Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
travistouchdown

What are the correct monitors for various LC and Performa models?

Recommended Posts

I am trying to find a period monitor to go with my LC III.  Is there a list anywhere of what monitor models match various LC and Performa models?

 

I recall the LC monitors would mostly sit right on the pizza box itself wheras the performas usually had a little stand in between them.

 

Have been keeping an eye out on ebay but these are getting somewhat hard to come by..

 

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like this kind of info too!

 

I’m waiting to receive a Performa 475 and would like to find the correct matching monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Macintosh 12" RGB monitor M1296 was a popular choice for LC owners at the time because it was cheap and it was the same width as the LC and looked nice perched on top. They're cute, and they can be tough to come by anymore because everybody hated them at the time but wants one now.  

The drawback is that it's a 512x384 pixel display.  It's small, even by the standard of the time; it's the same resolution as the built in display on the Plus, SE, Classic, Color Classic etc.  640x480 was pretty typical unless you were serious about desktop publishing and had the big bucks for a big display.  Many games won't even run on 512x384.

Anyway, monitors were generally sold separately so lots of people chose other monitors for their LC and especially LC475 because monitors were coming down in price at the time.  In fact the 12" was discontinued about six months before the 475 was introduced.  There was a Performa Plus Display (M9102), the Basic Color Monitor (M9103) and the Macintosh Color Display (M1212) with little to differentiate them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the LC Series User Manual  Macintosh LC Series/ Quadra 605 - tim.id.au there's a few to choose from.

You could google for images to get a look at what they look like and whether they'll go with your LC 475:

 

LC and LC II provide built-in support for many monitors, including: 

• Apple High-Resolution Monochrome Monitor (M0400) 

• AppleColor High-Resolution RGB Monitor (M0401) Rev 2 (M1297)

• Macintosh 12-Inch RGB Display (M1296)
• Macintosh 12-Inch Monochrome Display (M0400)

• Macintosh Color Display (M1212)

• Apple Basic Color Monitor (M9103)

 

LC III, LC 475 and Quadra 605 provide up to 16-bit support on 12-, 13-, and 16-inch monitors and 8-bit support on 15- inch portrait and 21-inch monitors. LC III, LC 475 and Quadra 605 support all Apple monitors available at CPU introduction dates, including:

[as above plus] 

• Macintosh 16-Inch Color Display (Macintosh LC III only)

LC III, LC 475 and Quadra 605 support NTSC and PAL. 

Edited by TimHD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wanted the 12" Monochrome pizza box topper, it's 640x480 Grayscale which is huge step up from SE/SE/30 territory. I've got a pair of the 12" RGBs in what appears to be an almost identical case. They look fabulous, but I'd love to have the Monochrome version, that 512x384 pixel limitation was the cost of being low cost and color in that day.

 

The Macintosh Portrait Display looks AMAZING on a Quadra 605 and very jaunty atop the LC475. Portrait res is the bombe and grayscale is oh so easy on the eyes.

 

YMMV, I'm also addicted to 21" TPDs running at 24bit.  ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wanted the 12" Monochrome pizza box topper, it's 640x480 Grayscale which is huge step up from SE/SE/30 territory. 

 

I picked up one of these recently (yellowed to the extreme), but it's a nicely designed monitor with tabs to hold the monitor cable securely inside the housing when transported.  It also weighs a fraction of the weight of 12 and 13/14" Apple monitors!

 

JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed two people on ebay were advertising their 12" monitors as 14"s....wrote them to correct that..lol.

 

What about the M1298?  Even though that is 832 x 624 there is no reason it shouldn't do 620 x 480 if I plug it into my LC III right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends whether it's MultiSync or not. A lot of early Mac monitors only ran one single resolution. everymac has info on displays, check the specs there.

 

So would this 16" M1298 not support 640 x 480 for older games then? 

 

http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/classic_monitors/specs/apple_mac_16_color.html

 

Would love to find a 14"-16" inch monitor for my LC III as the 12's just seem a tad small to me these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! 14/15 seemed more than a tad small to me when the iMac was released. I love the 12" Za'Topper form factor. If techknight gets the 640x480 RGB hack accomplished, the cute little thing will be perfect.

 

Looks like it won't support anything but that oddball 16" Mac resolution, it's from the period when Flicker Free and WYSIWYG trumped compatibility within the Infinite Loopiness. Considering that DTP had been the one saving grace of the Macintosh it's understandable. 15" was obviously the sweet spot for the iMac, even in the period when 17" was coming into general use in the business market. They got it right with the eMac, if a bit late.

 

Check out the Video Matrices on Gamba for some possibilities. "MultiScan" in the name of an Apple display would appear to be your search term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Interesting if less than useful gamba link! Sorry: Home Page of Gamba

 

Looks like this Matrix on gamba is the only place I can find with model names and model numbers together. Can't find model designations on everymac's database, very strange.

 

I'd keep my eye out for the 13" M0401 AppleColor High-Res RGB if I wanted to risk shipment of a CRT. Looks like it has a 12.8" image diagonal as opposed to the 11.5" everymac has listed for the 14" M1212 Macintosh Color Display. IIRC, the 13" RGB should work with the early universal base, but I think it looks better without. Looks fab sitting on a IIfx that way and ought to look jaunty on your LC. To my eyes T/S bases look just awful on the LC's sloping deck. For me it's 12" designed to fit, my Portrait or nothing.

 

When my Portrait's not on the Dock+ it's sitting atop the 475 or 605.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip I will keep an eye out for a M0401

 

I do want a base, though I know what you are getting at from a visual standpoint.  I want the base for two reasons:

 

-Nostalgia (had one with my Performa 450 growing up)

 

-Ergonomics-I'm 6'5 so actually having the monitor up a bit help me to not slouch, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use my macintosh color display (m1212) on my lc475 or on my performa 6116. It has fixed resolution 640x480 and the quality is really great. Retro games like monkey island look so nice. The width is the same like the lc475 and looks very nice on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its my opinion that the best monitor for the LC pizza box Macs is the above mentioned 12" Apple RGB M1296. It looks the best, IMO. Fits the computer perfectly. I'm lucky I found mine for less than $50 shipped a few years back on eBay. There are still some on eBay, at various prices. I'm considering having mine recapped soon.  It still has great image quality and is very bright, but I'd like to keep it around for the foreseeable future. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Count me as another vote for the 12" for the pizza box LCs (and IIsi). I agree, have it recapped. I'm in the process of having that done for all of my 12" monitors to either correct or prevent focus issues down the line.

 

A few general guidelines for each monitor if you want to keep things period-specific:

 

1. The Hi-Res monitors were sold from 1987-1992. They require a VRAM upgrade for 256 colors (8 bit) on an original LC or LCII, but the III can drive one without a problem. However, they were generally not sold with the LCIII.

 

2. The 12" RGB was sold from 1990-1993. Some early LCIIIs did get them, but more were sold with the larger monitors.

 

3. The Macintosh Color Display replaced the Hi-Res in 1993. I've seen plenty of IIIs with these.

 

4. The Color Plus and Apple Basic Color Monitor were sold to a lot of schools from 1993-onward with LCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1995 was way later than the screens we are looking at in here.

Also they were meant to accompany the LC models... those were supposed to be low cost which did not go well together with having big high resolution screens back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two other constraints here:

 

1. The amount of VRAM installed in these machines was usually 256K, upgradable to 512K.

2. The LC monitor was designed with its resolution to be better compatible with the IIe Card and, to some extent, educational software (so it would run in full screen mode if it were designed for compact Mac screens).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:59 AM, travistouchdown said:

So would this 16" M1298 not support 640 x 480 for older games then? 

 

Just as a note regarding the 16-inch Macintosh Color Display, that monitor will display 640x480 (just as the 14 and AudioVision will do 512x384), but because of the fixed sync nature of the monitor, the 640x480 image will appear in the center with large black borders surrounding the picture.

 

It would be good for, say, playing a 640x480 game (or a 512x384 one) between work sessions, or for use by a secondary user of a machine in a classroom/home/office/whatever, but I wouldn't bother getting the 16" display unless you plan to run it at 832x624.

 

7 hours ago, boitoy1996 said:

Why such low resolutions?

 

A note about resolutions: In 1990 the only thing you're getting at 1280x1024 is UNIX workstations that cost $10,000 before hard disks and displays. The top resolution on any Apple display before around 1994-1995 when the Multiple Scan and then AppleVision series had come out was 1152x870, the display for which would have been extremely costly. I've never seen the list price on one, but for scale, in 1993 the 16-inch Macintosh Color Display was $1299, so I would argue that on Macs, 640x480 was mainstream for longer than people want to admit. At least through 1994, for anyone buying lower end machines, which was most Mac users.

 

Most new Macs started supporting multisync in 1993, that change made it easier to just buy a PC monitor and a generic adapter.

 

I think in general you may be mis-estimating exactly where the Mac was, in terms of being a high end computer platform.

