wayne@ingr.UUCP (Wayne Padgett) (09/16/87)
This may be dumb question, but hey, I'm not proud, so here goes. Why isn't there a color display for the SE? There's a slot, there's Color quickdraw on the Mac II, so what's the problem? This isn't just curiosity, I'd like to do some image processing and I need either grayscale or color for that and if I can't find somebody who makes something I might just try to build one myself. If anybody out there knows of a color display or even one in development, I'd appreciate it if they would let me know. Thanks, Wayne Padgett P.S. -I leave for school on Friday, so please respond ASAP. It will be several weeks at least before I see the net after Friday. Of course this is in no way associated with my employer.
david@hpsmtc1.UUCP (09/17/87)
Can you say MARKETING DECISION? 1) The ROMS in the SE are not the same as those in the MAC II, and only the Mac II Roms support Color! So, my guess is that Apple wanted to force those who want color to spring for a Mac II or they were WAY OFF BASE about the number of people out there who ant <-WANT COLOR on their Mac be it a II or an SE. You may have noticed how they underestimated the demand for Color monitors for the mac II to the tune of about $38 million (according to some papers). My guess is that one might see a Color SE next year, maybe with a 68020. I would say 68030, but then I would assume that would dent the ol Mac II sales eh? Whatever, it should go nicely with the Color Laserwriter in 88.
olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric Olson) (09/18/87)
In article <1470@ingr.UUCP> wayne@ingr.UUCP (Wayne Padgett) writes: >This may be dumb question, but hey, I'm not proud, so here goes. Why isn't >there a color display for the SE? There's a slot, there's Color quickdraw on >the Mac II, so what's the problem? The problem is there is no Color Quickdraw in the SE ROM! Even though the Mac II ROM is 256K, and the SE ROM is 256K, the SE ROM does not contain Color Quickdraw (it does contain some MacVision pictures of the SE design team, however). Color Quickdraw, I am told, uses 68020 instructions, and would therefore not run on an SE anyway. I suspect the lack of Color Quickdraw in the SE was an intentional crippling of that machine. After all, if you could buy an SE and a color card, why get a Mac II? This is, of course, only my own sorely misinformed ignorant opinion, and I don't want to start a flame war. -Eric Eric K. Olson olson@endor.harvard.edu harvard!endor!olson
keith@apple.UUCP (Keith Rollin) (09/18/87)
In article <2847@husc6.UUCP> you write: > >I suspect the lack of Color Quickdraw in the SE was an intentional crippling >of that machine. After all, if you could buy an SE and a color card, why >get a Mac II? This is, of course, only my own sorely misinformed ignorant >opinion, and I don't want to start a flame war. > It's OK, no flame. But consider... ...Color screens take a lot of memory. In order to store a full 256 color screen on the Mac II, you need at least an additional 300K of memory. This is the memory on the video card. ...Have you seen the Mac II, with its 16 MHz 68020 update its screen? Its not incredibly fast in 8 bit mode. Want to to it on an 8 MHz SE with its 68000? ...There is also probably a problem getting quality color screen in quantity. These are just my ignorant guesses too. I've never really asked why CQD wasn't implemented on the SE. -- Keith Rollin Sales Technical Support Apple Computer Stupid Disclaimer: I read this board for fun, not profit Stupid Quote: If god had meant man to fly, he would have given him plane tickets
gardner@prls.UUCP (09/18/87)
In article <11540017@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> david@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: >Can you say MARKETING DECISION? > >1) The ROMS in the SE are not the same as those in the MAC II, and only the > Mac II Roms support Color! > > So, my guess is that Apple wanted to force those who want color to spring for a Mac II or they were WAY OFF BASE about the number of people out there who ant <-WANT COLOR on their Mac be it a II or an SE. > This is sure generating a lot of net traffic! MacUser or MacWorld ran an article awhile back about this issue. They claim that it was simply a time/technology issue -- when development on the SE started there was no way that color could be added inexpensively (or a 68020 used) and Apple decided to release the machine this year without rather than delay its introduction another year. The Mac II was seen from the start as a more expensive, lower volume machine that could afford to use color/68020. Anyway, by the time it became clear that color and 68020's could be added at reasonable cost to the SE the project was too far along. They obviously made a good choice since the SE has been a big factor in selling Macs to businesses (a good business choice, that is -- maybe not so good for those of us who want color/68020 at SE prices). This is based on my memory of that article and therefore not necessarily on anything factual! Robert Gardner
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (09/19/87)
If apple had included color quickdraw in the SE's ROM instead of pictures
of the Mac development team, then there would be a way for third
parties to produce color boards for the SE that work with the standard
for Macintosh color applications.
