Bell & Howell Apple II update

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Fri Jan 25 21:26:56 2002

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_at_jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update


> 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
segments,
> > 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
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 25 2002 - 21:26:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:58 BST