How was it back then in 1984, when the Apple II had color, and the new Macintosh didn't?
I imagine it being a huge downgrade for some, not to have color on the Macintosh. Macintosh games were black and white in the beginning, while Apple II had color.
I'm especially interested in experiences of people who lived through that time.
apple-ii apple-macintosh apple
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I imagine it being a huge downgrade for some, not to have color on the Macintosh. Macintosh games were black and white in the beginning, while Apple II had color.
I'm especially interested in experiences of people who lived through that time.
apple-ii apple-macintosh apple
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I imagine it being a huge downgrade for some, not to have color on the Macintosh. Macintosh games were black and white in the beginning, while Apple II had color.
I'm especially interested in experiences of people who lived through that time.
apple-ii apple-macintosh apple
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I imagine it being a huge downgrade for some, not to have color on the Macintosh. Macintosh games were black and white in the beginning, while Apple II had color.
I'm especially interested in experiences of people who lived through that time.
apple-ii apple-macintosh apple
apple-ii apple-macintosh apple
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
asked 6 hours ago
Johannes Bittner
1062
1062
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The Mac was designed from the start to be a GUI-based machine so clear, high-resolution graphics were a requirement. At the same time available memory was extremely limited due to cost considerations. The original Macintosh only had 128kB of RAM of which over 21kB were used by the display. Going to even 8-bit color at that resolution would have pushed the framebuffer size to 171kB, more than the machine had in total. Despite its limited memory, it still cost US$2500 at release (~US$6000 today).
This article gives an interesting (if brief) history of the Macintosh's early development showing its evolution from a 6809-based system to the final design. According to that article, the original design was for a 256×256 monochrome display taking up 8KB of 64KB total RAM.
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
I was working in software development at the time, and this wasn't seen as a problem. Colour monitors were expensive and not usually high-quality. In PC-compatibles, the Colour Graphics Adapter (640x200) wasn't regarded as adequate to be the only display on a machine; the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (640x350) appeared the same year as the original Mac, but nine months later. A good, crisp black-and-white display was perfectly competitive with a fuzzy colour one.
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8671%2fhow-was-it-back-then-in-1984-when-the-apple-ii-had-color-and-the-new-macintosh%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Mac was designed from the start to be a GUI-based machine so clear, high-resolution graphics were a requirement. At the same time available memory was extremely limited due to cost considerations. The original Macintosh only had 128kB of RAM of which over 21kB were used by the display. Going to even 8-bit color at that resolution would have pushed the framebuffer size to 171kB, more than the machine had in total. Despite its limited memory, it still cost US$2500 at release (~US$6000 today).
This article gives an interesting (if brief) history of the Macintosh's early development showing its evolution from a 6809-based system to the final design. According to that article, the original design was for a 256×256 monochrome display taking up 8KB of 64KB total RAM.
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The Mac was designed from the start to be a GUI-based machine so clear, high-resolution graphics were a requirement. At the same time available memory was extremely limited due to cost considerations. The original Macintosh only had 128kB of RAM of which over 21kB were used by the display. Going to even 8-bit color at that resolution would have pushed the framebuffer size to 171kB, more than the machine had in total. Despite its limited memory, it still cost US$2500 at release (~US$6000 today).
This article gives an interesting (if brief) history of the Macintosh's early development showing its evolution from a 6809-based system to the final design. According to that article, the original design was for a 256×256 monochrome display taking up 8KB of 64KB total RAM.
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The Mac was designed from the start to be a GUI-based machine so clear, high-resolution graphics were a requirement. At the same time available memory was extremely limited due to cost considerations. The original Macintosh only had 128kB of RAM of which over 21kB were used by the display. Going to even 8-bit color at that resolution would have pushed the framebuffer size to 171kB, more than the machine had in total. Despite its limited memory, it still cost US$2500 at release (~US$6000 today).
This article gives an interesting (if brief) history of the Macintosh's early development showing its evolution from a 6809-based system to the final design. According to that article, the original design was for a 256×256 monochrome display taking up 8KB of 64KB total RAM.
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
The Mac was designed from the start to be a GUI-based machine so clear, high-resolution graphics were a requirement. At the same time available memory was extremely limited due to cost considerations. The original Macintosh only had 128kB of RAM of which over 21kB were used by the display. Going to even 8-bit color at that resolution would have pushed the framebuffer size to 171kB, more than the machine had in total. Despite its limited memory, it still cost US$2500 at release (~US$6000 today).
This article gives an interesting (if brief) history of the Macintosh's early development showing its evolution from a 6809-based system to the final design. According to that article, the original design was for a 256×256 monochrome display taking up 8KB of 64KB total RAM.
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
answered 5 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
3,53031634
3,53031634
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
1
1
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
Early things are always expensive... new technology on every level needs to be designed, of course, once the problems have been solved things improve and get cheaper relatively...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
2
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
Keep in mind that color graphics not only costs memory, but also performance: The Mac appeared relatively swift because of its simple 1-bit frame buffer. The same resolution with 8-bit color would have slowed it down to a very mediocre machine because it had to move three times the memory about.
– tofro
2 hours ago
2
2
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
@tofro 8-bit color uses 8× the bandwidth of mono. 24× for "true color". Systems with 3-bit color did (BBC Micro, Sinclair QL) and still do (Sharp Memory LCDs) exist. But yea, pushing pixels around (even with a 68k) was expensive.
– Alex Hajnal
2 hours ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
Obvious, yes. I was thinking about 8-colour and 256-bit colour in the same sentence ;)
– tofro
40 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
@tofro Happens to the best of us :^)
– Alex Hajnal
28 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
I was working in software development at the time, and this wasn't seen as a problem. Colour monitors were expensive and not usually high-quality. In PC-compatibles, the Colour Graphics Adapter (640x200) wasn't regarded as adequate to be the only display on a machine; the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (640x350) appeared the same year as the original Mac, but nine months later. A good, crisp black-and-white display was perfectly competitive with a fuzzy colour one.
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I was working in software development at the time, and this wasn't seen as a problem. Colour monitors were expensive and not usually high-quality. In PC-compatibles, the Colour Graphics Adapter (640x200) wasn't regarded as adequate to be the only display on a machine; the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (640x350) appeared the same year as the original Mac, but nine months later. A good, crisp black-and-white display was perfectly competitive with a fuzzy colour one.
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I was working in software development at the time, and this wasn't seen as a problem. Colour monitors were expensive and not usually high-quality. In PC-compatibles, the Colour Graphics Adapter (640x200) wasn't regarded as adequate to be the only display on a machine; the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (640x350) appeared the same year as the original Mac, but nine months later. A good, crisp black-and-white display was perfectly competitive with a fuzzy colour one.
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
I was working in software development at the time, and this wasn't seen as a problem. Colour monitors were expensive and not usually high-quality. In PC-compatibles, the Colour Graphics Adapter (640x200) wasn't regarded as adequate to be the only display on a machine; the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (640x350) appeared the same year as the original Mac, but nine months later. A good, crisp black-and-white display was perfectly competitive with a fuzzy colour one.
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
answered 3 hours ago
John Dallman
78328
78328
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
2
2
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
This colour / b&w continued, I bought an Atari ST with the b&w monitor as it was crisper...
– Solar Mike
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Johannes Bittner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8671%2fhow-was-it-back-then-in-1984-when-the-apple-ii-had-color-and-the-new-macintosh%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
