Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: World GeoGraph
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.202924.26179@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 17 Jul 90 20:29:24 GMT
References: <3575@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 38

lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes:

>Accelerators are great, but if the basic machine runs at 2.8 mhz, then that's
>how the whole world looks at it.

Exactly. Which is why we need system 6.0 ASAP.

>The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400
>and better, our machine is getting way behind.

You want 640x400? Buy a video overlay card. I know how to hack display a 400
line graphic on it, and I'd love to see a QuickDraw400 INIT, but Apple either
hasn't written one or hasn't released it yet.

>Just think how neat it would be to have our machine with this better
>resolution, and a decent speed as standard.  It would bring us up-to-date.

Essentially, yes. There's more that needs to be done, but those are the two
biggies.

> I look at my Apple and say, why can't Apple make my 9 mhz Apple IIGS
>standard?  A redesign of the motherboard would give the speed I have to
>everyone.

Bingo. Apple knows how to fix the GS. Hell, even I could tell you how to fix
the GS. It's more a question of product strategy and internal politics.

>I dunno.  A friend of mine who designed a 640 x 400 card for doing graphics on
>the Apple II gave me a demo when I was curious to see what it would look like.
>It was monochrome, but resolution was terrific (the card was developed a few
>years ago for a specific use, and was never sold).  Gosh, I had 640 x 400
>graphics running at 9 mhz.

I wouldn't mind seeing that, or at least hearing a technical overview of the
board and the design issues that went into it.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu