Re: Nasty messages

[Stuart Bell]

On 10 Mar 2006, at 06:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Refrain from posting nasty messages. If you can't be civil,  
unsubscribe.


Or do it again and give the moderators reason to unsubscribe you.

The previous posting has been brought to the attention of the Lisa  
List moderator(s).


Stuart
(Vintage list moderator)


--
LisaList is sponsored by  and...

Shop buy.com and save. 

 Support Low End Mac 

LisaList info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 

iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com

Nasty messages

[sauersr]

Refrain from posting nasty messages. If you can't be civil, unsubscribe.


> rather then respond item by item to that barrage of
> gibberish, moron, remember what prompted your original
> response - I had said it was unfortunate that Apple
> didn't build the MACINTOSH with a crt controller. Then
> you went on to eat up unnecessary bandwidth with a
> reply that meant next to nothing. And I responded
> with, well, could a MACINTOSH w/o a crt controller do
> this? No one is running down the Mac or the Lisa, yes
> each has it's own merits. But my premise was the
> MACINTOSH couldn't accomplish anything close due to
> the lack of dedicated video hardware. Go back and read
> the original post big man. And in the future don't
> lose it just because someone shows you up.
>
> --- Ray Arachelian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Eh?  Somehow I think you're being a troll.
>>
>> I'm not sure how converting a modern MPG, which was
>> not available back
>> in 1982, into a bunch of 80x25 or 40x25 color
>> attributes and requiring a
>> sound blaster card, which did not exist at the time
>> of the introduction
>> of the PC somehow proves that one system is better
>> than another.
>> Especially since it was never meant to, or actually
>> used in this way.
>>
>> Yes, it's very cool, but, um, so what?   Each system
>> has its own
>> technical merits, and it's own market, and each had
>> both their own
>> successes and failures.
>>
>> What I mean by 2K or 4K of bandwidth is this.  The
>> stuff you see on that
>> display is not in hires or even lowres graphics.  In
>> fact, it is just
>> tweaking of the color attributes, which are, as
>> expected 80x25.
>> 80*25=2000 bytes.  aka 2K.  Now that display
>> actually had 4K of memory
>> in that mode.  2K was used for color information,
>> broken up into
>> nibbles, that is 4 bits for the foreground color,
>> and 4 bits for the
>> background color.
>>
>> Even that's a rather generous assumption.  You could
>> go into 40x25 mode,
>> and write only to the background color, so in that
>> case you're writing
>> to 1000 bytes, of which you only use half a byte for
>> the 16 color
>> background - so effectively it would by 500 bytes,
>> though you really do
>> have to write to all 1000 in 40x25 or all 2000 in
>> 80x25.  This is what I
>> mean about it being the size of two icons.  You're
>> getting excited over
>> a movie displayed in less screen real estate than an
>> icon on a modern
>> display.
>>
>> So, yes, the total bandwidth to display a movie in
>> this way on an IBM PC
>> is well within it's capability, and while impressive
>> on the surface,
>> it's still within the limits of an 8 bit 4.77MHz
>> 8088.
>>
>> Indeed, I do have to wonder what decade we're
>> comparing here.  MPG video
>> did not exist in 1982, and yes, when I say
>> 720x364x2, I am talking about
>> the Lisa and not the Mac.  Incase you've not
>> noticed, this forum is
>> called "Lisa List."  Not "The Original Mac 128
>> List."  That 720x364x2
>> took up 32K of RAM vs at most 2K on the PC.  Big
>> difference in bandwidth
>> there.   It's certainly not possible to capture that
>> video on a PC of
>> that era and pre-process it into the format needed
>> to display it back.
>> So to play back a movie on a Lisa, you'd need to
>> push 32KBytes 30 times
>> a second.  To play back this demo, you need to push
>> 2Kbytes 30 times a
>> second - a lot easier to do.
>>
>> While I could get either an IBM PC 5150 with a CGA
>> card, and color
>> monitor, or a Mac 128 for the $2.5K you mention,
>> these are two different
>> products, in two different markets that have very
>> little to do with each
>> other, other than both being personal computers from
>> the 1980's.  The PC
>> was what, 1982, the Mac was 1984.   The Lisa, which
>> is what this forum's
>> topic is about, is far closer to a mini-computer,
>> and was actually built
>> by folks who previously worked on mini's.  I'd say
>> it was a workstation,
>> though that word wasn't used at the time.
>>
>> I'm sure that if you were to challenge someone from
>> the demo scene,
>> you'll find they could come up with a dazzling demo
>> that would run on a
>> stock Lisa 2 and be as impressive, if not more so.
>>  Ditto for the
>> original Mac 128 - oh wait, it was already done, and
>> it talked too as
>> Larry Rosenstein already pointed out here:
>>
> 
>>
>> Which system is better?  Depends on what you want to
>> do and for how
>> much.  Should the PC have had a display controller
>> based on character
>> generation and attributes? What about the Apple II,
>> the Commodores, et
>> al? Sure.  Should the Lisa and the Mac?  Hell no -
>> it was designed on
>> purpose to always use bit mapped graphics in order
>> to produce paper
>> documents.  Different markets, different price
>> points, different
>> technologies, different reasons for their own
>> designs.   That would be
>> comparing apples, eh, to um, oranges.
>>

Re: apples vs oranges (was Re: computer video (was Re: Free IBM AT))

[Chris M]

rather then respond item by item to that barrage of
gibberish, moron, remember what prompted your original
response - I had said it was unfortunate that Apple
didn't build the MACINTOSH with a crt controller. Then
you went on to eat up unnecessary bandwidth with a
reply that meant next to nothing. And I responded
with, well, could a MACINTOSH w/o a crt controller do
this? No one is running down the Mac or the Lisa, yes
each has it's own merits. But my premise was the
MACINTOSH couldn't accomplish anything close due to
the lack of dedicated video hardware. Go back and read
the original post big man. And in the future don't
lose it just because someone shows you up.
 
--- Ray Arachelian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Eh?  Somehow I think you're being a troll.
> 
> I'm not sure how converting a modern MPG, which was
> not available back 
> in 1982, into a bunch of 80x25 or 40x25 color
> attributes and requiring a 
> sound blaster card, which did not exist at the time
> of the introduction 
> of the PC somehow proves that one system is better
> than another.  
> Especially since it was never meant to, or actually
> used in this way.
> 
> Yes, it's very cool, but, um, so what?   Each system
> has its own 
> technical merits, and it's own market, and each had
> both their own 
> successes and failures.
> 
> What I mean by 2K or 4K of bandwidth is this.  The
> stuff you see on that 
> display is not in hires or even lowres graphics.  In
> fact, it is just 
> tweaking of the color attributes, which are, as
> expected 80x25.  
> 80*25=2000 bytes.  aka 2K.  Now that display
> actually had 4K of memory 
> in that mode.  2K was used for color information,
> broken up into 
> nibbles, that is 4 bits for the foreground color,
> and 4 bits for the 
> background color.
> 
> Even that's a rather generous assumption.  You could
> go into 40x25 mode, 
> and write only to the background color, so in that
> case you're writing 
> to 1000 bytes, of which you only use half a byte for
> the 16 color 
> background - so effectively it would by 500 bytes,
> though you really do 
> have to write to all 1000 in 40x25 or all 2000 in
> 80x25.  This is what I 
> mean about it being the size of two icons.  You're
> getting excited over 
> a movie displayed in less screen real estate than an
> icon on a modern 
> display.
> 
> So, yes, the total bandwidth to display a movie in
> this way on an IBM PC 
> is well within it's capability, and while impressive
> on the surface, 
> it's still within the limits of an 8 bit 4.77MHz
> 8088. 
> 
> Indeed, I do have to wonder what decade we're
> comparing here.  MPG video 
> did not exist in 1982, and yes, when I say
> 720x364x2, I am talking about 
> the Lisa and not the Mac.  Incase you've not
> noticed, this forum is 
> called "Lisa List."  Not "The Original Mac 128
> List."  That 720x364x2 
> took up 32K of RAM vs at most 2K on the PC.  Big
> difference in bandwidth 
> there.   It's certainly not possible to capture that
> video on a PC of 
> that era and pre-process it into the format needed
> to display it back.   
> So to play back a movie on a Lisa, you'd need to
> push 32KBytes 30 times 
> a second.  To play back this demo, you need to push
> 2Kbytes 30 times a 
> second - a lot easier to do.
> 
> While I could get either an IBM PC 5150 with a CGA
> card, and color 
> monitor, or a Mac 128 for the $2.5K you mention,
> these are two different 
> products, in two different markets that have very
> little to do with each 
> other, other than both being personal computers from
> the 1980's.  The PC 
> was what, 1982, the Mac was 1984.   The Lisa, which
> is what this forum's 
> topic is about, is far closer to a mini-computer,
> and was actually built 
> by folks who previously worked on mini's.  I'd say
> it was a workstation, 
> though that word wasn't used at the time.
> 
> I'm sure that if you were to challenge someone from
> the demo scene, 
> you'll find they could come up with a dazzling demo
> that would run on a 
> stock Lisa 2 and be as impressive, if not more so.  
>  Ditto for the 
> original Mac 128 - oh wait, it was already done, and
> it talked too as 
> Larry Rosenstein already pointed out here: 
>

> 
> Which system is better?  Depends on what you want to
> do and for how 
> much.  Should the PC have had a display controller
> based on character 
> generation and attributes? What about the Apple II,
> the Commodores, et 
> al? Sure.  Should the Lisa and the Mac?  Hell no -
> it was designed on 
> purpose to always use bit mapped graphics in order
> to produce paper 
> documents.  Different markets, different price
> points, different 
> technologies, different reasons for their own
> designs.   That would be 
> comparing apples, eh, to um, oranges.
> 
> Each system has both their good and bad points, each
> has their technical 
> merits, and each has their niche.   They are all as
> wonderful as you can 
> f

Re: apples vs oranges (was Re: computer video (was Re: Free IBM AT))

[Marcin Wichary]

While I could get either an IBM PC 5150 with a CGA card, and color  
monitor, or a Mac 128 for the $2.5K you mention, these are two  
different products, in two different markets that have very little  
to do with each other, other than both being personal computers  
from the 1980's.  The PC was what, 1982, the Mac was 1984.   The  
Lisa, which is what this forum's topic is about, is far closer to a  
mini-computer, and was actually built by folks who previously  
worked on mini's.  I'd say it was a workstation, though that word  
wasn't used at the time.


