Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!MTSG.UBC.CA!USERSIG
From: USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Apple II / Mac discusson
Message-ID: <2551702@mtsg.ubc.ca>
Date: 12 Nov 90 20:38:32 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30

>>Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', whether it be
>>text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good thing in my
>>opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its 'modes', but
>>the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the novice.
 
>The worst thing about PC's???? It's the BEST thing about PC's...
  
There's still room for inovation and performance boosts with Mac video.
The advantage is simply that the user is not burdened with the hassle
of configuring software for the right 'mode' or making sure the software
they buy supports the video card they have.
 
If you've ever worked in technical support, managed a large library of
software, or were responsible for a network with a mixture of PCs with
differing graphic cards, you'd agree that graphic 'modes' are a major
pain in the posterior.
 
Compared to the Mac display, IBM was out to lunch until they brought out
VGA.  CGA is pathetic.  EGA is better, but still gives you enlongated
pixels (ie. a circle looks like an oval).  VGA is fine, but when you get
to higher resolutions and bigger screens, the software won't automatically
use these better capabilities.  you have to get new drivers or new versions
of programs to support extended VGA or XGA or whatever.
 
Sure, I agree about the advantages of competition - low, low prices.  But
that's more a function of the fact that there are gobs of IBM compatibles
and clones and all together they make up the vast majority of the market.
It really has little to do with what design IBM chose for its display.  If
IBM had gone with a video design similar to the Mac, there would still be
lots of clone cards and they would still be cheap.