If apple makes color quickdraw available as a supported system
upgrade, on an O.E.M. basis to hardware vendors (in the same way they
already license their system software) then only those people who
bought color boards would give up RAM space for the a RAM version of
color quickdraw. This would even allow color displays to be added to
MacPluses on their SCSI port. This idea is particularly nice since
Color QuickDraw supports multiple displays (drag windows between your
new color screen and the stock macPlus/SE screen.) Apple could even
make a few bucks by legitimizing this market by selling a few high
priced units themselves. How about it Apple?
(I just hope apple does it soon enough that we don't get a rash of
applications that assume that SE's can _never_ have Color QuickDraw
instead of looking at the HasColor field of the SysEnvirons record
like they should.)
--- David Phillip Oster --My Good News: "I'm a perfectionist."
Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --My Bad News: "I don't charge by the hour."
Uucp: {uwvax,decvax,ihnp4}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edufry@huma1.HARVARD.EDU (David Fry) (09/19/87)
In article <20842@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >If apple had included color quickdraw in the SE's ROM instead of pictures >of the Mac development team, then there would be a way for third >parties to produce color boards for the SE that work with the standard >for Macintosh color applications. > >If apple makes color quickdraw available as a supported system >upgrade, on an O.E.M. basis to hardware vendors (in the same way they >already license their system software) then only those people who >bought color boards would give up RAM space for the a RAM version of >color quickdraw. This would even allow color displays to be added to >MacPluses on their SCSI port. This idea is particularly nice since >Color QuickDraw supports multiple displays (drag windows between your >new color screen and the stock macPlus/SE screen.) Apple could even >make a few bucks by legitimizing this market by selling a few high >priced units themselves. How about it Apple? I don't think the Mac II is so expensive that this contorted effort would be cheaper. You'd have to get a color monitor, more RAM and associated electronics and the license for the Quickdraw. Plus, Color Quickdraw would be painfully slow for all but the simplest operations unless a 68020 was included. Why not just get a Mac II then? Remember that the Mac SE and the Mac II were made by separate teams with separate schedules. There was no assurance that Color Quickdraw would have been finished in time for the SE. (Even now, certain aspects of the Color Manager are still badly documented and buggy.) And the high demand of SEs would probably make for 68020 supply problems. And what machine would be left to be cheap and compatible yet still better than the Plus. In short, you can't arrange some miracle deal where you get an SE and color and 68020 for little more than the price of an SE. David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@harvma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (09/19/87)
if you ask why Color QD isn't in the SE ROM's, I would like to
add two other points to the earlier observations:
1) Most (all) of the code was written in 68020 assembler,
so there would be some version control problems if a 68000
version were needed for the SE. That adds more development
time.
2) The code wasn't finished until April or so. It would have
held up the SE, which instead was available for retail
purchase soon after the March announcement.
Since Apple gave us the color Mac we'd been asking for, I'd
be willing to guess it will eventually come out with a lower-
priced color Mac. Given the tenor of the comments I've seen
so far, and Apple's pride in technical workmanship, I'd bet
they stay with a 020 minimum CPU, though.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.comtecot@apple.UUCP (09/20/87)
In article <3905@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: >if you ask why Color QD isn't in the SE ROM's, I would like to >add two other points to the earlier observations: > 1) Most (all) of the code was written in 68020 assembler, > so there would be some version control problems if a 68000 > version were needed for the SE. That adds more development > time. That's right. Also, CQD on a 8MHz 68000 would be VERY slow - it takes advantage of 68020 instructions to do its job faster. I'm sure most color users would not put up with the performance. > 2) The code wasn't finished until April or so. It would have > held up the SE, which instead was available for retail > purchase soon after the March announcement. Absolutely. The SE ROMs were finished more than two months before the completion of CQD. Not a good tradeoff. My notes: A reasonable color system requires at least as much power as a Mac II. The performance considerations are too important. The Mac SE was designed to be 99% compatible or better with the Mac Plus, and putting in a 68020 would have made that impossible. Besides, a color Mac SE would have to retail for close to $5000. For that much money, you may as well get the higher performance machine. _emt
shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro) (09/20/87)
[Is the line eater still out there?] Since we seem to be on the topic of Color Quickdraw and Mac II's, perhaps some kind soul out there can tell me where I can obtain any/all of the following: Documentation for Color QuickDraw Documentation of the new TextEdit stuff (multiple fonts in one TERec?) I want to throw together a couple of hacks (to be shared with various nets, ultimately), but I can't seem to get a hold of any documentation for the Mac II. I have IM Volumes 1-4 and technotes 1 through 154. Did I miss something? Thanks in advance, Jon Shapiro
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (09/20/87)
In article <2851@husc6.UUCP> fry@huma1.UUCP (David Fry) writes: >I don't think the Mac II is so expensive that this contorted >effort would be cheaper. You'd have to get a color monitor, >more RAM and associated electronics and the license for the >Quickdraw. Plus, Color Quickdraw would be painfully slow for >all but the simplest operations unless a 68020 was included. >Why not just get a Mac II then? Ahh, you miss my point. I never assumed that color quickdraw necessarily requires a 68020: The current version of color quickdraw uses 68020 instructions, true, but there is no 68020 instruction that can not be expressed as a sequence of 68000 instructions. And as for cheaper, consider: Imagine you are a hardware vendor of an intelligent graphics coprocessor box. You would like to enter the Macintosh market, but only if it can make you a profit. Your cost to enter the market is the cost to develop the drivers. Your profit depends on your sales. Now, with color quickdraw available on the SE (and as an INIT file on the MacPlus. (like the old "HD20" file that let 64k ROM macs do HFS.)) With color quickdraw available on many different macs, your potential market is much bigger than just MacII owners. This can make the difference between deciding to sell the device, and deciding not to. So, even Mac II owners have a reason to push apple to make Color QuickDraw available in RAM on the SE and the Plus: it will make it easier for 3rd party vendors to justify producing color systems compatible with their Mac. Such an intelligent color subsystem would not be slow: it would recieve messages over, (for compatibility) the SCSI port, and do them using its own processor, so that the Mac's CPU would be free to compute the next graphics call in parallel. But it only makes sense to sell such hardware, if software authors will check for its presence and use it if it exists. Too many of today's color programs don't realize that Pluses and SEs could be retro-fitted with color, and instead of checking for color, they just check whether they are running on a II. Software authors, clean up your act! --- David Phillip Oster --My Good News: "I'm a perfectionist." Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --My Bad News: "I don't charge by the hour." Uucp: {uwvax,decvax,ihnp4}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (09/21/87)
I don't know if David's seen a Mac II in color, but it really isn't
all that fast in 256-color mode. Certainly 4x as slow would be
excruciating as a 128K Mac running a disk-bound program.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.comranson@crcge1.UUCP (D. Ranson CNET) (09/22/87)
One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that the trap table
on the SE is too small to hold ColorQD traps. This rules out CQD on the SE.
Daniel Ranson
...!seismo!mcvax!inria!{crcge1 or cnetlu}!ransonoster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (09/25/87)
In article <2943@crcge1.UUCP> ranson@crcge1.UUCP (D. Ranson CNET) writes: >One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that the trap table >on the SE is too small to hold ColorQD traps. This rules out CQD on the SE. No, it does not. It is easy to expand the trap table: you just replace the trap dispatcher. This canbe done on either the SE or the Plus. (It won't slow the SE any, but it will make the Plus run slower to have the trap dispatcher be in RAM instead of ROM.)
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (09/28/87)
In article <2943@crcge1.UUCP>, ranson@crcge1.UUCP (D. Ranson CNET) writes: > One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that the trap table > on the SE is too small to hold ColorQD traps. This rules out CQD on the SE. Actually, as I noted in my MacTutor article, this rules out CQD without patching the trap dispatcher and/or reworking the size of the trap table. -- Joel West (c/o UCSD) Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083 {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.com