Jump to content
IGNORED

Apple II: Atari-infused....


Faicuai

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kaj de Vos said:

It goes on. Jay Miner designed the Amiga chip set to be good at flight simulators.

Well, that was kind of different, being a genre the designer had in mind from the start rather than a specific game that changed design substantially mid-project.

 

In similar vein, the original conception of the Atari 8-bit graphic chipset included the idea that it would have 4 joystick ports, 4 player graphics and 4 missile graphics in order to be able to implement 4-player 'Tank' type games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same Interview with Miner

 

The year was 1979 and Atari was rolling in money. However, they made a decision to write off all of the development costs in that first year production. This allowed them to show just enough profit that year to not quite trigger the bonus payment they promised to the engineers and programmers. The chief programmer on the project’s name was Larry Caplin and a half a dozen of his team went off to start Activision.“

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 7:34 PM, zzip said:

However I wonder if the use of color artifacting in Atari high-res mode might have been inspired by Apple II?   Most other computers of the era didn't rely on that trick.

Only in a very indirect way, namely by using the NTSC color clock as base frequency of the system, as this simplifies the usage of a standard TV as monitor. It enables artefacting on the Apple (by design choice) as well as on the Atari (more by accident, as there are deidcated ANTIC modes for 160 width color modes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Keatah said:

First I heard of that. What features of the chipset were added for flight simulators?

The blitter, in particular the line drawer and the area fill logic. Also, the Amiga was originally designed for YUV output, with its HAM mode operating on YUV coordinates. This was considered to be much more useful, but when switching to RGB, the feature remained in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, zzip said:

Ok, but I have to wonder how mainstream 'CGA Composite' was?   Seems like most CGA cards don't support it

 

As far as I know and remember, authentic / genuine IBM CGA adapter always had on-board composite-video interface:

 

"(...) The CGA card could be connected either to a direct-drive CRT monitor using a 4-bit digital (TTL) RGBI interface, such as the IBM 5153 color display, or to an NTSC-compatible television or composite video monitor via an RCA connector.[3] (...)"

 

That means composite-video in every single of those units sold. We can debate, however, if such technique / possibility was ever exploited at the time... but with the main TTL design/intent aimed squarely at corporate and office productivity  (e.g, serious) users, there was clearly no incentive to exploit it in different ways... but now we know better. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Faicuai said:

As far as I know and remember, authentic / genuine IBM CGA adapter always had on-board composite-video interface:

Yes the original/authentic IBM one had it.  But I believe many clone CGA cards did not.  

Also you needed a composite monitor/TV to make it work.  I wonder how many PCs used such monitors vs RGB monitors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, zzip said:

I wonder how many PCs used such monitors vs RGB monitors?

Answered above, already.

 

However, seems immaterial to me. The thing with such question (or answer) is that it would never change the true physical capabilities of the video board + interface. Sort of a tangential argument that does not change tangible reality, in any form or shape.

 

As to "clone" adapters... well, there's was never a free lunch going the "clone" route. That I can recall perfectly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

I dont see IBM in the OP though, how are they connected?


Pretty good question.

 

From what has surfaced with more clarity, two names seem key: TOM HARDY and DON ESTRIDGE.

 

Tom Hardy was behind IBM's original sketch-design to propose adoption of Atari 800 as IBM's own home computer, when the case for such venture was still trying to be made at IBM (already shown im AtariAge, for quite some time already, not new at all):

 

5BFC54BE-511A-46E9-A541-E61C90E28CDC.thumb.jpeg.49fd367cf10c7d22799e69d23a141a87.jpeg

 

 

As for Don Estridge, originally from Jacksonville, Florida, who after being in the penalty-box (it seems) for IBM's System-1 failure, he volunteered to lead the design and development effort of the IBM/PC, here in Boca Raton, Florida, under direct support of IBM's CEO, who advised Don to stay away from the convoluted corporate mentality that would slow him down, otherwise.

 

In about 11-12. months, Don ( and his 12-14 people team) already had a working version of the IBM/PC, which served as the platform for launching personal computing to STARDOM, right at the office (that was the key, and Apple and Microsoft knew it, before hand).

 

It seems that such feat did not go unnoticed by Steve Jobs, who at the time tried to hire Don and bring him onboard Apple... However Don refused, and (very sadly) died (with his wife) later on a well known commercial aviation accident in Dallas, Ft.Worth... I just feel enraged by just thinking about such bad luck... so unfair... One of the greatest unsung heroes of modern industrial times, and a true maverick, in a good sense (Don)... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Faicuai said:

Answered above, already.

 

However, seems immaterial to me. The thing with such question (or answer) is that it would never change the true physical capabilities of the video board + interface. Sort of a tangential argument that does not change tangible reality, in any form or shape.

 

As to "clone" adapters... well, there's was never a free lunch going the "clone" route. That I can recall perfectly.

 

3 hours ago, Faicuai said:

That means composite-video in every single of those units sold. We can debate, however, if such technique / possibility was ever exploited at the time... but with the main TTL design/intent aimed squarely at corporate and office productivity  (e.g, serious) users, there was clearly no incentive to exploit it in different ways... but now we know better.

I had one of these genuine IBM CGA cards for a time.   The card was massive,  the IBM PC case was large compared to later PCs,  and the CGA card literally ran from back to front of the case.   There's a good chance it wouldn't physically fit into clone PCs,  maybe one reason clone CGA cards lacked composite was to help shrink the size?

 

There is a list of games that do support 16-color CGA composite,  it's kind of smallish,  but it was exploited to some extent.   But still its obscure enough of a feature that YT vids about it often have titles along the lines of "betcha didn't know CGA could do this!"

 

Yes,the PC was originally extremely about corporate/productivity.  so I find it hard to believe many people who shelled out thousands for a genuine IBM PC would then cheap out and buy a composite monitor for it, but who knows,  maybe I'm wrong? :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzip said:

so I find it hard to believe many people who shelled out thousands for a genuine IBM PC would then cheap out and buy a composite monitor for it, but who knows,  maybe I'm wrong? :)

I think the real, key question to as here is: how many 515X/CGA users would have bought a composite monitor, knowing that their system could display >1,000 colors on them? 

 

My bet? Quite a good deal of HOME users, since the PC did get a foothold on that market segment... Imagine those youngsters at home in 1981, salivating with daddy's system-specs..quite a strong pull there... maybe I'm wrong, too? ??

 

And yes, the original CGA board was very large, but came with its own 16KB of memory, and as the video shows above, the composite-video quality is simply SUPERB! And that's what matters, at the end of the day. Too bad it will not fit in cheaper clones, though...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Faicuai said:

I think the real, key question to as here is: how many 515X/CGA users would have bought a composite monitor, knowing that their system could display >1,000 colors on them? 

 

My bet? Quite a good deal of HOME users, since the PC did get a foothold on that market segment... Imagine those youngsters at home in 1981, salivating with daddy's system-specs..quite a strong pull there... maybe I'm wrong, too?

IDK,  the vibe I used to get from 80s-era PC buyers were that they were there for the Applications, like Lotus 1-2-3.  Graphics were a secondary concern..   I mean they wanted high resolution for nice crisp text, but color?  As long as you could display 3 color pie charts, they were golden.

 

If you wanted a system with a serious amount of colors, there were other systems that could do it better and cheaper.  I think most hobbyists did that for a good portion of the 80s,  they started drifting to PC as the clone prices dropped and PC graphics/sound caught up and surpassed the other options.

 

Also I think the dad would probably buy his kids a C64 or something to keep them away from his $3000 business computer.  :)

 

4 hours ago, Faicuai said:

And yes, the original CGA board was very large, but came with its own 16KB of memory, and as the video shows above, the composite-video quality is simply SUPERB! And that's what matters, at the end of the day. Too bad it will not fit in cheaper clones, though...

EGA wasn't far off.  It could do 640x350 @ 16 color if you had the RAM for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Also I think the dad would probably buy his kids a C64 or something to keep them away from his $3000 business computer.  :)

Well, C64 did not even exist by 1981, though... without mentioning that 1,000 colors would have been much better than 16... Talk about a Dad's real nightmare, for sure! 

 

At that time, the alternative may have been an Atari 400/800 itself (up to 256 colors, sound, etc.)... and even if cheaper than Apple II, both options would have been quite a bill to foot, so... all of a sudden, that PC composite-monitor is not looking bad at all (for home-users)... ?

 

In any case, all of this is more of an imaginary exercise, considering that most likely no one knew how far CGA could go on the artifact-color department, to begin with... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Faicuai said:

My bet? Quite a good deal of HOME users, since the PC did get a foothold on that market segment... Imagine those youngsters at home in 1981, salivating with daddy's system-specs..quite a strong pull there... maybe I'm wrong, too? ??

 

Maybe. IDK. Back then in my teen and pre-teen years, the only specs I looked at were the physical sizes of the chips. The bigger the better. The more the better. And how much "K" it had. And if the main circuit boards weren't aesthetically pleasing all bets were off.

 

I first thought that 48K in the Apple II was a real hoot. And I only got more giddy when the //e came out with easy paths to 128K and perhaps more, budget permitting. And it was next to impossible to envision needing anything more. AND anything more was Sci-Fi territory. Or supercomputer territory. Out of my experience.

