stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) (05/02/90)
I have been following the multitude of complaints about Apple's handing of the Apple // line with considerable interest. What surprises me is the number of people who proclaim the Apple // line as being worth supporting, and then go on to complain about the lack of emergence of the ROM 04 Apple //GS! Aren't these people contradicting themselves? The Apple // series are great machines, regardless of their outdated technology, regardless of their seemingly lack of power compared to the "workhorses" of today. I doubt that very many Apple owners are actually putting their machine to best possible use. Very little software seems to have been written that actually pushes the Apple // to it's limit. What we need is _not_ a new Apple //GS every year with bigger and better features, but more software written that utilises the existing Apple // line as never before. For instance, if I was to ask you if it was possible to write an arcade quality game on a 1 MHz Apple ][+ with a fully animated background that scrolled smoothly up or down at 10 frames per second, how many of you would raise your hand and say it could be done? Well, for those of you who didn't, you will be amazed to learn that it _can_ be done. I've got the code to prove it. This being the case, imagine what I could do on an Apple //GS; the prospects are awesome. Of course, we are not limited to CPU-intensive games here, but I chose this example as most people tend to be more impressed with a computers graphics and sound capabilities than anything else. We have had numerous reports of non-apple users being wowed by the Apple //GS's "modest" speed, "modest" graphics, "modest" sound. So why aren't Apple users happy? Isn't their current machine good enough? I would suggest that it is! Maybe Apple is being a little slow in demonstrating their continuing support for the Apple //. Certainly, it's nice to be able to grab a faster, more impressive machine if it's available, if that's what you want. But I believe that it's more important to recieve the software support for existing //'s than it is to see new hardware on the horizon. All I have is an Apple ][+, and it can do amazing tricks. One day I'll buy an Apple //GS, but I don't really care if it's ROM 03 or ROM n. It will do everything I need a computer to do, and more. Who needs an IBM? Who needs an Amiga? The Apple // is much more user-friendly than those machines, and thankfully not over-user-friendly like a Mac! Isn't that what counts the most? </\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\></\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\> < Philip J. Stephens >< "Many views yield the truth." > < Hons. student, Computer Science >< "Therefore, be not alone." > < La Trobe University, Melbourne >< - Prime Song of the viggies > <\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/><\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/>
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/04/90)
stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) writes: > For instance, if I was to ask you if it was possible to write an arcade >quality game on a 1 MHz Apple ][+ with a fully animated background that >scrolled smoothly up or down at 10 frames per second, how many of you would >raise your hand and say it could be done? Well, for those of you who didn't, >you will be amazed to learn that it _can_ be done. I've got the code to >prove it. Great! But with IIGS Super Hires the BEST you can theoretically do is 30 frames (with a DMA card!) and in software the maximum is about 17 and it isn't that clean. > This being the case, imagine what I could do on an Apple //GS; the prospects >are awesome. They are, it's just that Apple has crippled us with an archaic 1 mhz bottleneck and a brain dead sound interface that takes a lot more CPU work than it should. (Music is not a problem, it's long sounds that gobble the CPU.) > Of course, we are not limited to CPU-intensive games here, but >I chose this example as most people tend to be more impressed with a computers >graphics and sound capabilities than anything else. True, but until a bunch of funamental design flaws in the GS are fixed (and they are so simple that they are practically obvious to hardware folks!) the true potential of the GS will be nowhere near as easy to exploit as the Amiga. (If they ever get some respect they will be a serious threat to both Apple // and Macintosh.) > We have had numerous reports of non-apple users being wowed by the >Apple //GS's "modest" speed, "modest" graphics, "modest" sound. So why aren't >Apple users happy? Isn't their current machine good enough? I would suggest >that it is! It is NOT. It was never good enough to do justice to the desktop, and it barely is now! A properly written set of tools (ORCA/C is what the desktop should be!) would satisfy most of us. However, the fabled 1 mhz bottleneck is putting severe dampers on my supposedly kick-butt fill mode animation system. In the current GS I'll have to pull lousy tricks to get clean animation -- tricks I shouldn't have to pull. > Maybe Apple is being a little slow in demonstrating their continuing support >for the Apple //. Certainly, it's nice to be able to grab a faster, more >impressive machine if it's available, if that's what you want. But I believe >that it's more important to recieve the software support for existing //'s >than it is to see new hardware on the horizon. Problem: the two are linked. Software support is hard to drum up in a market that appears to be dying. Current Rumors of the ROM 04 and 6.0/Hypercard GS would give the GS a real shot in the arm, and might keep it around until something like my //f comes out. If Apple wants to compete in the 90's, they're going to finally have to go for coprocessing hardware like the Amiga's -- but Apple has the chance to do it RIGHT, with full tool support and with specialized parts, none of this 'chip RAM' that every coprocessor has to fight for. A distributed system based on custom gate arrays and specialized IC's is the real answer. Apple has the capability to build such a machine, and I propose one in the Apple //f paper. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) (05/04/90)
In article <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>, toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > >They are, it's just that Apple has crippled us with an archaic 1 mhz bottleneck >and a brain dead sound interface that takes a lot more CPU work than it should. >(Music is not a problem, it's long sounds that gobble the CPU.) > This is true, and I'm not denying that they are definate ways of improving the Apple //GS to make it easier to do greats graphics/sounds/number crunching etc. Hopefully we will get the fabled ROM 04 eventually, and many people _will_ benefit. However, the point I was trying to make is that the low-end Apple ]['s are still viable machines, and nowdays you can get one for a song. For many people, an Apple //e could do absolutely _everything_ they required, provided that the software existed that provided the necessary performance. There is already a good base of such software, but nobody has stretched that machine to it's limits. For some people, a low-end Apple // may be their best chance to own a home computer that can do what they need. I would love an Apple //GS, but I just can't afford one yet, and I won't be able to for at least another 2 years. Meanwhile, I keep on surprising myself on what I can get my Apple ][+ to acheive. With such a large user base installed for the Apple // line, there seems to be a lot of potential going to waste. Does _everyone_ need to upgrade to a ROM 04 Apple //GS or (heaven forbid) a Mac? Of course not. > True, but until a bunch of funamental design flaws in the GS are fixed (and > they are so simple that they are practically obvious to hardware folks!) the > true potential of the GS will be nowhere near as easy to exploit as the Amiga. > ...the fabled 1 mhz bottleneck is > putting severe dampers on my supposedly kick-butt fill mode animation system. > In the current GS I'll have to pull lousy tricks to get clean animation -- > tricks I shouldn't have to pull. Yes, but who said life was meant to be easy? Natually as a programmer, I rejoice when my job is made a little easier by the addition of a blitter or other co-processors. A Commodore 64 is a nice machine as a result of this :-) However, my 10 frame/sec scroller & animator code was a mere 100 lines of macro assembly, and is itself a general-purpose subroutine. I whipped it up in a day. Of course, I've hit the limit of it's capacity in writing that routine, so if I wanted more frames per second I _would_ have to move onto a new platform. Obviously you've hit that limit as well, so I don't blame you for wanting the Apple //f. But not everyone will find themselves in that situation. > Problem: the two are linked. Software support is hard to drum up in a market > that appears to be dying. In terms of current sales, that may be true, but what about all of the thousands of Apple //n owners? Isn't there enough potential for exploiting that market? If some really amazing software came out for the low-end machines, I would expect that those users would snap it up. It may even make them think twice about selling their Apple //n and moving to a rival machine. > If Apple wants to compete in the 90's, they're going to finally have to go for > coprocessing hardware like the Amiga's -- but Apple has the chance to do it > RIGHT, with full tool support and with specialized parts, none of this 'chip > RAM' that every coprocessor has to fight for. A distributed system based on > custom gate arrays and specialized IC's is the real answer. Apple has the > capability to build such a machine, and I propose one in the Apple //f paper. Exactly. I damn well hope that Apple does get the future directions right. But don't forget all those people who have owned an Apple // for many years, and would like to see _their_ machine supported without necessarily having to upgrade. Not everyone needs the computing power of an Amiga or Mac, or even a Apple //GS ROM 03. Maybe one day this won't be true, but I don't think that day has come just yet. An Apple // can do wordprocessing at the required speed. It can run arcade games at the required speed (and damn good one's too). It can run a modem at the necessary speed. It can do many of the standard things that people want a computer to do quite adequately. It can have wods and wods of additional memory added to it, it's got Appleworks which everyone loves... the list goes on and on. Getting their act together in hardware is only one aspect of how Apple needs to be supporting their customers. I hope that in the near future I will be able to contribute to the software support that people are crying out for. There exists the potential to breath new life into the low-end Apple // line that will help a lot of people, and _that's_ what I'm concerned about most at the moment - simply because I'm one of those people. As for yourself, keep up the good work in the hardware vein. The truth is, I'm right behind you! </\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\></\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\> < Philip J. Stephens >< "Many views yield the truth." > < Hons. student, Computer Science >< "Therefore, be not alone." > < La Trobe University, Melbourne >< - Prime Song of the viggies > <\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/><\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/>
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/05/90)
In article <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Great! But with IIGS Super Hires the BEST you can theoretically do is 30 frames >(with a DMA card!) and in software the maximum is about 17 and it isn't that >clean. Standard movie frame rate is only 24 frames per second, and it is sufficient. Faster frame rates get you nothing; the eye doesn't respond that fast.
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/05/90)
stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) writes: > However, the point I was trying to make is that the low-end Apple ]['s are >still viable machines, and nowdays you can get one for a song. For many >people, an Apple //e could do absolutely _everything_ they required, provided >that the software existed that provided the necessary performance. There is >already a good base of such software, but nobody has stretched that machine >to it's limits. For some people, a low-end Apple // may be their best chance >to own a home computer that can do what they need. Damn right! That's one of the points touched on in the intro to //f version 4. Problem is, the prevailing PC marketing paradigms would fight the idea because it is something they are afraid to admit. Apple should hire Laser and give them access to Apple's truly awesome custom chip facilities. The result would be "marvelous and inexpensive workhorses" (to quote myself). Apple may not have the balls to do it but a great Ad campaign for them would be "do you really need a bigger computer that costs more? do you really need a whiz-bang computer when a $___ Apple // can do what you want? advancing technology makes new machines well -- but it makes the old ones better." notice that XT Clones sell on this principle in spite of sales- person greed. (ok, so maybe they shouldn't hire Laser. you get the idea.) Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/05/90)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >Standard movie frame rate is only 24 frames per second, and it is sufficient. >Faster frame rates get you nothing; the eye doesn't respond that fast. For real-world pictures, yes. For animated graphics, NO. When I am paying attention I can tell the difference. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (05/08/90)
In article <12786@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990May3.213048.11195@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>[30fps animation with DMA SCSI, or 17fps in software] > >Standard movie frame rate is only 24 frames per second, and it is sufficient. >Faster frame rates get you nothing; the eye doesn't respond that fast. The key word here is "sufficient". 24fps is sufficient for conveying the sensation of motion...go much lower than this and the movies would start looking like a sequence of still pictures. The human eye can stops noting differences in frame rate over _60_ fps. You can definitely see the difference when you're looking for it, but I'll agree that 24fps is sufficient. Faster would be better! Motion will look smoother and more realistic, particularly for fast-moving objects. -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | "Yargh, cats!" | User Friendly Killing Machines | .............................................................................. I-net: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu - America Online: AFC DaveS (Apple II Art & Graphics)