14 Sep
2002
14 Sep
'02
8:54 a.m.
Bob Shannon wrote:
To suggest that nothing better was available to the
engineering team at
Imlac is laughable at best.
Ok I did not look at the schematic.
What makes you say something like this Ben? For what
the Imlac did,
when it did it, VECTOR was
FAR SUPERIOR to raster displays.
I agree the VECTOR display is the way to go.
Please note, the Imlac had a 1024 by 1024 addressable
display, prior to
1970. This greatly exceeds what
was possible with raster graphics at the time, and the Imlac was
designed for calligraphic applications where
its short vectors made for a mugh higher quality display than a
pixellated raster display of the same resolution
would have. There is also the fact that manipulating raster display is
far more computationally intensive than
manipulating a vector display list. The Imlac CPU would not be well
suited for raster graphics at all, but its more
than sufficient for its intended use.
I was thinking with the lack of modern CRT tubes
implimenting the VECTOR display will be rather difficult.
The problems with the Imlac are issues of engineering
quality, like the
total lack of decoupling capacitors, poor
grounding, and poor logic design. This is also reflected in the
manufacturing of early units in the failue to wash the
etchant off the boards (many Imlac boards now have fuzzy green etches,
or no remaining etches at all) and poor metal preperation prior to
painting, and the fact that the design was very quickly repackaged as
the PDS-1D's.
Good point.
The CRT used in the Imlac was common enough in its
day, and that same
tube was also used in much higher quality products as well.
<snip>
On the other hand, a Wells Gardner vector monitor is
more than able to
display the vector video from an Imlac exactly the way a real Imlac
does. So will most small oscilloscopes, or even a modified TV monitor.
Small vector display monitors are fairly common on eBay at very
affordable prices. So whats the problem with a vector display?
Where? That is something I never knew.
To be true to the original, I'm sticking with a
true vector display.
After all, I'm quite addicted to vector (and point plot) displays, and
this was my main attraction to the Imlac. If this were replaced by a
raster display, you might as well run a software emulator and not bother
re-implementing the Imlac in hardware at all.
The vector display of the Imlac is a thing of beauty and is a huge part
of what makes an Imlac so unique. To call this "...the real problem..."
is heracy!
I am saying creating a good design will be rather difficult.I would like to see
this implimented as a new design, You are right vector is the way to go.