 

I clearly remember going over to a millionaire friend's house one time and hauling my Apple II, a carton of disks, and 2 drives with me. A value of something like $2,000 at the time. Naturally he had one too. But his dad also had an IBM PC in the spare bedroom down in the basement. The room was off to the side and quite cozy, enough for a desk and single bed. That's about it.

 

This "dad " was more balanced than that fat slob father of the girl that wanted to date me. Nevertheless there were strict rules and regulations about even opening the door and looking at it.

 

After going over there several times and demonstrating that I could handle the Apple II, I was allowed inside for like 5 or 10 minutes of adult-supervised time on Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0. It was magical.

 

And out of reach.. No father that had one seemed to allow kids to play on it. So we were relegated to playing on toy computers. It reminded me so much of the school lab, not allowed in unless you had A grades in math.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 6:24 PM, drpeter said:

According to Jay Miner, it was in part what inspired the blitter features. https://pipiscrew.com/amiga/

Read through that. I'm still surprised at how embattled the early home computer industry was. How much price-cutting.. How the engineers were often cheated or restricted.. How fast and fleeting marketing campaigns were.. None of that could have been for the greater good. Had I known (as teen) that's how it was I might have never bought into the Amiga ecosphere. I had no idea the infrastructure and support behind it was so fragmented and fragile. The only possible indicator was the lack of availability - but I wrongly assumed it was because it was a new machine.

 

The successful companies & machines seemed to not participate in that. IBM and Apple.. With the PC and the II.. The prices were always higher compared to the 400/800, C64, Adam, and others.

 

At least I don't recall Apple & IBM competing on price very much. Their marketing campaigns were built around extolling capabilities, expansion, versatility, extensive software, and other intangible things the machines bringed to the table. Heh.. Well..

 

It's like the Earth-Moon pair, you need the stabilizing effect of 3rd party companies. As far as I was concerned, the Amiga had little to none. I mean I could stroll into a store and have a choice of brands of memory. But for the Amiga, no one knew anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Faicuai said:

Well, C64 did not even exist by 1981, though... without mentioning that 1,000 colors would have been much better than 16... Talk about a Dad's real nightmare, for sure! 

True, but not far off-   IBM PC Aug 81,  C64 Aug 82. 

 

12 hours ago, Faicuai said:

At that time, the alternative may have been an Atari 400/800 itself (up to 256 colors, sound, etc.)... and even if cheaper than Apple II, both options would have been quite a bill to foot, so... all of a sudden, that PC composite-monitor is not looking bad at all (for home-users)...

Yeah, Most options were kind of pricey in those years.  Home computers only really took off around 83 as prices came down.    Atari did like to tout the 256 colors in its marketing material because most competitors were limited to 16.   But IBMs marketing for PC was all about 'business', 'productivity', 'apps' and 'expandibility' (and Charlie Chaplin).   They barely mention the graphics specs or number of colors,  so that's why I wonder how widely known 10,000 colors in CGA composite was.

 

9 hours ago, Keatah said:

I first thought that 48K in the Apple II was a real hoot. And I only got more giddy when the //e came out with easy paths to 128K and perhaps more, budget permitting. And it was next to impossible to envision needing anything more. AND anything more was Sci-Fi territory. Or supercomputer territory. Out of my experience.

I remember the first game I saw that needed more than 64K.   It was King's Quest.   It required 128K, and to me that seemed mind blowing!   How amazing must this game be to use so much RAM?   ?

 

9 hours ago, Keatah said:

And out of reach.. No father that had one seemed to allow kids to play on it. So we were relegated to playing on toy computers.

I love how the $2000 Apple II is considered a 'toy computer'!  

Edited by zzip
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 2:52 AM, drpeter said:

Fascinating. I wondered in another thread whether the 400 was the only example of a hardware design being substantially changed in order to facilitate the playing of a particular game (in that case Star Raiders).  It seems not!

If I remember correctly, the Atari VCS was designed to play Combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/8/2021 at 2:54 AM, Keatah said:

At least I don't recall Apple & IBM competing on price very much. Their marketing campaigns were built around extolling capabilities, expansion, versatility, extensive software, and other intangible things the machines bringed to the table. Heh.. Well..

 

It seems it all boiled down to leadership.

 

What's interesting here is how closely Woz's own feature-pack inspiration was originally linked to what he saw in ATARI, but (shortly after) how differently Jobs saw the market structure playing out (thus clearly defining Apple's position well beyond the "Home Computer" segment, which will later implode as a (contradictory) result of  C64 introduction, sales and margins-devoid growth:

 

ABSOLUTELY mesmerizing interview, for those who have not seen it, yet:

 

 

 

Wow!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...