Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU!MQUINN%UTCVM From: MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Stellar 7 re-release Message-ID: <9012120326.AA24585@apple.com> Date: 12 Dec 90 02:42:35 GMT References: <$CSD211%LSUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 103 On Mon, 10 Dec 90 16:49:43 CST Mark Orr said: > >|(BTW, I thought I'd reply to Mark Orr's comment about the "CGA-level" >|graphics of the GS...since when did CGA let you pick from 4096 >|colors?) > >Oh wow...you have colorful, but still low resolution. No way you slice it, >you cannot compare a 320x200 to a 640x480 screen; you can whine all you want >about colors. When I said CGA-level, I didn't mean that the GS had CGA, but >CGA-equivalent resolution. RESOLUTION, GOT IT!!!!!!! NOT FREAKING COLORS!!!!! If you're gunna talk resolutions, let's discuss the most used and popular resolution used with VGA Graphics. Let's see, that would be 320x200? Right? Right. With 256 colors. Colors is just as an important issue with graphics as resolution is. From my experience with computer graphics, my personal opinion is that the amount of colors available is more important than the resolution. I'd MUCH rather have a 320x200 high color mode than 640x480 black and white mode (not implying that VGA high mode is BW). Beyond a certain resolution (about 320x200) for good, decent graphics, color will greately improve the appearance of the graphics than resolution will. Unless you're using CAD or something else that requires high resolution (DTP) color is a MAJOR issue. Besides, you're comparing the GS's lowest resolution to VGA's highest resolution. If it's resolution you're comparing, then you should say it's 640x200 vs. 640x480. I could compare VGA's lowest resolution to the GS's highest resolution and come up with this: 640x200 (gs) vs. 320x200 (VGA) OR, I could compare it with a graphics overlay card: 640x400 vs. 320x200. I don't want to sound harsh, but when making comparisons, try to stick to the highest of both being compared, not the lowest of one and the highest of the other. > >-------------------------------- > >BTW, I was reading a copy of MacWorld I saw on a bookrack somewhere. They were >reviewing the Mac LC...the second to last paragraph mentioned something >interesting: It suggested that this is the perfect opportunity to dump the >IIe and IIgs (what do you expect coming from Mac people). But it also said that >the Mac LC is designed for fully automated production, and that the only >Apple now produced without human assistance is the Apple IIgs. Now Apple has >a reason to dump the IIgs. Since Apple is having problems producing enough >Mac LCs, they can stop IIgs production and retool for Mac LC production. >< read the current issue reviewing the Mac LC, see how little Mac users think >of us > > >|Scott Alfter _/_ >| / v " Apple II: >|Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! >| GEnie: S.ALFTER "_^_/ > >---------------------------------- >| MARK A. ORR | "Sure eagles may soar, >| $CSD211 @ LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU | but weasels don't get sucked into >| @ LSUVM.BITNET | jet engines" >---------------------------------- For those interrested,... Here's what the MacWorld article says (I stole this issue form the office:) ------------ As for the education market, the mac LC has tougher competition. Universities may want more power and expandability than the mac LC offers [THEN GET A GS, DA MNIT!]--especially if they are connecting to a UNIX network or doing multimedia work. But for K-through-12 schools, the mac LC, with its Apple IIe board and low-cost color, [ABOUT 400% THE COST OF THE //E OR MORE!] is a good deal [COMPARED TO A CRAY]. Apple claims that the mac LC will sell to schools for th e same price as--or even less than--an Apple IIGS [TRY TWICE AS MUCH!]. Now more than ever, it makes sense for Apple to phase out the Apple IIGS [ACCOR DING TO WHAT PLANET'S LOGIC?] and maybe even the Apple IIe. The mac lc is desi gned so that it can be assembled completely by robotics once the production vol ume is up enough to justify it. Currently, only Apple's manufacturing facility in Singapore has experience assembling machines with no human contact [IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE]--and that's on the Apple IIGS line. Couple that with the Mac l c's expected price equivalency to the Apple IIGS for schools, and the no-holds- barred approach Apple took to anabling complete Apple II-compatibility [COMPLET E??? I THOUGHT THE GS WAS THE 'CURRENT' APPLE II???], and it doesn't make much sense for consumers to choose an Apple IIGS. [IF THEY WANT TO PAY TWICE AS MUC H FOR A MACHINE WITH VIRTUALLY NO EXPANDABILITY AND LOWER QUALITY SOUND AND ABO UT EQUIVELENT GRAPHICS WHEN YOU COMPARE THE AMNT OF RESOLUTIONS THE GS HAS AND THE AMOUNT OF COLORS IT CAN SUPPORT AT ONE TIME] Overall, the mac lc is a winner [ON THE SIDE OF APPLE FOR PROFIT MARGIN]. It's a solid machine with good performance and capabilities at an aggressive price [AGGRESSIVE PRICE IS RIGHT! IT ALMOST CHOCKED ME WHEN I SAW THE PRICE!]. Afte r several disappointing mac introductions (most notably, [THE FIRST ONE TO HIT THE MARKET??] the protable and the mac IIci), Apple has shown that it can s till be innovative AND competitive [SO THEY ADMIT IT? THE APPLE II IS INNOVATI VE?... COMPETITIVE? WITH WHAT? A 68020 TO A 486? PRICE WAYS MAYBE]. --------------------- By the way, that was page 87 of the Dec. 90 issue of macworld and the uneducate d fool who wrote it was Cheryl Spencer. editor in chief is Jerry Borrel. MacWorld communications, inc., 501 second street, san francisco, CA 94107 Have at it! ;-) ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com