brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian WILLOUGHBY) (02/02/91)
>(Rick Ewing) writes: >>BTW, how can you pirate *hardware*??? > >You can't! That's why I had the smileys! It's mostly a semi-joke about how >whenever you claim that you lost the manual for something, people assume >that you pirated it. >-- >David Huang | You CAN pirate hardware. I've done it several times. There was the S.A.M. (Software Automatic Mouth) Speech Synthesizer card which was basically a simple 8-bit D/A converter which I built from the schematic in a photocopied manual (BTW, I've never seen this product for sale anywhere). There was also a $900 Theatre Lighting board with 16 channels and the company actually gave away the software as a demo (thinking that the customer would be forced to buy the hardware). The demo was written in Basic and was only protected by a text file which either had "DEMO" in it or not. After creating a text file which enabled the full software, I called up a menu which produced a parts list. Based on the parts list and the assembly language routines called from the Basic program, I was able to design plans for a compatible card (never built the card though, not much use for it). You have to have the ability to do a little redesigning, but it is as much of a price savings as software pirating. The difference is that you do not have to be able to design full blown software apps to pirate software, but you DO have to be able to design fully functional peripherals to pirate hardware. Soapbox Commentary: If clone makers can look at the specs for the IBM PC and redesign it for their own product, is it acceptable to redesign an Apple peripheral and market it as your own product? I don't know, all of my pirated hardware is for personal use only - sort of an exercise in hardware design. I don't feel guilty about my hardware pirating, but I do feel pissed when I catch other companies pirating Apple's stuff. SMT, the makers of the No-Slot Clock, have a 1-Meg Memory Expansion card for the Apple ][. I purchased an unpopulated card for $99, and I was happy to save money compared to Apple's price. Then, when I had some compatibility problems on an Apple ][ Plus with the TransWarp card, I set about to disassemble the ROMs and found that SMT had copied Apple's ROMs. They actually bothered to break up the code into subroutine segments and scramble the ordering, but they went so far as to duplicate Apple's ROM bug in the 1-Meg card (documented in the TechNotes as a harmless error). This really pissed me off to see that SMT had done so little work and was competing with Apple using Apple's code. I did find the bug which caused the 1-Meg card to screw up the TransWarp on the ][ Plus, and came up with a ROM patch to fix it. I even called Applied Engineering and talked to an engineer who felt that they should have a work around in their product. I purchased an official Apple 1-Meg card and it had the same symptom, so I copied the ROM, inserted my patch (same code, different location) and returned the Apple 1-Meg card as incompatible with my system. I feel a little guilty about copying Apple's ROMs, but I'm not selling my patched version. P.S. The ROM had an unused section that would have been mapped to slot 0 except that there is no ROM space for slot 0. Apple's engineer put a cute little message about this product improving mankinds situation. SMT overwrote the cute message with a cold and formal copyright notice. What a bunch of jerks! End Soapbox Commentary. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/04/91)
In the early 80's several far eastern companies pirated Apple's hardware. They were shut down by Apple's legal department (with a little help from the courts). This helped the clone companies copy IBM's design by setting the limits on what is pirating and what is compatible. The projects listed are outright piracy and nothing to be proud of, even the technical expertise required is not much, anyone can wire wrap a circuit from a schematic. Maybe finding an equivalent part might take some work, but nonetheless not difficult. If you want to do something useful, how about a 640x480 resolution video card? Include patches for Quickdraw to use it and insure compatibility modes. Try being creative. Make something new and useful. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (02/04/91)
In article <447@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >In the early 80's several far eastern companies pirated Apple's hardware. They >were shut down by Apple's legal department (with a little help from the >courts). This helped the clone companies copy IBM's design by setting the >limits on what is pirating and what is compatible. I must admit that I have a clone ][+ (my very first computer). It seemed a lot better than the Commodore Vic-20 with 4K RAM, and it wasn't that much more expensive. Unfortunately, it died about 2 years ago, so I got a GS to replace it. It'd be nice if I could get it fixed though... -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/05/91)
In article <447@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >If you want to do something useful, how about a 640x480 resolution video card? >Include patches for Quickdraw to use it and insure compatibility modes. Try >being creative. Make something new and useful. That's a constructive suggestion, but I would modify it to: How about either a "frame grabber" to work in conjunction with Apple's VOC (which is already a 640x480 video card), or a "frame buffer" that supports 640x480x8 (the 8-bit deep pixel is the key point), again set up to work in conjunction with the VOC (perhaps also without it). The system software mods to support the VOC in 640x480 mode would be wonderful, too. Apple's VOC (Video Overlay Card) is a really nice piece of hardware, although it's sort of a pity that there wasn't any way to add its capabilities into a IIGS without duplicating essentially all the IIGS video circuitry on the VOC card. (Obviously that was necessary for use in a //e.) I hope that as information about the VOC spreads, there will be more software support for it.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/05/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >a "frame grabber" to work in conjunction with Apple's VOC (which is already a >640x480 video card), nitpick time... that's 640x400. >deep pixel is the key point), again set up to work in conjunction with the >VOC (perhaps also without it). The system software mods to support the VOC >in 640x480 mode would be wonderful, too. Convincing Quickdraw to support 16 colors at a nice size like that SHOULD be trivial, and would be quite adequate! A lot of spiffy things can be done with VRAMs and a little ingenuity -- if TI had sampled me six 44c251's last year I might have finished a 768x512 4096-color frame buffer/grabber by now. Since those chips are in real production quantities now, I might be able to get samples if I try again. >Apple's VOC (Video Overlay Card) is a really nice piece of hardware, although >it's sort of a pity that there wasn't any way to add its capabilities into >a IIGS without duplicating essentially all the IIGS video circuitry on the There was and there is. Take about half the digital stuff on the VOC and cram it all into a _BIG_ ASIC chip driving some VRAMs -- some of it goes away just because you're using VRAMs. Opinions as to why this wasn't done are not really fit for discussion here. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (02/06/91)
From gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn): > In article <447@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) > writes: > >> If you want to do something useful, how about a 640x480 resolution video >> card? Include patches for Quickdraw to use it and insure compatibility >> modes. Try being creative. Make something new and useful. > > That's a constructive suggestion, but I would modify it to: How about > either a "frame grabber" to work in conjunction with Apple's VOC (which > is already a 640x480 video card) I think you meant to say '640x400' resolution with the VOC. I assume the VOC can direct the video signal into the Apple RGB monitor? Wouldn't that imply that the standard GS monitor is capable of displaying 400 lines of resolution? Or is that 400 fuzzy, flickering lines of resolution? > or a "frame buffer" that supports 640x480x8 (the 8-bit deep pixel is > the key point), again set up to work in conjunction with the VOC > (perhaps also without it). The system software mods to support the > VOC in 640x480 mode would be wonderful, too. Do you know what happened to Synnovision? They had a product two years ago called TurboRez which boosted the GS' resolution to 320x200x4096 (no palette switching needed) or 640x400x16. What happened to them? Last I heard, people were complaining that it wasn't QuickDraw II compatible, so maybe they scrapped the whole project. A video card with 320x200x8-bit colour shouldn't be too difficult. As long as you don't exceed 200 lines, you can add as many colours as you need. With 16 palettes of 256 colours each, all 4096 colours can be placed on screen without CPU-intensive palette-swapping. Since you only have 320 pixels per line, you can essentially place any colour anywhere on the screen. Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/07/91)
In article <458@generic.UUCP> taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: > I think you meant to say '640x400' resolution with the VOC. Yes, sorry. >I assume the VOC can direct the video signal into the Apple RGB monitor? >Wouldn't that imply that the standard GS monitor is capable of displaying >400 lines of resolution? Or is that 400 fuzzy, flickering lines of >resolution? In any of the 400-line modes, the VOC uses alternate-frame interlacing. On my Apple RGB monitor, the image is fairly goos at 400 lines. If there are one-pixel-high horizontal lines, they do tend to flicker, because the monitor phosphor persistence is not long enough. I haven't found it to be much of a problem for things like displaying digitized photos etc. >Do you know what happened to Synnovision? Nope. >... people were complaining that it wasn't QuickDraw II compatible ... That certainly is a problem, given the almost total reliance on QuickDraw that Apple has encouraged. >A video card with 320x200x8-bit colour shouldn't be too difficult. But what would be the point? You might as well stick to the stock IIGS for that.
kpopple@imp.sim.es.com (Ken Poppleton) (02/08/91)
> In article <458@generic.UUCP> taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: > > >... people were complaining that it wasn't QuickDraw II compatible ... > > That certainly is a problem, given the almost total reliance on QuickDraw > that Apple has encouraged. > I have been considering developing a VGA resolution display card for the Apple. But now I need to know what the requirements would be for QuickDraw compatability? What are the requirements for QuickDraw? I have not determined the exact resolution, but what would be needed and at what price. VRAMs would make the design easy and small, but raise the cost alot! So what would YOU pay for a 768x640x8 video card, or a 1024x768x8 or how about x16 or x24 bit color? What would frame capture capability add to its function? Please reply to me directly at kpopple@sim.es.com or utah-cs!esunix!kpopple ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ideas and comments are mine and mine only. Ken Poppleton kpopple@sim.es.com
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (02/09/91)
From gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn): >>A video card with 320x200x8-bit colour shouldn't be too difficult. > > But what would be the point? You might as well stick to the stock IIGS > for that. But you have to do some non-trivial CLUT manipulating to get 256 colours onscreen. You still only get 16 colours on a line, and that's the restriction. By extension, 320x200x8 would translate to 640x200x4 graphics (memory-wise), and we could have 16 REAL colours in the Finder, AWGS, etc. instead of the confusing dithered palette. Of course, what would be really nice is simply to allocate 2 bytes per pixel, and you could put all 4096 colours on-screen, anywhere you want, no restrictions, and you wouldn't have to worry about palettes or SCB's. Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
wilker@gauss.math.purdue.edu (Clarence Wilkerson) (02/10/91)
A few companies used to sell blank expansion cards to be stuffed by the buyer with parts. Has anyone seen such ads recently? Clarence Wilkerson
scott@brnded.ne1300.ingr.com (new user) (02/13/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <447@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >>If you want to do something useful, how about a 640x480 resolution video card? >>Include patches for Quickdraw to use it and insure compatibility modes. Try >>being creative. Make something new and useful. >That's a constructive suggestion, but I would modify it to: How about either >a "frame grabber" to work in conjunction with Apple's VOC (which is already a >640x480 video card), or a "frame buffer" that supports 640x480x8 (the 8-bit >deep pixel is the key point), again set up to work in conjunction with the >VOC (perhaps also without it). The system software mods to support the VOC >in 640x480 mode would be wonderful, too. >Apple's VOC (Video Overlay Card) is a really nice piece of hardware, although >it's sort of a pity that there wasn't any way to add its capabilities into >a IIGS without duplicating essentially all the IIGS video circuitry on the >VOC card. (Obviously that was necessary for use in a //e.) I hope that as >information about the VOC spreads, there will be more software support for it. This might not be too relevant, but what the heck... When the VOC was first introduced, Digital Vision (ComputerEyes) had a plug-in digitizer that used the VOC bus. It was never marketed because it didn't offer much more than their current entries in the digitizer market. My own ideal system for such a thing is using the VOC in conjunction with a plug-in (VOC bus) frame grabber/TV tuner. I really think this would be a hot item. Additionally, I'd like to see direct Laser Disc access included in any video product on the market. I don't normally like to blow my own horn (yeah right!) but future versions of Allison are going to support the VOC and Laser Disc players (directly... RS-232 connection, stream digitizing, etc.). I have the VOC already but now I need to get my grubs on a good, generally accepted Laser Disc player. TurboRez... good idea... Bill St. Pierre is working on a "third" prototype board. It looks like he's going for a very much lower cost alternative to the projected $500 add-on card he originally designed. This is first-hand information directly from Bill. Don't get your hopes up, though. Quickdraw is still owned by Apple and any interface to enhance the graphic capability of a IIGS might just never be able to use the tools as provided by Apple. There may not be enough capital to get this product off the ground as well. Capital was the main problem previous versions never made it past prototype. -- ******************************************************************************* * W. Scott Gentry | uucp: uunet!ingr!ne1300!brnded!scott | I didn't * * Intergraph Corporation| America Online: AFL Scott | mean it! * * Reston, VA | GEnie: W.GENTRY | Honest!! *