 

3 hours ago, Scott Baret said:

The LC monitor was designed with its resolution to be better compatible with the IIe Card and, to some extent, educational software (so it would run in full screen mode if it were designed for compact Mac screens).

Interesting tidbit. I'm not sure I've heard that before, especially what with the black-and-white version of the 12-inch monitor (available both styled for the Mac II and in the smaller format that fit the LC) were 640x480.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution of the Apple II screen is 560 x 384 when in Apple II mode. Getting around the 560 part was tough, but the 512 doesn't work too badly there. Remember, the II's resolution is actually half of that natively (280 x 192).

 

This is where the 384 part comes in. By doubling the Apple II's native resolution, a better fit was established. Only the horizontal has to adjust slightly, and if you've used the IIe card before, you know this happens when you see the pseudo-multisync moment come up while launching the IIe Startup program.

 

The 512 part was arguably kept for better compatibility. However, the compacts have a 512 x 342 resolution. This is why when we run, say, Shufflepuck, on an LC with that monitor, there are some slight gaps at the top and bottom of the playing screen. Keep in mind the Color Classic uses the same resolution and was the last computer really marketed with the Apple II card. (The 500s were more sold on their multimedia capabilities, even though they can drive an Apple II card and adapt surprisingly well to it; the HiRes monitors do the same). 

 

The compatibility was documented in an old magazine when the LC and its monitor launched. I believe it was MacWorld, but I'm not 100% certain. I do remember reading it there first though, since they, too, were initially puzzled over the obscure resolution.

 

The educational software compatibility is a pure conjecture on my part, but it seems to be an obvious feature with keeping the 512. It's easy for a frustrated elementary student to not know what to do after clicking in a Finder window under MultiFinder or System 7. At Ease hadn't been written yet and System 7 was on the horizon, so this seems to be as much a child-proofing device as anything else. Apple did, of course, market the LC extensively to schools (and for good reason, think about the massive libraries of Apple II software they had, back when MECC and other companies were pushing into schools).

 

This happens to be the reason I'm always chasing after these monitors when someone has one for sale. I run System 6 on the Macs as an added precaution, but there are still kids who, for example, play Trash Zapper in New Math Blaster Plus and wind up on a desktop area when trying to play it on a larger monitor. It may not switch programs, but the wrong click will frustrate the students to no extent. They also provide a guaranteed 256 colors on ANY LC since no VRAM upgrade is necessary (and have a nice picture; I will always argue that these monitors were more pleasant to the eye than the HiRes 13" or the Color Plus).

Edited by Scott Baret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I question it is because the IIe card appears to work just as well on the 512x384 display and the 640x480 displays. I bet the point of the 12-inch color display was to be cheaper than the 13-inch ones. the LC was, after all, the "Low Cost (Color)" computer.

 

Did that magazine have an interview with someone at Apple where it was explicitly said that was the reason 512x384 was chosen, or did they just guess? So long after the II had launched and the idea that Macs could have different resolutions, you'd think that if the idea of an exact pixel double of the IIe was top priority, they would have gone with 560x384. That display already differs from the resolution of a compact Mac in height.

 

Reading a bit further, wikipedia suggests that the Mac actually does flip the display into 560x384 mode, on all monitors it supports. (Ostensibly, even the 16-inch display, although I don't have an LC and my IIe card to look at this and test.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer: WYSIWYG.

 

When set up correctly (which includes having the boarders on the edges) the screen will give you exactly 72 pixels per inch.

That way things were the same size on screen and when printed out on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why such small screens? Apart from cost, much of what was done on those machines was text work of one sort or another, and what is done by way of text work is arguably more ergonomically do-able on a small screen than a large. The software at that time was also optimized for the screens of the day, in ways that today’s software is not.

 

A good  example is the default window size in that classic piece of “writer’s software,” Nisus Writer (the old one, not the new, right up to version 6.5). The software defaults to a fraction of, say, the 17” screen of a PowerBook G3, but in fact, this window size is intentional and perfectly sane. Lines of about 65 characters are  easier to read than the longer lines typically used on machines today. 65 characters per line is pretty much a standard in classical book typography. Those 65 characters are about what will fit across an old screen, or a 640x480 window, or even the screen of a Compact in a typical font size, so it works rather elegantly. 

 

Large screens were good for page layout and analogous design work, of course, but not much more in the world of text.

 

I have to write a great deal in my working life, and have found that a small word processor window, centred on one of today’s screens, is accordingly better than a large window for many purposes. That then frees up the rest of the screen for helper applications. On something like my 13” MacBook Pro, or even the Apple Inema Displays that I also use, this works very well. Try it and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×