Apple IIGS monitor replacement
limtc
Now I get my system disk for my GS, I am faced with another problem:
the LCD TV is not suitable for anything 640 mode or 80 column - - they
looks like double hires! If you still remember double hires, basically
it is 560x192 monochrome or 140x192 with 16 colors... so basically
when you show a DHR mono image (says Instant Pascal) on a color
monitor, it is just color everywhere and looks very bad.
Surpringingly my PowerMac 7200/120 monitor (which is a 14" I think),
display Apple IIGS graphics on 640x480 mode using Bernie PERFECTLY.
Now I wonder why there are all talks to use GS on a VGA monitor, etc,
but not to a Mac monitor? This is the closest to a GS experience I
think. At least Mac monitor might be easier to locate than GS monitor.
I will be glad to use 7200/120 for my GS if it is indeed possible.
Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
magnusfalkirk
Thye Chean,
Actually you can't use a Mac monitor with the GS. From what I remember
reading in other posts about the GS monitor it uses a 15KHz signal on
the RGB and there are not that many monitors that will accept that.
Why Apple didn't decide to make the GS compatible with Mac monitors is
a good question. Here's a list of monitors that will work with the
GS:
AppleColor RGB Monitor replacement (model A2M6014, the IIgs monitor)
Commodore 1084 models and equivalents like the Magnavox Professional
80
Sony CPD 1302 MultiSynch
NEC MultiSync (original), MultiSync II, MultiSync 3D
Commodore 1902 (although most of these only do digital RGB)
Tandy CM-8 (not sure about model but it was used with the Coco3)
Atari SC1224 (used with the ST series)
Some TVs
Dean
Apple II Forever
my more portable Apple IIc http://blackfletch.freeservers.com/appleIIc.htm
Michael J. Mahon
> Hi,
>
> Now I get my system disk for my GS, I am faced with another problem:
> the LCD TV is not suitable for anything 640 mode or 80 column - - they
> looks like double hires! If you still remember double hires, basically
> it is 560x192 monochrome or 140x192 with 16 colors... so basically
> when you show a DHR mono image (says Instant Pascal) on a color
> monitor, it is just color everywhere and looks very bad.
Since there's no easy way to put the IIgs into mono mode, how about
using the monitor's menus to turn down the color to get mono?
I know you'd prefer color *and* sharp text, but it won't happen
with composite video...
> Surpringingly my PowerMac 7200/120 monitor (which is a 14" I think),
> display Apple IIGS graphics on 640x480 mode using Bernie PERFECTLY.
> Now I wonder why there are all talks to use GS on a VGA monitor, etc,
> but not to a Mac monitor? This is the closest to a GS experience I
> think. At least Mac monitor might be easier to locate than GS monitor.
> I will be glad to use 7200/120 for my GS if it is indeed possible.
That's the emulator. The display won't work with a IIgs at all.
The scan rates are wrong.
> Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
No, but you can put you monitor into monochrome mode...
-michael
NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
magnusfalkirk
> Hi,
> Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...? ---
> Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
Thye Chean,
I tried answering this earlier on Google Groups, but apparently my response
got eaten by the Internet gods. Unfortunately you can't use a Mac monitor with
a GS. From what I remember of other GS monitor discussions the GS uses Analog
RGB and the signal is 15Khz. There are very few monitors that accept that sort
of signal. Why Apple didn't decide to make it easy to use a Mac monitor with
the GS is a good question. Here is a list of other monitors that will work
with the GS: In fact here's a part of a FAQ relating to monitors for the GS:
015- Which monitors and adapters can I use to replace my IIgs monitor?
You should keep an eye out for any analog RGB monitor that can horizontally
sync down to 15.75 kHz. These include:
AppleColor RGB Monitor replacement (model A2M6014, the IIgs monitor) Commodore
1084 models and equivalents like the Magnavox Professional 80
Sony CPD 1302 MultiSynch
NEC MultiSync (original), MultiSync II, MultiSync 3D
Commodore 1902 (although most of these only do digital RGB)
Tandy CM-8 (not sure about model but it was used with the Coco3)
Atari SC1224 (used with the ST series)
Some TVs
Just my two cents worth,
Dean
Apple II Forever!
My more portable Apple IIc: http://blackfletch.freeservers.com/appleIIc.htm
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
A2Central.com - Your total source for Apple II computing.
Mitchell Spector
>Now I get my system disk for my GS, I am faced with another problem:
>the LCD TV is not suitable for anything 640 mode or 80 column - - they
>looks like double hires! If you still remember double hires, basically
>it is 560x192 monochrome or 140x192 with 16 colors... so basically
>when you show a DHR mono image (says Instant Pascal) on a color
>monitor, it is just color everywhere and looks very bad.
What you're seeing is color shifting or artificating, an idiosyncrasy
of composite video. It doesn't necessarily mean what the Apple IIgs
is displaying is normal for composite--far from it. Look at other systems
displaying 320x200 with hundreds or thousands of colors in its palette
(e.g. Amiga, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Sega Gensis/Saturn); with
their composite output there's NO problem.
I believe it's a flaw in the video design of the IIgs. RGB video is fine,
but composite is a mess (excluding emulated 8-bit Apple IIe video).
Apple did quietly offer a solution/fix, that was to purchase and install
their Video Overlay Card. You get respectable composite video with
that, without any of the massive color shifting and color inaccuracies.
I took some quick snapshots to (roughly) show the difference:
Apple IIgs composite-out (built-in port):
http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-composite.jpg
Apple IIgs composite-out (Video Overlay Card):
http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-VOC.jpg
Apple IIgs RGB-out (AppleColor RGB):
http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-RGB.jpg
Sorry about the poor quality, this is my Sony 27" TV set from 1989
snapped with a cheap digital camera. Notice how the Video Overlay
card output gives you readable text in the Finder desktop. And
although you can't see it here, it's also more accurate for color.
Obviously the RGB monitor is the nicest output of all.
>Surpringingly my PowerMac 7200/120 monitor (which is a 14" I think),
>display Apple IIGS graphics on 640x480 mode using Bernie PERFECTLY.
This is because it's software emulation, it's no different from looking
at a static JPEG image on your Macintosh in Photoshop for MacOS.
You're looking at the Macintosh generate a *simulated* picture video
of what an Apple IIgs looks like, it's not the real thing.
>Now I wonder why there are all talks to use GS on a VGA monitor, etc,
>but not to a Mac monitor? This is the closest to a GS experience I
>think. At least Mac monitor might be easier to locate than GS monitor.
>I will be glad to use 7200/120 for my GS if it is indeed possible.
They're the same technology, a Macintosh monitor *is* a VGA monitor
more or less. The only difference (generally) is the pin connector, which
is why I can hook up a PC display to a Mac with a pin adapter, or visa-
versa.
The Apple IIgs won't work with a Mac or PC monitor though because
their scan frequency is double or more what the IIgs outputs at, and
they cannot synchronize down (slow their scanning frequency) to match
the GS. There are older VGA displays that are backwards compatible to
15.75 kHz (what the IIgs requires), I have a NEC MultiSync 3D and a
Sony CPD-1302 that work on my Apple IIgs's, Macintoshes and PC's!
I really should get rid of one, I don't have much storage space anymore.
The NEC and Sony monitors work nicely, but I find their colors aren't
as rich as the AppleColor RGB. Mind you, they are much sharper and
of course larger too. The dithering in the 640 mode is a more noticable
(you can see the patterns making up colors, they're not solid anymore)
but at least you get rounded pixels. The Second Sight video card on
the other hand gives you those ugly square looking pixels you used to
see in PC games in the early 90's, although that's the least of its problems!
>Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
Absolutely. Go into the Control Panel, choose the 'Display' option.
Under "Type:" switch it to 'Monochrome'. This *only* has an affect on
composite output, it does absolutely nothing to an RGB display.
On a color composite display (like a television set), everything will
show up in black and white. If you use it on a monochrome display,
such as an Apple Monitor II or ///, you get colors displayed in 16
shades of green or amber. As opposed to ugly line patterns. Hope
that helps you in the meantime.
Mitchell Spector
Michael Black
> I tried answering this earlier on Google Groups, but apparently my response
> got eaten by the Internet gods. Unfortunately you can't use a Mac monitor with
> a GS. From what I remember of other GS monitor discussions the GS uses Analog
> RGB and the signal is 15Khz. There are very few monitors that accept that sort
> of signal. Why Apple didn't decide to make it easy to use a Mac monitor with
> the GS is a good question. Here is a list of other monitors that will work
> with the GS: In fact here's a part of a FAQ relating to monitors for the GS:
>
When the Apple IIGS was introduced, a quick check says 1986, there were
no VGA monitors (a quick check there says 1987).
Back in 1986, there were still a lot of NTSC monitors, be they composite
or RGB. They were common because there were still lots of computers that
used them, the "IBM PC" not completely taking over the computer world, and
of course you could get NTSC monitors because that's what TV is.
Note that circa 1986, the Mac didn't use a VGA monitor either, it was
an odd intermediate set of sync frequencies.
Even when the VGA standard was introduced, it would have taken some
years for it to become common, so even if the introduction of VGA had
proceeded the IIGS by enough for the computer to include VGA output
in its design, it would have been too early to know that it would
become the standard and cheap and plentiful. Remember, before VGA,
there was CGA, and monochrome, and EGA for the "IBM PC", every one of them
requiring a different IBM board to use the monitor with. It's only
in looking back that one can decide that VGA was a keeper.
ANd of course, the problem isn't that the IIGS didn't output VGA, it's
that the design is over twenty years old now, so what was easy to
get back then may no longer be the case. But history doesn't intend
to be historical, so it didn't matter at the time what was used in
the IIGS.
Michael
MdntTrain
> Now I get my system disk for my GS, I am faced with another problem:
> the LCD TV is not suitable for anything 640 mode or 80 column
What LCDTV are you using? Does it have a SCART input?
> Now I wonder why there are all talks to use GS on a VGA monitor, etc,
> but not to a Mac monitor? This is the closest to a GS experience I
> think. At least Mac monitor might be easier to locate than GS monitor.
I myself use a Dell 780P (a Sony Trinitron in disguise), but some Mac
monitors that conform to true VGA specs can be connected to the IIgs
via an RGB->VGA converter. I've tried it. They work as would any
other VGA monitor. But many older DB15 Mac monitors are really not
VGA at all.. being fixed frequency, or even if multisync, just not
behaving at all with a both a VGA adapter + converter.
> Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
There's two ways I can think of... the one Mitchell describes, plus
also one in hardware. The IIgs has a color killer circuit normally
controlled by its big video chip within the composite chroma chain..
you can trigger it manually if you wire up a switch. I don't
recommend doing this unless you have and can understand the schematic.
JS
Michael J. Mahon
>
> I believe it's a flaw in the video design of the IIgs. RGB video is fine,
> but composite is a mess (excluding emulated 8-bit Apple IIe video).
> Apple did quietly offer a solution/fix, that was to purchase and install
> their Video Overlay Card. You get respectable composite video with
> that, without any of the massive color shifting and color inaccuracies.
>
> I took some quick snapshots to (roughly) show the difference:
>
> Apple IIgs composite-out (built-in port):
> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-composite.jpg
>
> Apple IIgs composite-out (Video Overlay Card):
> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-VOC.jpg
>
> Apple IIgs RGB-out (AppleColor RGB):
> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-RGB.jpg
These are very interesting. I've never seen a IIgs hooked up to
a composite monitor, so it's interesting to see how the 8MHz and
16MHz dot clock affect it.
> Sorry about the poor quality, this is my Sony 27" TV set from 1989
> snapped with a cheap digital camera. Notice how the Video Overlay
> card output gives you readable text in the Finder desktop. And
> although you can't see it here, it's also more accurate for color.
> Obviously the RGB monitor is the nicest output of all.
Taking photos of CRT monitors is always problematic, because for
common shutter speeds, the screen is refreshed about once and a
fraction times, causing big differences in exposure on one side
of the fractional refresh or the other.
The key to "pretty good" CRT photos is to use a slow shutter speed
(and, of course, close the aperture to maintain correct exposure).
A shutter speed around 1/15 sec will delive about 4 refreshes at 60Hz,
which means that the "edges" of the refresh will only differ in exposure
by 25%--usually tolerable. 1/10 of a second, or even 1/4 second
work even better, but require either a tripod or a stable support
to prevent blurring.
<snip>
>>Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
>
>
> Absolutely. Go into the Control Panel, choose the 'Display' option.
> Under "Type:" switch it to 'Monochrome'. This *only* has an affect on
> composite output, it does absolutely nothing to an RGB display.
That's good--I wasn't sure that the IIgs could do that.
limtc
Are you sure this works? This seem to affect only text not graphics.
Mitchell Spector
>Mitchell Spector wrote:
>>
>> I believe it's a flaw in the video design of the IIgs. RGB video is fine,
>> but composite is a mess (excluding emulated 8-bit Apple IIe video).
>> Apple did quietly offer a solution/fix, that was to purchase and install
>> their Video Overlay Card. You get respectable composite video with
>> that, without any of the massive color shifting and color inaccuracies.
>>
>> I took some quick snapshots to (roughly) show the difference:
>>
>> Apple IIgs composite-out (built-in port):
>> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-composite.jpg
>>
>> Apple IIgs composite-out (Video Overlay Card):
>> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-VOC.jpg
>>
>> Apple IIgs RGB-out (AppleColor RGB):
>> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-RGB.jpg
>
>These are very interesting. I've never seen a IIgs hooked up to
>a composite monitor, so it's interesting to see how the 8MHz and
>16MHz dot clock affect it.
I put them side by side (the left half of the screen), it gives you
an even better comparison. You can see how the Video Overlay
Card does it's aliasing, the text is slightly blurred but the trade off
is the color shifting is far less visible:
http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/Video%20comparison.JPG
>>>Or is there a way to force the GS to display 640 mode in monochrome...?
>>
>> Absolutely. Go into the Control Panel, choose the 'Display' option.
>> Under "Type:" switch it to 'Monochrome'. This *only* has an affect on
>> composite output, it does absolutely nothing to an RGB display.
>
>That's good--I wasn't sure that the IIgs could do that.
It essentially acts like the monochrome switch on the color displays
Apple sold for the IIe and IIc. Everything goes into black and white
(or shades of grey for native GS graphics)--*all* video modes on a
composite display.
For text modes it won't change, they're always displayed in greys
on a composite display, regardless of what is set in the Control Panel.
Border will display in color, but only in graphic modes. With the mono-
chrome setting active, then even that will display in greys along with
everything else.
Mitchell Spector
heuser...@freenet.de
>
> Even when the VGA standard was introduced, it would have taken some
> years for it to become common, so even if the introduction of VGA had
> proceeded the IIGS by enough for the computer to include VGA output
> in its design, it would have been too early to know that it would
> become the standard and cheap and plentiful. Remember, before VGA,
> there was CGA, and monochrome, and EGA for the "IBM PC", every one of them
> requiring a different IBM board to use the monitor with. It's only
> in looking back that one can decide that VGA was a keeper.
That's correct. VGA is pretty much the only "standard" surviving
the Microchannel-Architecture debacle (which had no mega-
success for years) and it really got a push when the boards
became widely and *cheaply* available from third-party producers
- like the Tseng ET3000 and especially ET4000-based boards.
> ANd of course, the problem isn't that the IIGS didn't output VGA, it's
> that the design is over twenty years old now, so what was easy to
> get back then may no longer be the case. But history doesn't intend
> to be historical, so it didn't matter at the time what was used in
> the IIGS.
I remember reading that Apple didn't want to use 400-line
monitors for the GS for several reasons (upgrade path for
Apple II users, higher resolutions being reserved for the Mac).
bye
Marcus
limtc
choice in that situation. Considered the most popular platforms at
that time (I might get some facts wrong, this is just what I
remembered):
- Apple IIGS: support 640x200 resolution, color, no flicker
- Amiga: support 640x400 resolution, color, flicker like crazy
- Atari ST: support 640x400 resolution, monochrome, or 640x200
resolution, color, no flicker
- Macintosh: support 512x384 resolution, monochrome, no flicker
Higher resolution color monitor is very expensive at that time.
Mitchell Spector
>On Apr 29, 2:00 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> ANd of course, the problem isn't that the IIGS didn't output VGA, it's
>> that the design is over twenty years old now, so what was easy to
>> get back then may no longer be the case. But history doesn't intend
>> to be historical, so it didn't matter at the time what was used in
>> the IIGS.
Interestingly enough, the Macintosh II was introduced 6 months
after the Apple IIgs and supported a VGA-type mode with it's NuBus
card (640x480 with 256 colors out of 16.7 million). The IIgs doesn't
pre-date VGA graphics by _that_ much.
>I remember reading that Apple didn't want to use 400-line
>monitors for the GS for several reasons (upgrade path for
>Apple II users, higher resolutions being reserved for the Mac).
What I recall was the cost of non-interlaced monitors being very
costly back then, so Apple reasoned it made no sense supporting
more than 640x200 in the GS's hardware. Ironically, the AppleColor
RGB was *still* very expensive, and, does support 640x400 interlace.
As a matter of fact if you have a Video Overlay Card (which duplicates
the same VGC video chipset from the IIgs) you can display 640x400
on the AppleColor RGB as-is. Made me wonder why Apple couldn't
at least update the GS to display interlace video if its companion
display supported it. If the VOC did it, how difficult would it be for
the ROM 3?
It would've been doable to produce an updated VGC that could
support 640x400 with 256 colors by 1987-88 (there were rumours
it had been done even) but if you updated the GS Finder to make
use of that mode, you'd have an exact duplicate of the Macintosh
Finder. Probably why Apple never updated the GS's video...or it's
speed for that matter.
Mitchell Spector
Bryan Parkoff
> What I recall was the cost of non-interlaced monitors being very
> costly back then, so Apple reasoned it made no sense supporting
> more than 640x200 in the GS's hardware. Ironically, the AppleColor
> RGB was *still* very expensive, and, does support 640x400 interlace.
> As a matter of fact if you have a Video Overlay Card (which duplicates
> the same VGC video chipset from the IIgs) you can display 640x400
> on the AppleColor RGB as-is. Made me wonder why Apple couldn't
> at least update the GS to display interlace video if its companion
> display supported it. If the VOC did it, how difficult would it be for
> the ROM 3?
Apple IIe emulation card from Macintosh LCII and Video Overlay Card have
the same video modes of RGB like Apple IIgs' Mega II chip and VGC chip. Do
HGR and DHGR look same in RGB screen? ARe you sure?
Bryan Parkoff
Michael J. Mahon
There are two problems with this approach.
First, interlaced displays produce very bad small-detail flicker,
since adjacent lines are refreshed on alternate fields. This makes
it a non-starter for text displays unless a long-persistence phosphor
is used--and that makes for terrible motion smear.
Second, doubling the vertical resolution requires doubling the size
of all video frame buffers--something that is completely out of the
question for Apple II compatibility.
SHR is a kind of nod in that direction, and completely different from
the Apple II video design, but they chose to use the doubled frame
buffer size to increase color depth, not resolution--a very reasonable
choice given the tradeoffs.
To both increase depth *and* double vertical resolution would have
required quadrupling the frame buffer size--essentially dedicating
a "bank" of IIgs memory space to each "pair" of buffers. (Of course,
this would be completely untenable in Apple II-compatibility mode.)
> It would've been doable to produce an updated VGC that could
> support 640x400 with 256 colors by 1987-88 (there were rumours
> it had been done even) but if you updated the GS Finder to make
> use of that mode, you'd have an exact duplicate of the Macintosh
> Finder. Probably why Apple never updated the GS's video...or it's
> speed for that matter.
Given the atmosphere at Apple in the late 1980s, I find it very
believable that there was a real desire to keep the IIgs out of
the Mac's competitive neighborhood.
Michael J. Mahon
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mitchell Spector wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it's a flaw in the video design of the IIgs. RGB video is fine,
>>>but composite is a mess (excluding emulated 8-bit Apple IIe video).
>>>Apple did quietly offer a solution/fix, that was to purchase and install
>>>their Video Overlay Card. You get respectable composite video with
>>>that, without any of the massive color shifting and color inaccuracies.
>>>
>>>I took some quick snapshots to (roughly) show the difference:
>>>
>>>Apple IIgs composite-out (built-in port):
>>>http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-composite.jpg
>>>
>>>Apple IIgs composite-out (Video Overlay Card):
>>>http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-VOC.jpg
>>>
>>>Apple IIgs RGB-out (AppleColor RGB):
>>>http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/IIgs-RGB.jpg
>>
>>These are very interesting. I've never seen a IIgs hooked up to
>>a composite monitor, so it's interesting to see how the 8MHz and
>>16MHz dot clock affect it.
>
>
> I put them side by side (the left half of the screen), it gives you
> an even better comparison. You can see how the Video Overlay
> Card does it's aliasing, the text is slightly blurred but the trade off
> is the color shifting is far less visible:
>
> http://raptor.golden.net/~mspector/Video%20comparison.JPG
Very nice picture--I'm filing it for future reference!
Michael J. Mahon
>>Now I get my system disk for my GS, I am faced with another problem:
>>the LCD TV is not suitable for anything 640 mode or 80 column
>
>
> What LCDTV are you using? Does it have a SCART input?
>
>
>
>>Now I wonder why there are all talks to use GS on a VGA monitor, etc,
>>but not to a Mac monitor? This is the closest to a GS experience I
>>think. At least Mac monitor might be easier to locate than GS monitor.
>
>
> I myself use a Dell 780P (a Sony Trinitron in disguise), but some Mac
> monitors that conform to true VGA specs can be connected to the IIgs
> via an RGB->VGA converter. I've tried it. They work as would any
> other VGA monitor. But many older DB15 Mac monitors are really not
> VGA at all.. being fixed frequency, or even if multisync, just not
> behaving at all with a both a VGA adapter + converter.
IIRC, the older Mac monitors used a scanning frequency that was
unique to Apple, and incompatible with VGA.
Scott Alfter
<heuser...@freenet.de> wrote:
>I remember reading that Apple didn't want to use 400-line
>monitors for the GS for several reasons (upgrade path for
>Apple II users, higher resolutions being reserved for the Mac).
The explanation I recall from back then was that they would've had to switch
to interlaced video, and they didn't want to do that because it'd flicker
too much.
Supposedly you can enable 320x400 or 640x400 interlaced modes on a Video
Overlay Card, but I've never used one of those.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
MdntTrain
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, it is handy. Now all it needs is the S-Video rendition in
between the OVLC and RGB versions.... Work on that, will you,
Mitchell? ;-)
JS
rob
<mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Given the atmosphere at Apple in the late 1980s, I find it very
>believable that there was a real desire to keep the IIgs out of
>the Mac's competitive neighborhood.
Well if that was the case then why did Apple release its first color
GUI on the IIgs as well as ADB ?
Michael J. Mahon
The IIgs was already color-capable hardware, and they had much
earlier decided to release a "desktop" interface to prepare the
way for the Mac in schools. Perhaps they thought that the color
Mac would ship sooner. ;-)
Of course, "release" of GSOS was not exactly done with fanfare
befitting the first color GUI, either--more like it "shipped".
WRT the use of ADB, that was simply a cost-saving and product
line rationalization measure--one less keyboard to outsource.
No ballyhooing of customer value accompanied its release with
the IIgs.
There were clearly opposing forces operating within Apple. The
Apple II group wanted to push the platform as far and as fast
as possible, while the rest of Apple regarded the continuing
success of the Apple II as a windfall that could end at any
moment. They were hell-bent to focus on the Mac and were
uninterested in spending money on the terminal Apple II line
(whose remaining strategic role was to hold the education
market until the Mac took its place).
In almost every case, corporate Apple got its way; but a few
nice things were slipped out the door by the ingenious Apple II
group--often in the guise of leveraging Mac developments (like
the SuperDrive controller ;-).
rob
<mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>rob wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:24:46 -0700, "Michael J. Mahon"
>> <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Given the atmosphere at Apple in the late 1980s, I find it very
>>>believable that there was a real desire to keep the IIgs out of
>>>the Mac's competitive neighborhood.
