply/fan is the 6-slot Nubus in the middle. The
Nubus connectors have a lot of pins in a small connector; it's
unique, and unlike other card slots such as the IBM PC's or DEC
VAX's. There is room for large (13"?) cards, running from the
front of the computer to the back. A video card takes up one slot.
There are six holes in the rear of the box for connections to the cards.
On the right side the motherboard and a little speaker are on the
bottom. There were 2MB of RAM onboard, but we couldn't really see
how the board was laid out without disassembling things. From Excel we
deduced that a 68881 numeric coprocessor was installed. Above, on a
shelf hiding the motherboard, are two floppy drives in the front and a
hard disk in the back. In the back of the motherboard are two standard
Mac Plus serial ports, a SCSI port, a sound port and two desktop bus
ports (one used for the Apple IIGS keyboard and mouse). The fan on the
left pulls air in from vents on the right (over the motherboard) and
vents in the back (behind the disks).
Keyboard and mouse
Other keyboards will probably be optional, but we used the IIGS
keyboard and mouse. They were nice in comparison to the Mac's
equivalents. The mouse's teflon pads made it glide more easily, and
we liked the action and lower profile of the IIGS keyboard. The mouse
plugs into the keyboard and the keyboard plugs into one of the desktop
bus ports. One noticable difference is how the cursor acts when a disk
is contending with the mouse for CPU time. It's more "jumpy"
on the Mac II than on the Mac.
monitor
We used a high-resolution color monitor with about 640 x 480 pixel,
72 dot/inch resolution. With no real color applications to run, we used
it in black- and-white mode, where it was nicer than a Mac screen,
because of the extra size and equivalent detail. If you enable color,
the Apple symbol above the desk accessory menu turns into the
rainbow-colored Apple logo. With gray-scaling enabled, the logo is
shown in shades of gray.
Where's the off switch?
The power is turned on from a switch on the keyboard. It is turned
off by selecting "Shut Down" from the Finder menu. There is also
a reset switch in the back which sometimes shuts off power when the
keyboard switch doesn't work. On the right side are the same
interrupt and restart switches the Mac has on the left. If all else
fails, you pull the plug out of the wall.
SCSI
We were unable to get either of two external SCSI drives to work, but
this is probably not due to the architecture, but to something we
didn't understand or a hardware bug. The internal hard disk was
connected via SCSI.
AppleTalk
We printed successfully to a LaserWriter over AppleTalk. (The new
Laser Prep required reinitializing the LaserWriter.)
floppy drives
We used standard 800K Macintosh disks with no problems.
System Software
The operating system in use was Finder 5.4/System 3.3. We also ran
System 3.2/Finder 5.3 for a short time without any problems. The new
Finder has some interesting features, such as a trashcan that bulges
when there's something in it, and a watch cursor whose hands move
while you're waiting.
The major changes noticable in the system software are a new control
panel and a desk accessory for choosing among video cards. The new
control panel desk accessory lets you scroll through a set of different
panel modules, each of which controls a part of the system. A sound
panel lets you choose from a wide variety of sounds for Mac
"beeps." (We could not test this.) Other modules let you choose
color (1, 2, 4 or 8 color bits, or gray) and the startup disk.
There are new icons in the alert dialogs, replacing the old
cartoon-like icons.
First Impressions
The computer is as fast as you've heard, two to four times faster
than a Macintosh Plus. You really notice it when you use a cache or RAM
disk -- there seems to be less of a balance between CPU and disk
access with the Mac II -- it's the disk that holds it back, not the
CPU. You also notice a great speed increase in screen drawing
operations, in programs ranging from the Finder to MacDraw and
PageMaker.
Compatibility
Introduction
We tried a lot of applications quickly, looking for major bombs, not
subtle problems. Applications varied from instantly crashing to
exhibiting bizarre behaviour after a few operations to running
beautifully much faster than on a normal Mac. We did not have a modem
for testing telecommunications programs or a MIDI interface for testing
music programs.
Overall, application compatibility seemed similar to, or a little
worse than, last year's HFS compatibility problems. The ROMs we saw
were probably not final, and the ones that come with production models
may be a little more compatible, but probably not a lot more. A lot of
developers (including Apple) are going to have to clean up their
programs to work correctly on the Mac II.
Specifics
We've listed the applications we tested in categories according to
the extent of testing and the results. No programs were tested
extensively. Macsbug was running during all tests.
no major problems noticed in basic functionality tests
Describe
DiskTop DA
Double Helix
Excel 1.03
says "using math chip" in About Excel dialog
Fedit 1.1
FileMaker Plus
HFS Backup 2.0
Actually did a Selected-Files backup without any trouble.
Moving icons in information box zoomed at super speed.
MacID
MacTools 6.3
Medit
MockWrite DA
More 1.1
Oasis 1.4
PackIt III
PageMaker 1.2
RAMStart 1.23
ReadySetGo 3
Set Clock
Spellswell 1.3a
SuperPaint
Word 1.05
WriteNow
no problems noticed in application startup and quit
AppleLink
Disk First Aid
Guide
M (demo)
MCS
Microphone
Omnis 3 Plus
Professional Composer
Red Ryder 9.4
can't use extra size of screen for window
Reflex
serious errors during operation
Downhill Racer game
FreeTerm
MacDraft 1.2a
MacPlaymate
Performer
Stepping Out
bombs
DiskFit beta test version
Layout
MacTerminal 2.1
MacWrite 4.5
Opcode Sequencer 1.02
QUED 1.54
VideoWorks
Word 3.00 beta
Works 1.0
other
Cricket Draw gives a message saying it's only compatible with 128K
ROMs and quits to the Finder.
Timing tests
These tests are "quick and dirty" but should give you some idea
of the speed of the Mac II. The Mac Plus comparisons were done using a
Mac Plus running System 3.2, with 2.5MB of RAM, and a fast DataFrame
XP40 external SCSI disk.
Word 1.05/no cache
launch Word from internal hard disk: 4.5 sec.
(Mac Plus: 6.5 sec.)
PackIt III/1MB cache/SCSI disk
time to pack Excel 1.03 with compression: 2:02
(Mac Plus: 7:19)
MacDraw/1MB cache/SCSI disk
first time
open MacDraw: 7.5 sec.
(Mac Plus: 15 sec.)
quit to Finder: 5 sec.
(Mac Plus: 6 sec.)
second time
open MacDraw: 3 sec.
(Mac Plus: 11 sec.)
quit to Finder: 1.5 sec.
(Mac Plus: 5.5 sec.)
Conclusions
This is a very impressive machine. It has the speed. It has the
flexibility and expandability (with the Nubus and desktop bus and SCSI
ports). It has the compatibility (although many developers will have to
clean up their programs). It has color. But it's not portable !
mat marcus
ucbvax!brahms!marcus
marcus@brahms.berkeley.edu
ucbvax!marcus@brahms.berkeley.edujoel@gould9.UUCP (02/13/87)
Did anyone read this Macintouch article (also posted to n.s.m. or
mod.mac.binaries??) called 'Mac II First Look'? Wow!
If it's true, it's pretty specific -- incredibly so, in fact.
They claim to have run a lot of sample programs.
We knew that MacWrite bombs on a 68020 (see MacTutor, 11/85
I believe) due to the TRAP instruction. In fact, Levco includes
a special DA (or INIT?) to catch the TRAP's and fool MacWrite
into thinking the exception frame is the same size as a 68000.
What about MacTerminal and MS-Works? Why should they bomb?
If the report is accurate (and, according to it, we should know
soon) I'd say Apple has a problem with secrecy. Are there too many
developers with advance machines? Too many magazine reporters
who claim a tight deadline and get a look 3 months in advance?
Or does the informal corporate culture at Apple make it difficult
to enforce restrictions on employees?
People spend even more time trying to guess what IBM's going to
do, but so far a lot of those predictions (like the PC II) have
failed to come true.
--
Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879
Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083
{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPArburns@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (03/03/87)
I had heard that the Mac II would have 15 bits of color per pixel. It sounds like this has been reduced to 8 bits per pixel. Is this true? Also does the new mac handle its color as 8 seperate planes or is each pixel a contiguous are in the bitmap. Thanks.
hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (03/04/87)
Re: Mac having 15- versus 8- bit color As far as I know (haven't seen the spec sheets from Apple yet) the software of the color workstation will support up to a full 16-bits per R, G, B. The software queries the display device by sending it a 16-bit RGB value (16-bits per R, G, and B) and getting back the "closest" value the display device can handle. (I believe Apple likes to call color display devices "color monitors". That is, the "color monitor" has extra logic to communicate with the host machine and tell it the closest 16-bit RGB value it can produce for a requested value. Sounds like more than just a color monitor to me, but that's what they call it, apparently . . .) So software written today should be able to handle the full 16-bits of RGB, but the actual card can only support 8-bits (for a total of 2^(8*3) or about 4 million colors). The card can display 8 bit planes, for 256 colors per display. -Mitsu
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (03/04/87)
According to a 4/87 Byte article posted to Bix, the Mac II software
architecture supports 1,2,4,8,16 or 32 bits per pixel. It can
be used with bitplanes , and supports the three bitplanes of the
original QuickDraw (if you have a program that prints in color,
it uses this feature).
Apple prefers what they call 'chunky', contiguous bits. They
also support a hybrid. Without seeing the QD calls, I'm not
sure what they support in principle, and what they support
in the current implementation (ie, could you design a 16-bit
bit plane graphics display.)
The colors are defined by a 48-bit color, 16 each for RGB.
The current (and only) video card is 640x480, 24-bit color.
By default, it allows 4 bits (16 colors) in chunky mode;
buy the optional upgrade kit and you get 8 bits (256) from
256k RAM. These index into a Color LookUp Table (CLUT) 24-bit
values.
There's no bias towards the current card, and they seem to imply
third-party cards almost immediately. Unlike the IBM CGA/EGA
fiasco, there's no bias or software concern about the display;
the Color Manager provides a virtual interface, no matter
what colors you can produce. For example, you ask for a 48-bit
color from the Color Manager, say a brillant orange. If no more
colors can be added, you may get the red already in the CLUT.
to the CLUT, you and y
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you mustt-jacobs@utah-cs.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <1338@husc6.UUCP>, hadeishi@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >> Re: Mac having 15- versus 8- bit color During the Technical conference on Compuserve monday night, I believe I heard them say that the new color QuickDraw has 24 bit capability. They weren't sure if it was fully supported in the first release or not. The color monitor they are comming out with only has 8 bit color capability.
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <10231@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> rburns@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Randy Burns) writes: >I had heard that the Mac II would have 15 bits of color per pixel. It >sounds like this has been reduced to 8 bits per pixel. Is this true? According to the advance preview posted to BIX and due for the April 87 Byte: "The old Macintoshes use a bitmap to represent the screen-- there, one bit represents one pixel, and only two colors are possible: black and white. The Mac II generalizes this to 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 bits per pixel. Apple's first video board will use either 4- or 8-bit pixels, thereby allowing 16 or 256 different colors, respectively. On the high end, a 32-bit pixel gives a theoretical limit of 4,294,867,296 different colors onscreen at one time--from a 48-bit wide palette representing over 280 trillion colors. (These numbers far execeed other system contraints.)" >Also does the new mac handle its color as 8 seperate planes or is each >pixel a contiguous are in the bitmap. Again, from the BIX preview: "The design of Color QuickDraw allows the support of three different layouts of video memory. In planar layout, the video display comprises one or more bitplanes, where the number of colors or shades of gray possible equals 2**n, where n is the number of bitplanes. Here, adjacent bits in a bitplane contribute to the definition of different pixels, but the n bits that define a given pixel are scattered throughout memory. Color QuickDraw supports the monochrome 1-plane graphics and the 8-fixed-color 3-plane graphics supported by previous Macintoshes." "The second layout is the one Apple supports completely: chunky pixels. In this layout, all the bits for one pixel are adjacent and are followed by all the bits for the next pixel. Each pixel is defined by 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 adjacent bits in memory. This layout works well with Apple's preferred design of graphics output devices, which use color lookup tables. These cards use the numeric value stored in the pixel's memory to index into a known table of colors from a much larger color spectrum. In the case of Apple's first video card, the actual (Apple calls it concrete) color is 24 bits wide, giving 16,777,216 colors from which to choose." "The last layout is a hybrid of the first two, chunky-planar. This layout would have separate memory areas for the red, green, and blue components of its pixels, with the individual components being chunky--that is, 1, 2, 4, or 8 adjacent bits describing a given component. This layout might be used someday to drive a very high-resolution color device that would use three slots for its three bitplanes. The current implementation of Color QuickDraw does not support this, but the overall design permits it." -Fred -- =========================================================================== Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA {seismo!noao!mcdsun,hplabs!well}!fnf (602) 438-5976 ===========================================================================
dgold@apple.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <1338@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >Re: Mac having 15- versus 8- bit color > As far as I know (haven't seen the spec sheets from Apple yet) >the software of the color workstation will support up to a full 16-bits >per R, G, B. The software queries the display device by sending it >a 16-bit RGB value (16-bits per R, G, and B) and getting back the >"closest" value the display device can handle. Color QuickDraw's architecture supports 48-bit RGB (16+16+16) and up to 32 bits per pixel, chunky, planar, or chunky-planar. The first implementation (in the Mac II) only support up to eight bits per pixel, chunky. The full 48-bit RGB space is supported. In order to support multiple display devices from different vendors (with more than one possibly connected at a time), each video card must have a video driver, which takes care of mapping the 48-bit RGB color to the capabilities of the device. QuickDraw supports three kinds of video devices: those with a color lookup table, those with a fixed set of colors, and those with direct RGB. The Apple Video Card is a color lookup table device; its color table has room for 256 entries, with a palette of 16 million (eight bits of resolution for each of R, G, and B). Although the color table has 256 entries, the base configuration of the card only has enough memory to support configurations of 1, 2, and 4 bits per pixel, allowing 2, 4, and 16 colors on screen simultaneously (out of the palette of 16 million). With an expansion kit (which consists of more video ram), you can go up to the full 8 bits per pixel, with 256 colors (or shades of gray) on screen out of the palette of 16 million. Apple's card supports 640x480 pixels; SuperMac has a card with the same capabilities that supports up to 1024x768 pixels (theirs is more expensive, however). Because of this video driver approach, Color QuickDraw is capable of supporting a wide variety of video cards, from inexpensive fixed color (or monochrome) cards up to to very fancy high-end devices. -- David Goldsmith Apple Computer, Inc. MacApp Group AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1 UUCP: {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY BIX: dgoldsmith
bc@mit-amt.UUCP (03/04/87)
The current Apple color display board lets you choose 8 bits out of 24. So you can have 256 colors out of 4.something million. You can also call these "color planes" and do as you like with them, for example double-buffered animation. Note that there is no more second video page. The resolution is 640 by 480, and the monitor is about 13 inches diagonal. The pixels are therefore a little bigger than the 70-72-80 to the inch that the regular mac screens have. The pixels looked square, or close enough. There is a Color Picker DA that lets you change the mode of the hardware on the fly. Full color IS slower than b/w, but there ARE 8 times as many bits to frob, and the algorithms, for say, additive color (it's in there!) are naturally somewhat harder than xor. The black-and-white screen is 12 inches diag and has 640x480 resolution, too. Remember, the display is JUST a plug-in board (and you can have SEVERAL) so don't be surprised when the "real" full-page displays turn up. As for pricing, Apple's prices are comparable to similar equipment from other name-brand manufacturers. (Note, for example, that the equivalent II is cheaper than a Prodigy, with no chip clips!) The performance of the hardware/software makes the Mac II a serious workstation. Even when you fully load it up with the max of everything, it's still under $15k. (That's a big screen or color screen, 8 MEGS of core, unix, hard disk, ethernet, etc,etc) Note also that other than speed, expansion, and color, there is no need to buy the Mac II. If you don't want UNIX, don't need ethernet, can't use the color, etc, don't bother. The SE is a nice box, does everything else almost as well, and is quite reasonably priced. I'm really tired of people griping about prices. If it's too much, don't pay it. Next year, it will be cheaper. But you will have to do without it for a year. Meantime, I will post a note in a day or two with as many physical/technical specs as I can, now that everything is official. Cheers/..............................................................bc
lsr@apple.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <1338@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: > > As far as I know (haven't seen the spec sheets from Apple yet) >the software of the color workstation will support up to a full 16-bits >per R, G, B. The software queries the display device by sending it >a 16-bit RGB value (16-bits per R, G, and B) and getting back the >"closest" value the display device can handle. (I believe Apple >likes to call color display devices "color monitors". That is, >the "color monitor" has extra logic to communicate with the host >machine and tell it the closest 16-bit RGB value it can produce >for a requested value. I don't think there is any extra complexity in the monitor itself. The video cards, however, have to identify their characteristics (# bits per pixel, for example). The Apple video card, for example, supports up to 8 bits per pixel, so you can get 256 colors at one time. This is out of a palette of 16 million. When you choose a color you specify a 48-bit RGB value (16 bits per component). The Color Manager will give you the closest color based on the current lookup table. I don't think there is any communication between the Color Manager and the display device other than when the video driver in installed. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
maclab@reed.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <10231@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, rburns@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Randy Burns) writes: > I had heard that the Mac II would have 15 bits of color per pixel. It > sounds like this has been reduced to 8 bits per pixel. Is this true? Theoretically, Color Quickdraw can handle up to 32 bits per pixel. The current Mac II graphics card can only handle up to 1/2/4/8 bits per pixel. > Also does the new mac handle its color as 8 seperate planes or is each > pixel a contiguous area in the bitmap. Color QuickDraw specs indicate that it *will* support chunky (continguous pixels) and planar pixel organization -- currently, it only supports chunky pixels. Scott Gillespie Reed College
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <10231@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> rburns@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Randy Burns) writes: >I had heard that the Mac II would have 15 bits of color per pixel. It >sounds like this has been reduced to 8 bits per pixel. Is this true? >Also does the new mac handle its color as 8 seperate planes or is each >pixel a contiguous are in the bitmap. The new OS in the Mac II introduces a "Color Quickdraw", which is compatable with the color model of the old Quickdraw (ie, drawing on seperate color planes), and introduces a color manager which does all sorts of wonderful things for you. The video board from Apple is sold with 4 bits/pixel, and with an option added to the video board, will give you 8 bits/pixel. With dithering, you can create fantastic images. And the color screen does not flicker in any way (like the Amiga does in high res mode). The color screen even refereshes at 66.something Hz, making it so that it doesn't flicker noticably under flouresent lighting (like the Sun workstations do...) - William Woody Mac! > ][n && /|\ woody@tybalt.caltech.edu woody@juliet.caltech.edu
ngg@bridge2.bridge (Norman Goodger) (03/05/87)
Larry, Is the color manager part of the new roms in the Mac II or a part of the operating system that the Mac II is using?? Norm Goodger &Bridge Communications
lsr@apple.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <2802@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > > >The current (and only) video card is 640x480, 24-bit color. >By default, it allows 4 bits (16 colors) in chunky mode; >buy the optional upgrade kit and you get 8 bits (256) from >256k RAM. These index into a Color LookUp Table (CLUT) 24-bit >values. This is the only card offered by Apple. Supermac announced a display card and screen that provides up to 1024x768x8-bit deep color. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) (03/06/87)
> Summary: Color capability (24 bits!) > > In article <1338@husc6.UUCP>, hadeishi@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: >>> Re: Mac having 15- versus 8- bit color > > During the Technical conference on Compuserve monday night, I believe > I heard them say that the new color QuickDraw has 24 bit capability. They > weren't sure if it was fully supported in the first release or not. > The color monitor they are comming out with only has 8 bit color capability. I am a bit cornfused as well. The original QuickDraw had software support for 32 bit planes. Now the new Mac, Namely Mac II, ie the one which will not only support colour in software [ oops, *color* for you guys :-) ] but be able to show it as well , has, according to various RUMOURS, 16, 8, 24 and who-knows-what other powers of two or 68k address limits. I myself thought 32 bit planes were too much to hope for (memory!), but would have been ideal. Can someone please set the record straight? The needle is wearing out. (Anyone in AppleLand??) Paul Menon. Dept of Communication & Electronic Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 124 Latrobe St, Melbourne, 3000, Australia ACSnet: rcopm@yabbie UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!yabbie.rmit.oz!rcopm CSNET: rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz ARPA: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@seismo BITNET: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@CSNET-RELAY PHONE: +61 3 660 2619. "Why do I like my Mac? Lotsa Brawn and even more Brains!" "Why don't I like PC's? Think about it!"
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (03/06/87)
In article <422@yabbie.rmit.oz>, rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > I am a bit cornfused as well. The original QuickDraw had software support > for 32 bit planes. Now the new Mac, Namely Mac II, ie the one which will not > only support colour in software [ oops, *color* for you guys :-) ] but be able > to show it as well , has, according to various RUMOURS, 16, 8, 24 and > who-knows-what other powers of two or 68k address limits. I myself thought > 32 bit planes were too much to hope for (memory!), but would have been ideal. The original QD actually supported only 8 colors in 3 bit planes, period. The new QD software supports 2^48 possible colors. The current hardware allows 2^24 distinct colors of those to be used. Depending on the color card, colors can be implemented through bit planes, or through a 'chunky' scheme (if bit planes are vertical, then chunky are horizontal arrangements of the bits corresponding to a pixel.) The current Apple and SuperMac* cards offer up to 8 bits per pixel, which allows any 256 colors of the 2^24 colors supported by the card to be displayed. * Thanks, Larry. -- Joel West {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news) jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (03/07/87)
Everything you always wanted to know about color (almost) and were'nt
afraid to ask about.
First Rule: Color is a royal pain in the ass.
Second Rule: A human beings eyes are the worlds best camera.
Third Rule: Analog is natural, Digital is a mutant from alpha centuri.
Way back in the mists of antiquity, someone at apple must have liked color
hence they included a little blurb in Inside Mac about drawing in color. What
this enabled you to do was draw on one of 32 color planes at a time. i.e. you
have thirty two colors to draw in or effectivly thirty-two different screens.
This is the way the IBM-PC (boo hiss) works with an EGA. You have four planes
Red, Green, Blue, and Intensity. Giving you 16 colors. In addition what exactly
a "red" pixel means etc. is changable giving you 64 possible colors 16 at a time
This is referred to as planar graphics. The advantage of this is the hardware
for the video card is easy to build, each gun simply scans through the
appropriate (rg or b) screen and turns on or off as appropriate. The software is
a bitch to write (esp on non-68xxx family uP) because drawing a line consists of
turning on and off the appropriate bit in a section of eight (rg or b) pixels.
This is also slower.
The new machines handle color differently. A sepecific color is difined as
16 bit intensity levels of RG and B. This color is then converted by a color
lookup table into the nearest 8-bit color. (this table is changeable so that
the user can define what colors he needs most, incendentally). These colors
are then stored in memory in 8-bit chunks (or 4,2 or 1 depending on the memory
on the video card). Apple refers to this as chunky graphics. This makes the
hardware a little more difficult to design (but not greatly) and the software
much faster and simpler (except in xor drawing etc. all the uP needs to do
is store to the appropriate location vs. load, set bit, store).
Thus the new machines take a 48-bit color spec, convert this to an eight
bit color-pixel. And save the pixel/colors together.
The old machines effectivly drew in 32 monocrome screens at one at a time.
picture: old pixel: R-----screen size in bytes-------G----screensize---B
new pixel: RGB
where R is the red bit/pixel G is the Green bit/pixel blue is the Blue
bit/pixel.
Thus the old-machines had at most 32 different colors since pixels were
either on or off. ( assuming each of the different color planes was actually
a different color not intensity level or anything similar. i.e. using 6-bits
you could have Red(on/off) Red Intensity(dim/bright),g,gi,b,gi giving 4^2
colors. IM seems to imply, though that the layout assumed by QD was similar
to the EGA.
The new machines have (2^16)^3 different colors 256 of which can be used
at once.
Where the three rules come in: You can see, (and tell the difference between)
all (2^16)^3. (if you don't believe me assume there are a million different
shade of color in your room. Now turn off the lights. There are now a million
new shades of color in your room.) This is because your eyes work on an analog
level. 2.3 is 2.3 etc. The computer has to divide all the colors your
eye can see in some fashion. Presently, into 256 slots. To go to sixteen bits
of color would require 600k of video memory. to go to a full RGB would require
1.8 megs of memory to store the screen. (ouch)
Thus the practical limit on display depth is eight bits. or 300k. This means
that no computer screen will ever be flawless. For an artist, the computer
will always be too limited a medium for serious work. (unless memory becomes
REALLY cheap.)
I hope that clears up some of the arguments about what the new machines, do
and do not, do.
Pierce Wetter
C, n.:
A programming language that is sort of like Pascal except more
like assembly except that it isn't very much like either one, or
anything else. It is either the best language available to the art
today, or it isn't.
-- Ray Simard
--------------------------------------------
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu
--------------------------------------------rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) (03/08/87)
Since my previous posting concerning the colo(u)r capabilities of the
Mac, numerous replies have appeared to the original. Apologies if my query
appeared after the discussion was over - but it's not my fault if you lot
are so far away from the centre of the universe :-).
Concerning the SE,
[[*IGNITE*]]
* Why wasn't the SE based on the 68020?
[Still working on the ROM/Finder/System? In essence, still
working on the Mac II]
* Is it true that there are 2 clock rates available on the SE?
(8 and 16Mhz)
[If so then one assumes this is for a 68020. By 3rd
parties or Apple or Both]
* How wide is the Data Path on the SE [16 bits?]
What I am getting down to is...
Did Apple intend the SE to be a 68020 machine in the first place?
Are we going to see an SE+, with the obvious upgrade path. [Please
don't have the same logic board if it currently has a 16 Bit Data
Path].
Was Apple pressured into getting the SE (or for that matter - any
new machine) out? Or this another money making ploy.
[[*DOUSE*]]
My own feeling [hope] is that they were pressured into getting
something out - not by competition (there isn't any), but by...
* Us.
* Miscalculating the 68k/68020 changeover.
(ROM's, logic board, whatever)
This isn't so much a flame - it is disappointment in sticking with a CPU
from the 70's. Sure it can hold it's ground with rivals, but there is
something better - much better! Maybe the corporate sector don't need
brute strengh, but there are a few of us who cannot afford a Mac II yet
still want a bit more grunt. I guess the money is in business eh?
"Apples Follow Gravity" Issac Newton (1642-1727).
"Gravity Let's You Down" Talking Heads. (1970's - 1980's - ...)
Paul Menon.
Dept of Communication & Electronic Engineering,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
124 Latrobe St, Melbourne, 3000, Australia
ACSnet: rcopm@yabbie UUCP: ...!seismo!munnari!yabbie.rmit.oz!rcopm
CSNET: rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz ARPA: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@seismo
BITNET: rcopm%yabbie.rmit.oz@CSNET-RELAY
PHONE: +61 3 660 2619.zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (03/08/87)
In article <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > > Concerning the SE, > > [[*IGNITE*]] > > * Why wasn't the SE based on the 68020? > [Still working on the ROM/Finder/System? In essence, still > working on the Mac II] > * Is it true that there are 2 clock rates available on the SE? > (8 and 16Mhz) > [If so then one assumes this is for a 68020. By 3rd > parties or Apple or Both] > * How wide is the Data Path on the SE [16 bits?] > > What I am getting down to is... > Did Apple intend the SE to be a 68020 machine in the first place? > That's a good question! Software developers received prototype machines from Apple which were Mac Pluses with a 68020 processor replacing the 68000, but running at the same speed as the 68000. What was the purpose of these machines, really? Were they Mac SE prototypes, or were they just for debugging software for the Mac II? My guess is that Motorola can't make the 300,000 or more 68020s that Apple might need if the SE were based on the 020, and that Apple knew this early in the product development cycle. Moto would be loath to second-source licence their premier processor while lesser 68000s are available from second sources, ergo Apple (and Commodore, for that matter) are stuck with the 68000 as the processor for really high-volume production machines. Both Apple and Commodore have machines out that can be upgraded from 68000 to 68020 in a fairly clean way. Apple, in addition, has a high-end machine that may be upgradable (via a NuBus card) to the 68030, further stretching its product lifespan. Apple has, in my opinion, hit the product planning nail right on the head, given not only consumer demand (pull) but technology (push) as well. The SE (Somewhat Expandable?) will compete against PC/XTs and in some cases PC/ATs, while the Macintosh II will compete against high-end PC/AT configurations, the 386 machines, and mid-range 68020 workstations such as Apollo. Sun will rise above the fray with 25Mhz 68020 machines and other high-end hardware and software, and other Unix boxes will get trampled in the fight between 386 Unix systems, Macintosh IIs, and cheap VAXes. The Macintosh II will be fierce competeition for everyone except Sun (because Sun customers want Sun's Unix, not some "with Berkeley enhancements" bogosity). The 68020 system vendors who went with the PC/AT bus will regret that decision because the Mac IIs NuBus will yield much better overall system performance (i.e. two disk controllers running at once will both get adequate bus bandwidth). Corporate buyers will begin to fall in love with Apple because Apple will have a wide, compatible range of products that won't soon be obsolete. Meanwhile IBM thrashes around with the 286 vs. 386 operating system decision, the window system problem, and the 386 vs. PC/RT product planning problem. But hey, NeXT Inc. could turn the world upside down next week. Have fun, -Zigurd
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (03/09/87)
[I tried to mail a reply, but Australia is too far from the center
of the universe :-) ]
No, an SE is a plus with:
some new ROMS to take care of 1987 software fixes and extensions
a slot for IBM PC compatibility
the same slot for video display or other minimal expansions.
The SE is another in a series of trojan horses (an intentional Apple
marketing strategy, according to a Delphi summary of Sculley's talk)
for the business marketplace. A minimally IBM-compatible SE can
be snuck into an all-MS-DOS office even easier than the Plus.
The SE is not and never will be a top-end machine. It is a continuation
of the evolution from the Mac to the 512 to the Plus. It has nothing
to do with the 68020, and Apple will probably continue to offer
at least one 68000-based machine through 1990.
Incidentally, a 3rd party has plans for a 68020 card for the SE.
I have no other information on that, though.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you mustnorth@apple.UUCP (Donald N. North) (03/09/87)
In article <425@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > Concerning the SE, > * Why wasn't the SE based on the 68020? > [Still working on the ROM/Finder/System? In essence, still > working on the Mac II] Compatibility and cost, simply put. Like it or not, the '020 is NOT directly compatible with the '000, and is substantially more expensive. See below. > * Is it true that there are 2 clock rates available on the SE? > (8 and 16Mhz) [If so then one assumes this is for a 68020. By 3rd > parties or Apple or Both] > * How wide is the Data Path on the SE [16 bits?] There is one clock rate (same as the MAC,MAC+) - 7.8336 MHz for the onboard '000 processor. Twice this (15.6672 MHz) probably goes to the connector, but I'm not 100% sure. The processor is a 68000, so the memory datapath is 16 bits. A better scheme for refreshing the screen from memory resulted in a 15%-20% effective performance increase overall (fewer CPU - display refresh collisions). > What I am getting down to is... > Did Apple intend the SE to be a 68020 machine in the first place? Not directly, but there is this slot, you see... > Are we going to see an SE+, with the obvious upgrade path. [Please > don't have the same logic board if it currently has a 16 Bit Data > Path]. We don't comment on future product plans. > Was Apple pressured into getting the SE (or for that matter - any > new machine) out? Or this another money making ploy. We always want to get new products out to the world. We need to make money to keep our jobs and continue developing new products. > My own feeling [hope] is that they were pressured into getting > something out - not by competition (there isn't any), but by... > * Us. > * Miscalculating the 68k/68020 changeover. > (ROM's, logic board, whatever) What did we miscalculate? > This isn't so much a flame - it is disappointment in sticking with a CPU > from the 70's. Sure it can hold it's ground with rivals, but there is > something better - much better! Maybe the corporate sector don't need > brute strengh, but there are a few of us who cannot afford a Mac II yet > still want a bit more grunt. I guess the money is in business eh? The slot in the SE will allow for expansion to an '020 or other processor - if you want it. Most people probably don't need its capabilities right now. Like it or not, there is a substantial cost premium for an '020 based system over an '000 (not only the CPU, but 32-bit vs 16-bit wide memory). If you want a V8, you can get the *option* yourself. (Watch for 3rd party blurbs). 100% (not 99%+) software compatibility was also a design goal. There are enough 'minor' differences between the '000 and '020 (esp. stack format) to break or disable many applications (FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN I.M. ...). Hopefully, in the future, we won't have to worry about this as much (FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN I.M. ...), but for now it is a reality. Facts are facts; but the opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent any official position of Apple Computer, Inc. -- Donald North Apple Computer, Inc. Advanced Development Group UUCP: {voder,nsc,dual,sun,well,idi}!apple!north CSNET: north@apple.CSNET, north%apple@CSNET-RELAY
shap@sfsup.UUCP (03/09/87)
