Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: //gs screen resolutions...
Message-ID: <1990Feb15.045335.19730@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 90 04:53:35 GMT
References: <10583.infoapple.net@pro-generic> <38601@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Feb13.234603.3388@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> <12133@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 129

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:

[ In response to stuff I wrote, which is >>'d ]

>>In the past few years, Apple has neglected to:
>>develop a blitter to nuke the Amiga and make the desktop reasonable on slower
>>machines

>This reflects a hardware slave mentality.  Blitting hardware is NOT necessary
>for reasonable graphics performance, and it adds expense and complexity which
>is probably a poor trade-off for low-end systems.

I dare you to look at an Amiga 500 and say that again. I don't suffer from
a hardware slave mentality, I just understand what the tradeoffs are. And the
simple truth is that blitters are cheap and effective.

>Apple has sped up the IIGS desktop considerably through improvements to
>the toolkits and Finder.  I doubt that many TWGS GS/OS 3.0 users are finding
>the desktop too slow.  I work with high-end computer graphics for a living,
>and while I have complaints about the IIGS desktop, speed is not one of them.

High-end computer workstations use graphics hardware which can do vastly more
powerful things than what I suggest. The Amiga blitter is a simple memory
mover designed to perform simple logic operations on Rect-style structures.
A //gs or Mac with an adapted Amiga blitter would make the desktop rip off your
screen, and add negligable cost to the price.

I simply see a blitter as too cheap not to add. Especially when people
are buying Amigas over //gs's because of it.

>>make its monitors worth buying, by adding NTSC in and stereo speakers to the
>>already excellent picture tube

>What a concept.  Why don't use use your TV set if you want such garbage
>bundled with the display.  Apple's monitors are expensive enough as it is.

What TV set? I'm a student. I can't afford one. I have a borrowed VCR, and
have to use it with the Apple Monochrome (green screen). If Apple added some
speakers and NTSC in to their monitor they'd be selling an awesome half-TV
and monitor in the same package. It would be much more worth the price.

>>put Apple's clout behind Bill Mensch since he desperately needs it to produce
>>fast 65816's and maybe even develop the 65832

>Apple doesn't seem to have the uncritical faith in Bill Mensch that you do.
>If the fate of the 658xx family remains entirely in WDC's hands, then it
>doesn't bode well for future Apple II family products!  In fact, the 65*
>architecture is already creaking at the seams, and it is hard to imagine
>pushing it very much farther.

So what if it is, what architecture isn't heading in that direction? The one
advantage the 65xxx still has is that it is unbelieveably cheap to implement.
The soon-to-prototype 20 mhz 65816 is a direct result of this.

>>redesign the //gs from scratch and make the ultimate low end market contender

>The IIGS WAS designed essentially from scratch, with Apple II compatibility
>in mind.  What are you proposing?

The //gs was not designed from scratch in any sense of the word. The Mega //
was originally designed to replace the //e chip set but wasn't cheap enough.
The decision to run with the Mega // was the worst made by the //gs design
team, and the next was the way they limited its expansion to the chips that
were available when it first came out. 4 mhz 65816s were quickly available,
and some very easy design changes could have been made which would have
improved the video I/O performance. Since you have implied that you aren't a
hardware guru I won't bore you with details, but I can support my contention
that the //gs hardware was neutered in many places.

>>refine the //c+ into the ideal education workstation

>The //c+ was targeted at the competition from the Laser.  I have no idea
>how one could possibly produce an "ideal education workstation" using the
>//c+ as its base!  Surely you don't think it could support DynaBook?

who needs dynabook? I'm talking about all the great DHR education software
out there that teachers are already using! //c+ with no disk, but appletalk
bootup and print. no disks to bother the students with, automatically uses
the laserwriter, and is fast and compatible. such a machine would be pretty
attractive to educators, since the stuff they don't need to pay for is gone.

>>price the Video Overlay Card so its main market can buy it

>What IS its "main market"?  So far as I can tell the main thing the card is
>useful for is adding titling to videotapes in low-budget video operations.
>The video overlay card is the most complex Apple II card Apple offers; it
>would be hard to sell it much more cheaply and still obtain an adequate return
>on Apple's investment.

Well, if the //gs had been designed properly, then the VOC wouldn't have a
//gs video chip set duplicated on it, and it would have been a lot cheaper.
The market I refer to is casual genlock users who might buy it to watch the
VCR while they use the computer (If they can't afford a TV either), but only
serious genlock users (as you suggest) wil pay what Apple asks.

>>push the Apple // in every market that won't take the Mac

>And what markets are those?  The supercomputer market?  The IBM PC
>compatible market?

The small business market, who don't want PCs but can't afford Macs. The home
and hacker markets, because the machine is so accessible, and the Amiga is
luring them away. When they make a real //gs many more may create themselves.
Desktop multimedia (color TV and sound) are currently the Amiga's choice
market, and the //gs is in a much better position to attack this than the Mac
is.

>>make the 1 year warranty a standard product feature

>That would be okay.  90-day warranties don't do much to foster customer
>confidence in the product.

Especially when you pay Apple for a rebuilt drive, and Apple takes your broken
one back to its supplier, who then honors _their_ one year warranty and Apple
pockets the difference. Don't laugh, this has happened. Mac magazines are
pretty miffed about it.

>>Just a simple "trust us" would be enough.

>This newsgroup hasn't shown much inclination in the past to trust that
>Apple has their interests in mind.

Because Apple hasn't shown much inclination in the past to act like it. This
is about to change, I believe. I welcome it, unlike some of the bitter people.
I just want to see Apple _listening_ and _responding_. They've been listening
for the last month. Hopefully soon we will see the response.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu