My quest to see video output

[Gorgonops]

Looking at the documentation and screenshots of the IIe card in action it looks to me like that 560x384 resolution is *only* in play if you have the 12" monitor, if you have any other monitor on your LC the Apple II display gets letterboxed into the middle. (There's nothing in the manual about limitations on the attached monitor when using the card, so in principle it probably works even if you have the Portrait display attached.) The 560x384 mode doesn't require any "multi-syncing" on the part of the monitor, it has the same hsync and vsync as the 512 pixel wide mode, it just has a slightly higher dot clock. It makes sense that this mode is only accessible when a IIe card is installed because the result would be non-square pixels, which doesn't matter with Apple II software (they're already not square on the real thing), but a big no-no for Macs.
 

probably a blank windowed feed like how the TV-Tuner display piped directly into the Mac environment as Video was displayed in a "blank" window that shows up in bluescreen on a screenshot.

A couple technical descriptions of the IIe card I've read say that the way it displays video is by notifying the Mac software whenever there's a screen update in its private buffer, and then said buffer is manually copied to the VRAM, there's no overlay function. That jives with reports of screen updates "lagging" compared to a real Apple IIe; an overlay system wouldn't have this problem.

Honestly I don't know what the logic behind Apple offering that 12" monitor in the first place was. My vague recollection of what I've read about it (and the similar resolution limitation of the Color Classic) is that it was generally a bad choice from a Macintosh application perspective because despite being the same width as the B&W Macs' screens it wasn't really any more compatible with software targeted at the toasters (because the underlying video memory arrangement is still vastly different) *and* it also caused problems with color software because up until the LC the minimum expected resolution for a Mac II was 640x480, and some software broke when presented with less. The one positive attribute it has is the 12" can display 256 colors with the default 256k of VRAM, which would be useful for educational software explicitly targeted at that configuration.
 

I don't even feel like the 12" monochrome display from the Mac II era was very popular, I've never seen one in person. 

And, thinking about it, I'm pretty certain that the 12" monochrome display as I found it on vectronics is the one.

The logical reason why the 12" mono display would be rare is that when you're spending the five grand-ish that a complete II-series Mac setup cost in 1989 it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to miss out on having a color display, given that's only going to save you around 10% of the total purchase cost. Might as well just buy an SE/30 instead.

Given the rarity of the monitor itself I wonder how vanishingly rare the 1-bit monochrome video card they apparently sold to only the most extreme cheapskates was. I actually didn't even know this card existed, I always assumed that the standard "mono" Mac IIwhatever configuration consisted of a Toby-style video card with at least 16 grays. This card appears to essentially be the SE/30's video (at the higher 640x480 resolution) on a card. Anyone actually have one?

 

[bibilit]

Looking at the documentation and screenshots of the IIe card in action it looks to me like that 560x384 resolution is *only* in play if you have the 12" monitor, if you have any other monitor on your LC the Apple II display gets letterboxed into the middle. (There's nothing in the manual about limitations on the attached monitor when using the card, so in principle it probably works even if you have the Portrait display attached.) The 560x384 mode doesn't require any "multi-syncing" on the part of the monitor, it has the same hsync and vsync as the 512 pixel wide mode, it just has a slightly higher dot clock. It makes sense that this mode is only accessible when a IIe card is installed because the result would be non-square pixels, which doesn't matter with Apple II software (they're already not square on the real thing), but a big no-no for Macs.

 

Someone in France discovered something interesting concerning this point. he had the Apple IIe card working fine in his LC (with a modern screen at 640 x 480) while the same card was not working in his Classic Color.

An Apple IIe will have, at best, a resolution of 560 X 192 (but also 280 x 192), when the LC is displaying an image at 512 X 384 with the 12" monitor (or 640 x 480 with any other screen)

512 x 384 is also the native resolution of the CC.

The Apple IIe card will use mainly the Macintosh video output and resolution.

But also can display at 560 X 384 (so twice the 280 x 192 resolution) with the help of a crystal oscillator present in the Apple IIe card  (overriding the Macintosh output) of course, the 12" Monitor and the CC are unable to output this kind of resolution.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Interesting card. Not necessarily a cheapskate dodge so much as an inexpensive second display option for running Compact Mac based applications and control panels meant for things like Medical Imaging on the SE version of my B&W 19" Panasonic M1900 display. Might the B&W windows show up more clearly on a B&W interface than a grayscale solution set to single bit?

The SE screen would no longer be available for such with the move to Macintosh II and far more capable NuBus driven Displays for Medical Imaging, CAD and the like. DTP workstations come to mind as well for such a card's utility coupled with the common Grayscale TPD, 13" RGB combo?

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

the 12" Monitor and the CC are unable to output this kind of resolution.

LEM:


Apple IIe Card Operation


The IIe Card uses the Mac for graphics, and it defaults to a 560 x 384 resolution – twice the 280 x 192 of the Apple IIe – when displaying graphics on the Mac’s display. In fact, Apple had the low cost, lower resolution Macintosh 12″ RGB Display available for the LC with 512 x 342 pixels that also supported this special resolution. The Color Classic, which normally runs at 512 x 384, also supports this special video mode, as does the Colour Classic II.

 

[Cory5412]

is this particular combination a common Mac shortcut or a macro specific to the IIe/LC environment

It's specific to the LC card. It drops you out of the IIe environment into the configuration window.

What i don't remember at the moment is whether you can move from that to the rest of the Mac. However what you definitely can do is press "quit" in that configuration window which stops the IIe and returns you to your Mac, as it was before you entered the IIe environment.

The logical reason why the 12" mono display would be rare is that when you're spending the five grand-ish that a complete II-series Mac setup cost in 1989 it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to miss out on having a color display, given that's only going to save you around 10% of the total purchase cost. Might as well just buy an SE/30 instead.

I believe it came into existence at the launch of the II, which means it was on sale for at least two years. It's important in that case to remember that the 

GIven that we've re-discovered that that display was in fact 640x480 and not 512x384, I feel like if you wanted horsepower or other expandability or perhaps even you just wanted a secondary display for palettes or whatever, it's not particularly unreasonable.

Given the number of the 13" RGB (and later 14" versions) displays we see compaerd to the 2PD, the FPD, and the later MCD16/MCD21, I feel like it's not entirely unreasonable that someone would have wanted to get a big expandable Mac, but perhaps didn't see the need up front for color. I suspect the actual vast majority of Mac II series computers were used with those 13" color displays, but any number of applications would've benefitted from a second display or the additional pixels of the 12" black-and-white display even  if it was the only one. (also, the 12" monochrome display can do grayscale)

I flipped on an SE/30 today, just as part of shuffling some stuff around, and that display is tiny, I imagine in the 1980s 640x480 (and grayscale, perhaps only if you use it with a Toby, I forgot) probably felt like a meaningful improvement.

The 12" monochrome display did work with other video cards, (the "Toby" explicitly states support for it) so I can see it as an entry level option for someone who, perhaps a little forward-lookingly, predicted the Mac would become a long-lived ecosystem.

 

[Cory5412]

Anecdotally, in 2006 when the original Mac Pro was launched, before I was given my iMac, I had a small pile of cash and wanted to use it to buy a Mac Pro, and my intent was 100% to buy the most poverty-spec version I could get, 2.0GHz with the minimum amount of RAM and disk, no wireless, etc etc, and then use it with a decade-old 17" CRT that only looked good at 1024x768, so with that in mind I can sort of see why someone might have had that thought.

Even today, I'm using a monitor that's approximately ten years old with a computer that's slightly newer, under the theory that it's "good enough" (in reality, I could absolutely use a couple more pixels and/or something that'll hold its color a little better.)

 

[Gorgonops]

Might the B&W windows show up more clearly on a B&W interface than a grayscale solution set to single bit?

I can't imagine why, unless your grayscale card has some serious problems with its DAC. A setup with this card is using the same monitor as a Grayscale setup so technically speaking the interface on the monitor is still analog, not TTL, (IE, it's going to display a shade of white proportional to the input value, not a TTL on/off) so if for some reason your Mac is, I dunno, suffering serious issues with its voltage regulator to the point that it's going to vary the index voltage at the video plug it would follow you'd see it in either case.

(I lived/suffered through monochrome VGA for a few years for budget reasons, and anecdotally I would say that mono VGA monitors never seemed as stable to me as monochrome CGA and Hercules monitors, with subtle brightness flickers at least an intermittent thing. I don't know if this was in any way the result of voltage variations or some other factor like bad cable shielding or oxidation of the connector pins. But whatever it is I would pin this weakness on the *monitor* being analog, which it still is even with that single-bit card.)

believe it came into existence at the launch of the II

The sources (Apple, etc.) say that the first Mono monitor was introduced in March 1989, and the LC-restyled version came out in December 1990, so if there was a mono monitor available with the original II at introduction it must be some third model that nobody seems to remember. (I already linked the Apple technical specifications still present on their website earlier, here it is again.)
 

Apple High-Resolution Monochrome Monitor:Technical Specifications



 Apple High-Resolution Monochrome Monitor hires12




Physical


Power




Introduced:


3/1/1989


Discontinued:


2/1/1991


Tube Size:


12"


Viewable Size:


11"


Tube Type:


Shadow Mask


Weight (lbs):


17


Dimensions (in):


10 H x 12.2 W x 14.4 D





Max Watts:


40


Amps:


.33


BTU per Hr:


136.8


Voltage:


100-240


Freq Range:


50-60 Hz




Modes



Mode


Resolution


Vert
Rate


Horiz
Rate


DPI


Macintosh


640x480


66.7 Hz


35 kHz


76


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

That is actually interesting because during another discussion on the topic of monitor pinouts that was going on here recently (In relation to that 1-bit-with-no-VRAM mono mode that supposedly lurks inside the LC chipset) I offhandedly commented that there doesn't seem to be a sense line for the Mac II video port to tell the difference between the color and mono monitors. (IE, sense lines are identical between the two.) Unless the video card has some other mechanism to do that (maybe it can tell if the color lines are "floating"?) that *could* be taken as a sign that making a mono monitor for them was sort of an afterthought.

 

[Cory5412]

1989 seems a bit late to introduce that display, especially since by then the SE/30 does, in fact, "exist". Perhaps it was their original thought for what the LC and IIsi would use upon their introduction. I'm almost tempted to think that that 512x384 display I was so sure existed did, in the space between the II being introduced and this monitor being introduced, but.

Thinking about it, March 1989 is pretty much when the IIcx was introduced. Perhaps this monitor and the low end graphics card are "for" that system, under the thinking that part of why you might buy a IIcx is if you want IIx power but you don't want to pay IIx prices. (Basically, like my poverty-spec Mac Pro being used with an ancient CRT idea.)

EDIT: looking at that mid-1989 brochure, the thing seems to be that the II was repositioned as "affordable" and the IIcx was "flexible".

 

[Gorgonops]

some third model that nobody seems to remember

FWIW, I started thumbing through the Mac II review in the April 1987 issue of Macworld where they're reviewing the Macintosh II, and it does mention the possibility of configuring a Grayscale system using a, quote, "12-inch Sony Monochrome Display". This legitimately raises questions about the Apple spec sheet since the 13" color display is *also* described as being a Sony device. Perhaps for some reason Apple just resold the Sony display for two years without slapping their label on it but did rebadge the color display the day the Mac II actually went on sale? (The various references pin the intro date for it as March 2nd, same as the Mac II itself.)

I'm almost tempted to think that that 512x384 display I was so sure existed did, in the space between the II being introduced and this monitor being introduced

Not unless there was a completely undocumented video card to go with it, as the original Apple video card *only* did 640x480.

As to the one-bit display card, the PDF specifically supports the 1989 date. So... *shrug*, maybe the introduction of the explicit 1-bit mono card was the motivating factor to finally relabel the monitor?

As to what the one-bit card was for, my guess is it was sold specifically to be a cheap-as-possible option for Mac II-family machines acting in "basically headless" roles like file servers. That's the one thing that really makes sense.

 

[Gorgonops]

Interesting tidbit from November 1987:



So, yeah, no doubt, Apple sold a Mono monitor in 1987. Either the Applespec thing is on crack, or the monitor they were selling through early 1989 for some reason wasn't listed as an official Apple product. Anyone have a price list/catalog from late 1987 or 1988 that would list model numbers?

 

[UnaClocker]

Okay. It is on the record, though (Apple KBs, Gamba's old site, etc) that the only monitors the IIci supports with its internal video are the 512x384 12" color, color or monochrome 640x480@67hz, and the single-page portrait. Stumbled across a table that specifically said it didn't work with Apple's oddball "Basic Color Monitor", which was this weird one-off they specifically sold for LCs which is VGA standard 640x480@60hz. (It's a head-scratcher why they would even bother with that, I can only assume the engineering investment was limited to pasting a sticker to it.) If it doesn't work with the "Basic" monitor it's not going to work with VGA.

So this 14" monitor I just bought isn't going to work with my IIci? 

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Apple Color Plus 14" CRT was what you'd said, so if it = Basic Color Plus that would be NS. This thread is why I discovered that Gamba2 had fallen like acid rain from the cloud. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20180103183325/http://home.earthlink.net/~gamba2/cpumonmatrix.html

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

My submit reply button was obviously not working any better than my wits for a bit. Please delete a few boo-boos. [:I]

 

[UnaClocker]

What's NS? It doesn't say what NS stands for anywhere on that page.

 

[Forrest]

I believe NS stands for Not Supported

 

[Gorgonops]

Apple's spec sheet for the color Plus says it runs at the correct 67hz instead of the 60hz of the Basic, if it doesn't work on the IIci it must be because of sync format issues. That's frankly pretty bad if Apple actually omitted that support. If you've already bought it try it, I guess.

 

[beachycove]

One of the surprising things from the Gamba matrix (RIP) is how relatively unsupported the Portrait Display was -- lots of NS registered there. It's easy to see how a newfangled 17" screen would be unsupported c. 1992, say, but why not an older 256 greyscale screen? 

 

[Cory5412]

Reviewed the chart. Overall, re FPD/Portrait and 2PD/21"mono support, I'm not all that surprised.

In the early years, almost every single "NS" I see is machines that have a hard maximum limit of 640x480 for whatever reason. ("cost" being the reason close to 100% of the time in this case.) The IIci/IIsi seem to support it, which is good. The IIvi/vx/P600 was limited to 640x480 because they were explicitly built as cost-reduced computers. Same with the LC series.

The 630 is probably the weirdest, but it's both cost-reduced compared to everything else shipping at the time and (if I'm remembering correctly) it's graphics were a new design relative to the 475/605 on which most of its architecture was based. If it truly doesn't work, I'm guessing it's because Apple figured most people would be using them with new or displays or slotting them into the spaces occupied by older cost-conscious systems. 6200/6300 follow directly from 630 because they are the same overall architecture but with a PPC upgrade integrated.

The later years (at which point the FPD/2PD would've been ~10 years old) seem to show mostly good support except for systems that were cost-reduced. 4400, 6500 kind of makes sense. The 7300 stands out to me as weird.

The 4400/6500 claim not to support the Portrait Display or the 2PD, and the 7300 claims not to support the Portrait Display, but does support the 2PD, even though, say, the 8600 supports both.

I don't know what's going on with the 7300, I'm kind of tempted to say it should actually work. My guess with the 4400/6500 and the related machines there is, again, cost reduction. Plus, the 6400/6500 switched to ATi graphics.

 

[UnaClocker]

WooHoo! The 14" Color Plus display works. Came up just fine in Grey scale mode, 16 color works excellent. 256 color the screen gets dim and the Apple logo in the top left has some distorted strange colors. So I'm thinking either the monitor or the machine in general doesn't want to run in 256 color mode. Fine by me, 1989, 16 colors was just fine.  So I'm not sure what NS in that chart meant, but this monitor is most definitely supported. 

 

[Gorgonops]

So I'm not sure what NS in that chart meant, but this monitor is most definitely supported.

If I had to hazard a guess Gamba wasn't totally clear on the difference between this monitor and the "Basic"? As I said I would have been legitimately surprised if this hadn't worked since the Plus appears to have been the exact replacement of the original High-Res 13" in Apple's product matrix.

Congratulations, in any case, although I do wonder what the heck is up with 256 color mode. I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work when 16 color mode does.