In article <4354@utah-cs.UUCP>, t-jacobs@utah-cs.UUCP writes: > In article <1338@husc6.UUCP>, hadeishi@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: > >> Re: Mac having 15- versus 8- bit color > > During the Technical conference on Compuserve monday night, I believe > I heard them say that the new color QuickDraw has 24 bit capability. They > weren't sure if it was fully supported in the first release or not. > The color monitor they are comming out with only has 8 bit color capability. You have that garbled. The color monitor, according to the Apple specs, is analog. The deal is that you have up to 8 bit planes which are used to do table lookup into a 24 bit (8 per color) pallete which has 256 entries. It should be no problem to get the kind of color resolution that you want. Jon Shapiro
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (03/09/87)
Since the Mac runs user programs in supervisor mode, the differences between the 68020 and the 68000 are 'noticeable' by user programs. That and the fact that the 68020 costs quite a bit more and doesn't have a second source is probably why Apple decided to do with a 68000. -Matt
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (03/09/87)
In article <422@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcopm@yabbie.rmit.oz (Paul Menon) writes: > > I am a bit cornfused as well. The original QuickDraw had software support >for 32 bit planes. Now the new Mac, Namely Mac II, ie the one which will not >only support colour in software [ oops, *color* for you guys :-) ] but be able >to show it as well , has, according to various RUMOURS, 16, 8, 24 and >who-knows-what other powers of two or 68k address limits. I myself thought >32 bit planes were too much to hope for (memory!), but would have been ideal. > > Can someone please set the record straight? The needle is wearing out. The color support in the original version of Quickdraw was minimal, and was intended primarily for color printing. (Only 8 colors were supported.) Color Quickdraw on the Mac II is intended to support color monitors as well. The *software architecture* supports up to 32 bits per pixel. The screen memory can be organized into planes, chunks, or a combination. The *implementation* in the Mac II supports up to 8 bits per pixel, with chunky memory organization. (It also supports the old color model just for compatibility.) You specify colors using 48 bit RGB values, and the software will display the closest color that is currently available. This make your program largely independent of the display capabilities of the machine. I hope this clears things up. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
mrh@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Marc Hannah) (03/10/87)
In article <2829@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > > Incidentally, a 3rd party has plans for a 68020 card for the SE. > I have no other information on that, though. > Joel West I understand there are 5 or so vendors which will be offering 68020 cards for the Mac SE including Levco and Radius. I suspect the market for 68020+video card for the SE will be hot. Radius announced their board for $995 with the 68881 as optional. David Gelphman BITNET address: DAVEG@SLACVM Bin #88 SLAC ARPANET address: DAVEG@SLACVM.BITNET Stanford, Calif. 94305 UUCP address: ...psuvax1!daveg%slacvm.bitnet 415-854-3300 x2538 usual disclaimer #432 applies: my employer apologizes for the fact that I have access to this net.
jh@tut.UUCP (03/11/87)
In article <5083@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >The Macintosh II will be fierce competeition for everyone except Sun >(because Sun customers want Sun's Unix, not some "with Berkeley >enhancements" bogosity). This is exactly the point. I was disappointed that Apple chose to ignore the computer science research community, majority of which wants real 4.xbsd. >But hey, NeXT Inc. could turn the world upside down next week. I surely hope that Next Inc. does it right (for example 4.3bsd on top of Mach and X on top of NeWS) so that Sun customers could have two to choose from. -- Juha Heinanen Tampere Univ. of Technology Finland
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (03/12/87)
A/UX is supposed to be sysV with 4.3bds enhancements. In addition A/UX is able to run (supposedly) without needing a system manager to maintain it. (hereafter referred to as Lucifer incarnate). Last Summer I was forced to bring up XENIX on an AT (ms-xenix. Which niether IBM or MS supports) and it would get extremly upset if it was turned off, the power failed etc. In addition running both DOS and XENIX on the same machine (DOS on different disk) gruaduall toasts the XENIX system. Apple providing more to a less guru-oriented environmen t needs to provide a less cumbersome implementation. Hence there will supp. be many utilties to perform the common tasks done by a system manager. Apple also will probably re-write the docs for unix so they are readable by human beings. In addition since apple requires a PMMU they will avoid alot of the problems other implementations of UNIX have (HP-UX does its memory management by swapping memory on and off of disk. 2megs for a single user system. 7megs if you are using Hp-windows. 2k for a 20meg hp hard-disk. Yech.) In short don't put down A/UX until you try it. (I've only read the specs.) Just because it isn't 4.3bsd doesn't mean it isn't a good (or bad) implemetation 4.1 bsd isn't sys V either. Give it a chance. Pierce Wetter RULES OF EATING -- THE BRONX DIETER'S CREED 1. Never eat on an empty stomach. 2. Never leave the table hungry. 3. When traveling, never leave a country hungry. 4. Enjoy your food. 5. Enjoy your companion's food. 6. Really taste your food. It may take several portions to accomplish this, especially if subtly seasoned. 7. Really feel your food. Texture is important. Compare, for example, the texture of a turnip to that of a brownie. Which feels better against your cheeks? 8. Never eat between snacks, unless it's a meal. 9. Don't feel you must finish everything on your plate. You can always eat it later. 10. Avoid any wine with a childproof cap. 11. Avoid blue food. -- Richard Smit, "The Bronx Diet" -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (03/13/87)
In article <748@korppi.tut.UUCP>, jh@tut.UUCP (Juha Hein{nen) writes: > In article <5083@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: > >The Macintosh II will be fierce competeition for everyone except Sun > >(because Sun customers want Sun's Unix, not some "with Berkeley > >enhancements" bogosity). > > This is exactly the point. I was disappointed that Apple chose to > ignore the computer science research community, majority of which > wants real 4.xbsd. What exactly does this UNIX bigotry mean? As someone who has used both 4.2/4.3 and System V, and generally prefers 4.x, I still get curious when someone proclaims one to be much better than the other. System V has a better organized and more rational library. BSD's only advantages are in networking, but if you're not using them, what does it matter. Clearly csh and vi are vastly superior (I haven't used ksh) and some of the other tools. I can't speak for 4.3, but make on V is much better than 4.2. However, the two are converging. BSD 4.3 includes at least 10 new library calls from System V that weren't in 4.2. Of course, there are bureaucrats who mandate System V and university research types who sneer at anything but pure BSD, but such prejudices are generally born of ignorance. Besides, I hope to god that A/UX has a far better editor and much more powerful shell interface than either one. If not, it won't be a Mac. -- Joel West {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news) jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must
julian@riacs.UUCP (03/17/87)
In article <2857@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > ... > What exactly does this UNIX bigotry mean? As someone who has used > both 4.2/4.3 and System V, and generally prefers 4.x, I still get > curious when someone proclaims one to be much better than the other. > > System V has a better organized and more rational library. > BSD's only advantages are in networking, but if you're not using > them, what does it matter. > ... BSD also has jobs control, which is an immense help when dealing with a line oriented operating system such as UNIX. If you're lucky enough to be running on a Sun or an ISI or something like that, then sure, you can start up another window, aka login session. But that 680x0 does get tired after a while. Putting a job in background and getting your shell back doesn't take as many resources. Not to mention putting a job in background AFTER you've hit CR. "SYS V with BSD enhancements" usually means things like "vi" and "csh" but not jobs control, which I find of greater utility than something like getopt(). -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez julian@riacs.edu || {...decvax!}ames!riacs!julian
zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (03/17/87)
>background AFTER you've hit CR. "SYS V with BSD enhancements" usually >means things like "vi" and "csh" but not jobs control, which I find of >greater utility than something like getopt(). Job control, the Berkeley file system, sockets, etc. are among the substantive differences bewtween Sun's Unix and any System V with BSD enhancements type of Unix. Sun, interestingly, has managed to have its cake, in the form of Berkeley Unix performance, networking, job control and user interface features, and eat it too, claiming conformance to the System V and ANSI standards. That is one set of reasons why Suns are so often recommended. Another is that Sun has a very evident commitment to keeping itself at the very front of the ALL the Unix standards fads. Witness their current balancing act between News and X-Windows. Whoever has been guiding Sun's strategy so deftly should win the Nobel prize for marketing. No engineer ever got fired fot asking for a Sun. Compare Sun's comittment not only to Unix but to setting standards (and rolling with the punches on those occations where AT&T actually sets a standard) with the level of comittment shown by Apple. Apple farmed out the Unix port for the Macintosh II. How is a small porting house going to keep in stride with Sun's software engineering department? What if Apple's other strategic interests make Macintosh II Unix an evolutionary dead end? As interesting as the Unix to Mac Toolbox interface might be, that interface will never be a standard like X or News. Apple will be facing these issues, as have all of Sun's competitors. I don't think Apple faces disaster, but I do think they will be unpleasantly suprised by just how entrenched Sun has become in the Unix market. Perhaps Apple will relearn something Steve Jobs probably believed: Being market-driven is not always the best way to approach a market. Not only will they have tough sledding against Sun, they may make mistakes in "evangelizing" to engineering software vendors. Apple may split that software field between those companies that choose to go with the new but limited (possible better to say specialized) multi-tasking features of the Mac OS and those that choose the easy way out and port their product to yet another Unix system. When Apple brought out the Macintosh, there was no easy way out, and Apple was rewarded with the highest quality software in the industry. Now, with the possibility to simply modify one's standard Unix product and sell it on the Mac II, it may be too tempting to take this path of least resistance. In short, don't short Sun just yet. -Zigurd zrm@mit-eddie
defron@tart6.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel Efron) (03/18/87)
In article <409@hydra.riacs.edu> julian@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Julian E. Gomez) writes: >BSD also has jobs control, which is an immense help when dealing with a >line oriented operating system such as UNIX. If you're lucky enough to > . . . >background AFTER you've hit CR. "SYS V with BSD enhancements" usually >means things like "vi" and "csh" but not jobs control, which I find of >greater utility than something like getopt(). Look, job control is not something that is specific to versions of UNIX, but rather which terminal driver you are using. BSD has both the 'old' and the 'new' terminal drivers. The 'new' terminal driver was added to provide hooks for csh to do job control. It is very possible for Sys V shells to have job control. Ksh is a prime example. I believe A/UX comes with sh, csh and ksh. Also, I have seen A/UX (running X) here at Berkeley and it looks like a solid implementation. It has the a lot of the best features of both BSD and Sys V. Personally I feel that it doesn't matter which version of UNIX you use (I use BSD 4.2, 4.3, Sun 3.3, SV2 and SV3) if YOU DON'T HAVE SOURCE. - Daniel Efron arpa: defron@violet.berkeley.EDU uucp: ucbvax!violet!defron -
dwb@well.UUCP (David W. Berry) (03/18/87)
In this case "Berkeley enhancements" means job control, improved signals, networking, NFS, and almost all the other things we've come to know and love about berkeley unix. The only thing that isn't there yet that I can think of is long file names. Oh yeah, and they use the System V print spooler and login/init/getty. The long and short of it is that Sun took 4.2 and went towards System V. Apple took System V and went towards 4.2. By the time it's all said and done they look pretty much the same. David David -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb@Delphi dwb@GEnie 293-0752@408.MaBell
fry@huma1.HARVARD.EDU (David Fry) (03/18/87)
Since people seem to know some specifics about A/UX, does anyone have any idea how much the software will cost? David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@harvma1.bitnet Harvard University fry%huma1@harvsc4.bitnet Cambridge, MA 02138 ...!harvard!huma1!fry
shap@sfsup.UUCP (03/19/87)
In article <2834@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, defron@tart6.UUCP writes: > > Look, job control is not something that is specific to versions of UNIX, but > rather which terminal driver you are using. > > It is very possible for Sys V shells to have job control. Ksh is a prime > example. I believe A/UX comes with sh, csh and ksh. > - > Daniel Efron Sorry, Daniel, but this simply isn't true. In addition to the terminal driver interface, you need to define an additional signal, on berkeley called SIGTSTP. Many programs (e.g. all screen oriented programs) need to understand it. Adding the system call correctly means doing kernel changes in Sys V. The Korn Shell does not do job control on System V. It could be rewired to implement the shell-layers functionality, but it does not at this time. Shell layers isn't really job control, as you well understand. Ksh only has job control when running on a Berkeley or Research system.
julian@riacs.edu (Julian E. Gomez) (03/19/87)
In article <2834@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> defron@tart6.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel Efron) writes: > Look, job control is not something that is specific to versions of UNIX, but > rather which terminal driver you are using. BSD has both the 'old' and the > 'new' terminal drivers. The 'new' terminal driver was added to provide > hooks for csh to do job control. > > It is very possible for Sys V shells to have job control. Ksh is a prime > example. I believe A/UX comes with sh, csh and ksh. > ... I'm not familiar with ksh, but jobs control requires kernel modifications. Jobs control includes the signals SIGSTOP SIGTSTP SIGCONT SIGTTIN SIGTTOU and signals done within a program are never seen by a shell. This debate could go on and on. I've seen various messages saying that the Mac II Unix implementation contains all of the good stuff from Berkley, many of them from people with Mac IIs. Would somebody official care to comment? -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez julian@riacs.edu || {...decvax!}ames!riacs!julian
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (03/20/87)
I think there's a legitimate question as to what role UNIX should play in
the micro world. IBM doesn't have an answer, even AT&T doesn't have
an answer.
I'm very grateful to Apple for commissioning the port, and I look
forward to running vnews and the 'X Window System' (sometimes mistakenly
called X Windows) on my Mac II.
I just hope that if it turns out to be important, they give it the
necessary resources. It's hard to get enough talented people, so I
can understand their go-slow attitude at first.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you mustfnf@mcdsun.UUCP (03/20/87)
In article <410@hydra.riacs.edu> julian@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Julian E. Gomez) writes: >This debate could go on and on. I've seen various messages saying that >the Mac II Unix implementation contains all of the good stuff from >Berkley, many of them from people with Mac IIs. Would somebody >official care to comment? Speaking of which, I *KNOW* that the company that did the Unix port is on the net. Since I have yet to see them publically identified in this forum, or in the popular trade press, I won't mention any names at the moment. C'mon guys, are you under a gag order or what! Or are you just too busy making things even better to read news these days. -Fred -- = Drug tests; just say *NO*! (Moto just announced new drug testing program) = = Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA = = seismo!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-5976 =
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (03/21/87)
With their announcement of the new Mac II, Apple provided some
information about A/UX, their new UNIX offering. This is what
I've found so far from various sources. (The actual features
of A/UX have been suggested by dwb@well, but I have no info.)
Hardware
Macintosh II: 16 MHz 68020 and 68881 standard (claimed 2
mips). 1Mb expandable via SIMM's to 8mb on motherboard, full
4Gb address space available off-board.
6 NuBus (PC form factor) slots, two built-in RS422 ports, two
built-in SCSI ports. One 800K 3.5" floppy. Optional 40Mb and
80mb (both 30ms seek) internal hard disks available.
Apple's video: 640x480 square pixels; monochrome,
color: 4 bits (16 of 2^24 colors) or 8 bits (256 of 2^24).
Third-party video cards and monitors available.
SuperMac Technologies has a 1024x768x8 bits (256 colors)
video board.
Minimum configuration for A/UX: Macintosh II with 1 Mb, 40Mb
hard disk, optional MC68851 coprocessor. Recommended
configuration: 5 Mb, 80Mb hard disk.
Software
System V, Version 2 Release 2 compatible. Conforms to SVID
and already validated.
sh, csh, ksh; Some BSD enhancements (?)
Full NFS. Ethernet card available.
C, Fortran and other languages available from Green Hills.
UniSoft Systems has supposedly finished the port.
'Some' access to the Macintosh Toolbox. My guess is that this
is what's holding it back, or the availability of the 68851.
Prices
Macintosh II, standard keyboard, 40mb internal $5,498
Macintosh II, standard keyboard, 80mb internal $6,468
Display, choose one:
Apple 640x480, 12" mono $ 898
Apple 640x480, 13" 16 colors $1,498
SuperMac 1024x768, 19" mono $1,990
SuperMac 1024x768, 19" color $4,490
(other third-party available, but I don't have prices)
Options
Upgrade Apple video to 256 colors/gray scales $ 149
Apple EtherTalk Card $ 899
Apple 40mb cartridge tape $1,499
Upgrade from 1mb to 5mb $1,998
Motorola MC68851 ?
A/UX ?
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you mustdgold@apple.UUCP (03/23/87)
I believe the price for the 68851 is $495. The price for A/UX has not been
set yet, to the best of my knowledge.
--
David Goldsmith
Apple Computer, Inc.
MacApp Group
AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1
UUCP: {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold
CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY
BIX: dgoldsmithcccack@deneb.UUCP (03/24/87)
> I believe the price for the 68851 is $495. The price for A/UX has not been > set yet, to the best of my knowledge. > -- > David Goldsmith > Apple Computer, Inc. > MacApp Group > > AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1 > UUCP: {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold > CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY > BIX: dgoldsmith How about a rough idea at least, of the order of magnitude? Are we talking $500 or $5000? Something in between, I would hope. It's a question I've been wondering, since it was conspicuously missing from the price list. The price may determine whether or not I get a Mac II. David Ackerman University of California, Davis ...!{ucbvax,lll-crg}!ucdavis!deneb!cccack (UUCP) ucdavis!deneb!cccack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (ARPA) drackerman@ucdavis (BITNET) #include <disclaimer.h>
dgold@apple.UUCP (03/24/87)
I'm sorry, but I don't know the price of A/UX, and couldn't tell you if
I did since it has not been announced yet. You must remember that most
of the Apple people on the network, myself included, are engineers and
not involved with issues like this. I get my information (such as the
price of the 68851) from Apple's official press releases, which are
available on AppleLink.
--
David Goldsmith
Apple Computer, Inc.
MacApp Group
AppleLink: GOLDSMITH1
UUCP: {nsc,dual,sun,voder,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!dgold
CSNET: dgold@apple.CSNET, dgold%apple@CSNET-RELAY
BIX: dgoldsmithtim@ism780c.UUCP (03/26/87)
In an article that I can't quote because I forgot to hold down the shift key when I pressed 'f', Fred Fish says that he knows who did the unix port to the Mac II, and wonders why it they have not been mentioned. I saw a claim from someone on Compuserve that it is UniSoft. The person who made this claim was someone who I am sure had a good source of information. Also, consider that Fred Fish used to work at UniSoft, and thus would be in a good position to know who did the port if it was them. -- Tim Smith Welcome to Wackyland uucp: sdcrdcf!ism780!tim "It can happen here" Compuserve: 72257,3706 Pop: 100 nuts and a squirrel Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) (09/02/87)
Well, I finally did it--broke down and purchased a Mac II. It's really
a dynamite machine. Since I expected certain software packages not to
work I guess I wasn't too annoyed with those that refused to. What
*DID* annoy me to no end was the flimsy programmers switch that was
packaged with the unit without so much as a single instruction on how
(or where) to install it. In fact, it was only mentioned on the
inventory sheet. Well, I remembered *roughly* where it was on the
dealer's unit, so with a little investigation with a flashlight found
the position where it should go. Pretty good so far, right? Well,
I gently installed it--upside down! (People will probably say that
this is *impossible*, but I managed it.) Even though I put it in
as gently as possible, the two little doo-dads that provide vertical
tension nearly broke off and the thing is now virtually useless.
OK you Apple guys out there, how come no documentation? How come
you can't build these things so they won't fall apart? Come to
think of it, how come you guys (collectively speaking) won't come
up with a *real* reset switch. (If you put a power-up key on the
keyboard, why not a reset key?)
------
Ok. Enough Flames. I *love* the machine!!!
On another note, any rumors out there as to whether (when) LightSpeed
will be incorporating 68881 support? Or Borland? Seems to me I
heard that TML has it but the programming environment is lacking and
I prefer C anyway. I guess there's always Microsoft/Absoft Fortran
(Fortran?, UGH!).
Any comments will be appreciated.
--
Dave Thompson uucp: {ihnp4|hplabs|psivax}!csun!dlt
CSUN Computer Center phone: (818) 885-2790
18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330arms@oliveb.UUCP (Steve @ His Desk) (12/03/87)
Ive finally decided (read: got enough cash :-) to buy a macii. I was wondering if there is any comments (pro/con) from people who have used NEC Mulit-Sync monitors with their macii's. Email me and Ill summerize if there is any interest. Thanks . Steve -- ----NSA Line eater food: NSA sells drugs to Regans mafia via Iran ---- UUCP - arms@oliveb "The Peace-at-any-price party would Cash-we-serve - 73047,1666 leave an unarmed Europe a prey to Phone - (0125) 52-1331 Russia" - Karl Marx 1867