That's generally true. From an article published in 1983:
"Stopping far short of any consensus is the feeling that home  
computers cost less than $500 and have less than 48K of memory.  
Personal computers cost less than $2,000 and have 48K or 64K  
standard. Desktop computers go for 64K to 256K and cost $2,000 to  
$4,000. Nobody knows what a work station is because we aren’t there yet.


These definitions, albeit probably all wet, certainly clear the air.  
Vic-20 and Atari 400 are home computers. Apple II and Atari 800 are  
personal computers. IBM pc and Apple III are desktop computers. Does  
this mean Lisa’s a work station?"


(from http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/lisasdebut)

--
Marcin Wichary
User interface designer, Google

Aresluna >> www.aresluna.org
10 years of Being Boring >> www.10yearsofbeingboring.com




--
LisaList is sponsored by  and...

Shop buy.com and save. 

 Support Low End Mac 

LisaList info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 

iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com

Re: apples vs oranges (was Re: computer video (was Re: Free IBM AT))

[Ray Arachelian]

Eh?  Somehow I think you're being a troll.

I'm not sure how converting a modern MPG, which was not available back 
in 1982, into a bunch of 80x25 or 40x25 color attributes and requiring a 
sound blaster card, which did not exist at the time of the introduction 
of the PC somehow proves that one system is better than another.  
Especially since it was never meant to, or actually used in this way.


Yes, it's very cool, but, um, so what?   Each system has its own 
technical merits, and it's own market, and each had both their own 
successes and failures.


What I mean by 2K or 4K of bandwidth is this.  The stuff you see on that 
display is not in hires or even lowres graphics.  In fact, it is just 
tweaking of the color attributes, which are, as expected 80x25.  
80*25=2000 bytes.  aka 2K.  Now that display actually had 4K of memory 
in that mode.  2K was used for color information, broken up into 
nibbles, that is 4 bits for the foreground color, and 4 bits for the 
background color.


Even that's a rather generous assumption.  You could go into 40x25 mode, 
and write only to the background color, so in that case you're writing 
to 1000 bytes, of which you only use half a byte for the 16 color 
background - so effectively it would by 500 bytes, though you really do 
have to write to all 1000 in 40x25 or all 2000 in 80x25.  This is what I 
mean about it being the size of two icons.  You're getting excited over 
a movie displayed in less screen real estate than an icon on a modern 
display.


So, yes, the total bandwidth to display a movie in this way on an IBM PC 
is well within it's capability, and while impressive on the surface, 
it's still within the limits of an 8 bit 4.77MHz 8088. 

Indeed, I do have to wonder what decade we're comparing here.  MPG video 
did not exist in 1982, and yes, when I say 720x364x2, I am talking about 
the Lisa and not the Mac.  Incase you've not noticed, this forum is 
called "Lisa List."  Not "The Original Mac 128 List."  That 720x364x2 
took up 32K of RAM vs at most 2K on the PC.  Big difference in bandwidth 
there.   It's certainly not possible to capture that video on a PC of 
that era and pre-process it into the format needed to display it back.   
So to play back a movie on a Lisa, you'd need to push 32KBytes 30 times 
a second.  To play back this demo, you need to push 2Kbytes 30 times a 
second - a lot easier to do.


While I could get either an IBM PC 5150 with a CGA card, and color 
monitor, or a Mac 128 for the $2.5K you mention, these are two different 
products, in two different markets that have very little to do with each 
other, other than both being personal computers from the 1980's.  The PC 
was what, 1982, the Mac was 1984.   The Lisa, which is what this forum's 
topic is about, is far closer to a mini-computer, and was actually built 
by folks who previously worked on mini's.  I'd say it was a workstation, 
though that word wasn't used at the time.


I'm sure that if you were to challenge someone from the demo scene, 
you'll find they could come up with a dazzling demo that would run on a 
stock Lisa 2 and be as impressive, if not more so.Ditto for the 
original Mac 128 - oh wait, it was already done, and it talked too as 
Larry Rosenstein already pointed out here: 



Which system is better?  Depends on what you want to do and for how 
much.  Should the PC have had a display controller based on character 
generation and attributes? What about the Apple II, the Commodores, et 
al? Sure.  Should the Lisa and the Mac?  Hell no - it was designed on 
purpose to always use bit mapped graphics in order to produce paper 
documents.  Different markets, different price points, different 
technologies, different reasons for their own designs.   That would be 
comparing apples, eh, to um, oranges.


Each system has both their good and bad points, each has their technical 
merits, and each has their niche.   They are all as wonderful as you can 
find reasons to use them.  An icon sized movie does not make one overall 
system better or worse, nor does it say that all systems should use 
character generator based controllers.


--
LisaList is sponsored by  and...

Shop buy.com and save. 

 Support Low End Mac 

LisaList info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 

iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com