>>
>>
>> Well if that was the case then why did Apple release its first color
>> GUI on the IIgs as well as ADB ?
>
>The IIgs was already color-capable hardware, and they had much
>earlier decided to release a "desktop" interface to prepare the
>way for the Mac in schools. Perhaps they thought that the color
>Mac would ship sooner. ;-)
So the IIgs got their first with color. Macs didn't get color until
the Mac II line shipped in 1987.
>Of course, "release" of GSOS was not exactly done with fanfare
>befitting the first color GUI, either--more like it "shipped".
I guess it was somewhat usable although it didn't resemble the
functionality of GSOS 6.0.x .
>WRT the use of ADB, that was simply a cost-saving and product
>line rationalization measure--one less keyboard to outsource.
>No ballyhooing of customer value accompanied its release with
>the IIgs.
I remember that ADB was released on the Mac Plus as well. Did the Mac
team design ADB and offer it to the GS folks for implementation ?
>There were clearly opposing forces operating within Apple. The
>Apple II group wanted to push the platform as far and as fast
>as possible, while the rest of Apple regarded the continuing
>success of the Apple II as a windfall that could end at any
>moment. They were hell-bent to focus on the Mac and were
>uninterested in spending money on the terminal Apple II line
>(whose remaining strategic role was to hold the education
>market until the Mac took its place).
There were many who saw the Apple // as a sinking ship that had
outstayed its usefulness. I was one of the bitter ones who hated the
way Apple dropped support for the Apple // like a hot potato. It still
irks me to this day. I still refuse to buy any Apple products and only
keep my vintage Apple // gear around for collecting and tinkering.
>In almost every case, corporate Apple got its way; but a few
>nice things were slipped out the door by the ingenious Apple II
>group--often in the guise of leveraging Mac developments (like
>the SuperDrive controller ;-).
We did get the Apple //e card a bit later on which was nice. I would
also have liked to see the Ethernet card that was designed but not
released.
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> Interestingly enough, the Macintosh II was introduced 6 months
> after the Apple IIgs and supported a VGA-type mode with it's NuBus
> card (640x480 with 256 colors out of 16.7 million). The IIgs doesn't
> pre-date VGA graphics by _that_ much.
I thought the MacII was 35kHz and VGA 31.5kHz horizontal sweep.
That made them incompatible for fixed frequency monitors.
-- glen
Michael J. Mahon
Wikipedia says that ADB was designed by Woz in the mid-1980s when
he was looking for an independent project to do. He designed it in
a month and presented it to Apple. Apparently, the IIgs group picked
it up first, though the intent was clearly to use it for all future
keyboard/mouse interfaces.
>>There were clearly opposing forces operating within Apple. The
>>Apple II group wanted to push the platform as far and as fast
>>as possible, while the rest of Apple regarded the continuing
>>success of the Apple II as a windfall that could end at any
>>moment. They were hell-bent to focus on the Mac and were
>>uninterested in spending money on the terminal Apple II line
>>(whose remaining strategic role was to hold the education
>>market until the Mac took its place).
>
>
> There were many who saw the Apple // as a sinking ship that had
> outstayed its usefulness. I was one of the bitter ones who hated the
> way Apple dropped support for the Apple // like a hot potato. It still
> irks me to this day. I still refuse to buy any Apple products and only
> keep my vintage Apple // gear around for collecting and tinkering.
I was one of those, too. Time has mellowed me some, but I still
regard Apple as quite willing to betray customers anytime it
suits their plans.
Of course, this is true of many companies--but not any *good*
companies. (I consider Apple neutral--neither good nor bad.)
>>In almost every case, corporate Apple got its way; but a few
>>nice things were slipped out the door by the ingenious Apple II
>>group--often in the guise of leveraging Mac developments (like
>>the SuperDrive controller ;-).
>
>
> We did get the Apple //e card a bit later on which was nice. I would
> also have liked to see the Ethernet card that was designed but not
> released.
Of course, the //e card was not *promoting* the Apple II, but
allowing Macs to *replace* it, while offering a Mac path forward.
The //e card removed one of the last obstacles to replacing all the
Apple //e's in schools with Macs.