Re: Expanding Focus Capacity (was Re: Please Help w/purchase.)

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Mitchell Spector wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>Mitchell Spector wrote,
>>>     Except that the Macintosh Plus has a higher vertical resolution
>>> (the GS cannot do true WYSIWYG at 640x200) and has had more recent
>>> System Software support than the GS. Otherwise, I agree fully--the
>>> GS is more of a functional machine (once upgraded) than a Mac Plus,
>>> especially in terms of multimedia applications and games.
>>
>>It is WYSIWYG in that you can see what's going on the GUI.
>
>    Yes, exactly. The whole point behind WYSIWYG is just that--What
>You SEE Is What You Get. You can see *exactly* what your document
>will look like printed out, _on the screen_, without having to go
>through the process of waiting for the printer or wasting paper
>and ink/toner either, just to see each minor change.

If you want to see *exactly* what you get, then for sure the Mac
Plus was *not* WYSIWYG.  If you look at the way it renders fonts,
the edges are slightly frayed.  You have to compare the GS output
on the same sized monitor!  Hook up an Apple IIc 9-inch screen
to the composite output of the GS and suddenly everything *seems*
sharper, rectangular pixels or not, because the dots are scrunched
together more (greater dot density).

>
>    WYSIWYG is also important if you don't have a printer connected,
>which is the case with some people who have their documents printed
>by a commercial printing service (or do their project at home, yet
>do their printing at work/school).

To tell you the truth, even a modern Mac or PC monitor going at
800x600 mode can't do "perfect WYSIWYG" according to your
definition.  Just type a few lines in WordPerfect or notepad and
print out the results.  Comparing the two, the screen output is
tilted to the bold side and the edges of the fonts are frayed.
The fonts also seem scrunched up somewhat.

>
>>True, it is not perfect because of the resolution, but no
>>worse than what was happening with the Mac Plus.  It had
>>less horizontal resolution than the GS
>
>    The vertical resolution on the GS makes this almost moot.
>You have an aspect ratio problem with 640x200, the width is
>is about 3.5 times greater than the height--this gives you a
>distorted and stretched image! Notice how TrueType fonts on
>the GS screen are much taller and more narrow than they come
>on the actual printed page?

That's why I have the vertical scale control of the RGB monitor
set to squish the screen vertically.  The dots are now almost
square and the spaces between scan lines are gone.  :)

>
>    The Macintosh Plus used 512x384, which is more balanced
>than the GS's 640x200. This at least offered true WYSIWYG,
>or pretty close to it. We're looking at 4:3 vs 5:12.

If modern Macs and PCs at 800x600 can't do WYSIWYG, the Mac
Plus could not.  Like I said, try squishing the monitor controls
or, if comparing to a Mac Plus, use an Apple IIc monitor on
the GS to increase the dot density.

>
>>and no color depth, or grayscales for that matter. If you were
>>looking ata grayscale image, the GS is much more WYSIWYG than
>>the dithered Mac Plus screen.
>
>    Well we're talking about the 640 mode, so you have only
>4 colors to work with (just 2 colors if you want black and
>white). You have to use the 320x200 mode to have any real
>greyscales, which has a good aspect ratio, but then your
>resolution is too low for 80 columns of readable text.
>
>    While the Macintosh Plus may be superior for producing
>true WYSIWYG for page layout, graphic design and fonts in
>a word processing document--it comes no where near the GS
>for overall look of graphics obviously. You have can have
>256 color screens, choosen from a 12-bit palette. The Mac
>of that time was just showing pixels either on or off (on
>that tiny 9" B&W screen).

I think you are placing too much emphasis on aspect ratio.
Such things can be compensated for.  If you look at the GS
output through a 9-inch monitor, rather than the normal RGB,
you won't see much of a difference from what the Mac Plus
produced with its 9-inch screen, except that you can switch
to 320 mode and get good looking graphics compared to the
Plus.

>
>>> >My system is a 13.75MHz Zip accelerated GS (faster than my
>>> >25Mhz '486 PC in most tasks...you can't compare MHz accross
>>>
>>>     Your comparing a 486SX-25 laptop, I think if you compared
>>> the same GS to an old 486DX-33 desktop machine the same might
>>> not be true. ;-)
>>
>>I'm talking about my own 486, which I previously acknowledged
>>was somewhere between the performance of an i486 and i386
>>(it is a Texas Instrument 486SLC-25 chip).
>
>    This is the first time you've actually mentioned what your
>"486" chipset consisted of. Let me clear up some facts here:
>The 486SLC in reality is no more than a 386SX, with two minor
>exceptions--it has some 486 instruction sets and contains 16K
>of L1 cache. On the down side though, it only has a 16-bit
>data bus and a 24-bit address range (it is limited to 16 MB).
>It is not even a true 32-bit processor.

According to "The Indispensable Hardware Handbook" published by
Addison-Wesley, the 486SLC has performance somewhere between
the i386 and i486.  _If_ they are correct, claiming that it is
just a 386 is shortchanging it somewhat.  I have also used a
_real_ 368SX-25 desktop and it was not the equal of my 486SLC.
I tried running Sim IIe on both computers.  On the 486SLC,
the results were _much_ better than on the 386SX.

>
>>> >Did I mention the GS produces near flawless sound and music?
>>>
>>>     Compared to today's standards? Having only 8-bit sound
>>> resolution at not much higher than 26 kHz (due to the low
>>> pass filter) doesn't make "near flawless" digital sound.
>>
>>First of all, that 26kHz low pass filter does not degrade
>>the signal.  It simply filters noise.  As was pointed out
>>earlier, you can only really capture frequencies of 1/2
>>the sampling rate.  Sampling at 44kHz will mean you are
>>capturing a maximum frequency of 22kHz.  When the Ensoniq
>>is sampling at 52kHz, that's when the filter limit comes
>>in.  That filter is just clipping noise.
>
>    The Ensoniq 5503 itself can sample and playback at much
>higher rates than 26 kHz, but the low pass filter in the GS
>that the Ensoniq's output _has_ to travel through before it
>gets to your speakers is only about 26 kHz. The chip may be
>processing a 44.1 kHz digitized sound, but what comes out
>is much less.

You must have not been paying attention, I'm saying it does
not matter.  According to theory, you can capture a maximum
frequency of 1/2 the sampling rate.  That means that even
though a CD player is sampling at 44kHz, the maximum signal
frequency it can carry is 22kHz.  What's above 22kHz is
NOISE.  That 26kHz low pass filter is only filtering out
NOISE.  You have to playback at 52kHz (double the 26kHz low
pass filter) for the filter to have the effect you are
thinking about.

>
>>Second, the sound, to my ears and through my audio
>>equipment, sounds near flawless.  It may be just me, but
>>it sounds good.  I do hear a very slight difference
>>compared to 16-bit sound coming from a CD player.  If
>>the CD player is flawless sound, the GS is near-flawless.
>
>    Trust me, it is definitely just you. Musical sound
>recordings (such as the very large ones you've uploaded
>to Ground) sound pretty fuzzy compared to the original
>pieces played off a CD player--or played through my PC
>as MPEG-3 encoded audio files. There is more than just
>a subtle difference between digitized playback on the
>GS and an audio compact disc.

What are you talking about, Mitch?  I never uploaded any
recordings to ground.  If you want proof that the low pass
filter has no effect, do this test:

First, sample a sound on your PC at 44kHz and 16 bit.
Then sample the same sound at 44kHz and 8 bit.  Can you
hear a difference?  Probably, but it is subtle.  Take
the 44kHz 8 bit sound to the GS and play it.  There is
absolutely no difference in quality between this playback
and the playback of the PC (the 44kHz 8 bit one, that is).

>
>    Have you had your hearing tested ever? (I don't mean
>that as an insult, you may have damaged it listening to
>excessively loud noise over a long period, or maybe you
>can't hear certain high or low frequencies? Actually I
>know after people reach a certain age range, they no
>longer hear the 15 kHz squeal produced by NTSC monitors
>and TV's).

I can hear the whine of the monitor and the GS power supply
just fine.

>
>>> >Alltech Electronics (http://www.allelec.com/).  Get a GS
>>> >system from them, then grab a 40MB Focus drive.  Replace
>>> >the 40MB drive yourself with an 800MB IDE 2.5" mechanism
>>> >from Computer Shopper sources.
>>>
>>>     On a bit of tangent here, how much is the 2.5" 800 MB
>>> Quantum Go Drive in Computer Shopper? In several posts I
>>> noticed you mentioning that icosts "literally pennies",
>>> which to me would mean a couple of dollars. Is that the
>>> actual case?
>>
>>Look up "Dirt Cheap Drives" in the index.  A couple of
>>months ago, this Nevada based outfit was selling 800MB
>>Quantum Go-Drive refurbs for $59.
>
>    Well that's a bit more than "literally pennies". :-)
>Still, sounds like it would make a good deal if you
>already own a Focus HardCard and require huge amounts
>of storage (well, huge if your using it with a IIgs,
>otherwise 800 MB is fairly small in a PC :).

Now I never said "literally" pennies, did I?  :)

Actually, that drive is a pretty good deal for laptop PCs
also.  You have to remember that the 2.5 inchers tend to
be more expensive per MB than their 3.5 inch cousins.
The only place cheaper is probably "braving the [PC]
marketplace" online.

-Scott G.