Re: monitor on IIgs

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

In article <Uf6dnTgVFobyYvWjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>, "Bill Garber"
<willy46pa@comcast.net> writes:

>> Yes--the monitor is a Mac monitor, and is not capable of synchronizing
>> to the NTSC scanning frequency of Apple IIgs video.
>>
>> You need the monitor intended for the IIgs, or another analog RGB monitor
>> capable of 15kHz horizontal sync (there are a few, but they are all older
>> monitors).
>>
>> -michael
>
>GarberStreet is presently working on a sync doubling device,
>and we hope to be able to offer it at a very reasonable price.
>This device should enable us to use any VGA monitor capable
>of scanning at 31.5 kHz, at 640 x 480 resolution, maybe higher,
>but if your monitor can scan to 640 x 480 it should work. I know
>that there is the Cheese Video Box, but that one only does from
>composite video to VGA. We hope to have a prototype in the
>next couple months which will in fact connect directly to the video
>port on the IIgs and the cable on the VGA monitor. If anyone
>wishes to add any info that will help us in this endeavor, please
>feel free, but also please do it in a positive and professional
>manner. We are serious about this and negative input will only
>serve to cause a negative response.

I wish you well in this endeavor--it will be a valuable addition
to the Apple IIgs world.

>This is not meant to sound harsh by any definition of the word.
>We just want to give something to the Apple II community and
>it seems that many people's ideas and dreams are met with very
>stern "NO's". I believe we all understand that to read/write Apple
>II disks on an IBM is not feasible without hardware, but with the
>price and power of todays controller IC's, I would think that
>someone could and would come up with something new that
>will do it. Yes there have been many devices that do what we'd
>like to do, but these are few and far between, not to mention
>cause bidding battles on eBay. One person has a decent IDE
>hard drive controller on the market. No one builds a sound
>card, or a video card, or a 3.5 drive controller. Why, lack of
>interest?. I say no, People with Apple IIs all over the world
>ask me when my devices will be ready. They want them, but
>I can't do it all by myself.

Easy there, Bill!  ;-)

Curb your enthusiasm.  ;-)

First off, no one is putting any pressure on you to "do it all by yourself"
but you.  And from my observations, you are acting more as a ringmaster
than as a performer in this show.

Most members of the Apple II community are interested in new
possibilities for the Apple II.  (Fewer are willing to spend any serious
money for them, but that's another issue.  ;-)

It is understandable (but still a bit annoying) when new folks cosy up
to the Apple II "bar" and, without listening in for very long, begin to
make proposals to do what many others have proposed to do in the
past, but failed to do--either because 1) what they propose to do cannot
be done,  2) because they are unable to do what they propose, or 3)
because they decide, upon further research, that their proposal is not
something that they want to do.

If the failure of the proposal to come to fruition was a result of a lack
of encouragement, then cheerleading is a great solution--go to it!

But if the failure is the result of an incomplete understanding of the
problem and/or the benefits of solving it, then encouragement is a
fool's errand.

There are many voices in this community--some dormant for random
periods of time--who speak with some understanding and authority.
When they say that a thing cannot be done or need not be done, there
is a fair chance that they are describing reality.  This is not nay-saying,
this is "just the facts".

I say this in response to the tone of your statements above.

WRT your observation that there are inexpensive microcontrollers now
that could enable, for example, connecting a Disk ][ to a PC parallel
port, you are absolutely correct.  This is, in fact, an example of the kind
of external hardware that can make such a connection possible.  I would
be delighted if someone wrote a PIC program that would graft these
"genetically incompatible" organisms together.  ;-)  It should be possible
to make something less expensive and less general than a Catweasel
board to connect Apple II disk drives to a PC.

>Just about everything that is developed stops just before it
>is ready to be of any use. And most of it wants me to load
>language translators. Why is it all being done in foreign
>lands? Nothing is being done here. A hobby here, a hobby
>there. Projects with no definite goal, no timetables is useless.
>No wonder MS and Intel are excelling. They start and finish
>a project and market it. Even if it's not perfect, not what you'd
>like it to be. They do it. Even Macintosh is meeting with lots
>of resistance from it's own users. I read the posts. There are
>many messages claiming incompetance, lack of support, and
>nothing is backward compatible, making people buy and buy
>and still never have a complete system that does it all.

I think you've captured the tenor of the complaints.

Whining isn't very useful, and so should generally be discouraged.
(Of course, market researchers could get a lot of good product
feedback from a survey of the whining.)  Pointing out what a system
can and cannot do is potentially quite useful to those who are in the
process of deciding what to get to solve their problem.

>Let's get together and make the Apple II like Woz did, with
>persistance and insistance. Am I getting my point across or
>am I talking to a wall? Maybe, but I want my Apple IIs to
>sing and dance as much as they can, don't you?

I sure do!  My past efforts have been directed toward making
Apple II's "sing" (see .sig), but lately I've been using them to do
things that depend on specialized peripherals, so my efforts are
not of general interest. ;-)

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/