25 Jan
2002
25 Jan
'02
1:26 p.m.
Well, that's possible, but we're talking several generations' difference,
since the MAC was '85 or so while the Apple ][ was '78-'79. They may both be
a long time back, but the ][+ was the guy whose video connector was under
discussion. ISTR that the Apple ][ was capable of generating interlaced video
at something on the order of 512x480. Maybe someone more knowledgable
regarding ][+ video capabilities can clear that up, but it was something not
too far from what the typical TV would do.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
segments,
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a TV for output, and the
MAC
> didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I
suppose, use TV output, but
it
> could do it at resolution much better than
640x200, and had a full range
of
colors at a
time when the MAC and PC didn't.
I don't remember much about the Amiga but TV video was a big aspect
because
community channels would often use them for display devices. Local
football
team plays sunday... girlguides are selling cookies... place your
message
here. What I really remember is that dumb bouncing ball demo.
What I remember about the Mac was it only had 128k memory,since I had
a Dr Dobbs magazine on upgrading one to 512k.
> First of all, within any market segment, investment in improved technology
> increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market
> however. DEC, for example, stayed with
"old" technology, charging WAY
more
> than "new" technology prices for it for
years. They typically lagged two
> generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge"
systems
> by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare
the cost and features of
the
> PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a
similarly equipped microVAX-II.
The
> PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks,
while a similarly equipped
uVaxII
> cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT
had, and partly for what
you
> had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT
had. Inside a year, the
power
> cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED
the microVax and hated the
> PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
> expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government
clients,
since there
would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
That is true but at one time DEC was competitive with technology and
price,
then the suits took over.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html