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (02/13/91)
From scott@brnded.ne1300.ingr.com (new user): > TurboRez... good idea... Bill St. Pierre is working on a "third" prototype > board. It looks like he's going for a very much lower cost alternative > to the projected $500 add-on card he originally designed. This is first- > hand information directly from Bill. Don't get your hopes up, though. > Quickdraw is still owned by Apple and any interface to enhance the graphic > capability of a IIGS might just never be able to use the tools as provided > by Apple. What?!?!? I know that QuickDraw II is proprietary to Apple, but how come that didn't stop the multitude of third-party Macintosh video cards, ALL of which are QuickDraw-compatible? Is this another case of a double-standard at Apple, Inc.??? :( Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/13/91)
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: > What?!?!? I know that QuickDraw II is proprietary to Apple, but how come >that didn't stop the multitude of third-party Macintosh video cards, ALL of >which are QuickDraw-compatible? Is this another case of a double-standard at >Apple, Inc.??? :( No. When Apple designed the Mac II NuBus they realized that modular video was important if the Mac was to become a serious business & industry machine. They came up with a rigidly defined standard for identifying video cards and their resolutions and for replacing the pixel map that is used as the screen. Apple has made NO such attempt with GS Quickdraw, in fact they have even put little hacks in that assume the existing video buffer setup. The research I have done so far indicates that supporting larger bitmaps with the same color scheme would be doable but dependent on just how many applications make icky assumptions (and how many tools :( ). Supporting 8 bit video from GS Quickdraw is hopeless unless Apple does it. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.053657.15997@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Apple has made NO such attempt with GS Quickdraw, in fact they have even put >little hacks in that assume the existing video buffer setup. The research I >have done so far indicates that supporting larger bitmaps with the same >color scheme would be doable but dependent on just how many applications make >icky assumptions (and how many tools :( ). I would be happy just to have support for the interlaced 640x400 VOC mode. A larger desktop would help me A LOT. >Supporting 8 bit video from GS Quickdraw is hopeless unless Apple does it. Actually any extensions to the tool sets are hopeless unless Apple supports them. Nobody in his right mind is going to try to market products that require the customer to replace Apple tool sets with third-party hacked versions.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/14/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I would be happy just to have support for the interlaced 640x400 VOC mode. >A larger desktop would help me A LOT. Yeah, but it'd flicker unbearably unless you have a better monitor (like mine, which was originally for the DEC Rainbow). >Actually any extensions to the tool sets are hopeless unless Apple >supports them. Nobody in his right mind is going to try to market >products that require the customer to replace Apple tool sets with >third-party hacked versions. Get real. Patching tool sets is the Apple supported way for third parties to enhance the system. The FPE replaces most of the SANE tool set with code that accesses the coprocessor card, resulting in transparent acceleration of nearly all SANE operations. The Fastext init replaces certain text tool calls with code that runs far faster than the firmware. The issue I am talking about when it comes to 8 bit color is the problem of programs (or worse, tool calls) which assume the existing color scheme and fail to work properly when that scheme is changed... Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu