🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13704@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> dplatt@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Dave Platt) writes:
>From what I've read, it seems that the Apple color monitor (for the
>Mac II) is basically a Sony multi-sync monitor sold under the Apple
>label.  The Apple monitor was allegedly co-designed by Apple and Sony
>(or, at least, Apple carved some of the specifications for it).
>
>Four questions for the multi-net-iverse:
>
>1) Does anyone know how the Apple monitor differs from the generic Sony
>   multi-sync monitor?

Aside from the actual tube, the Apple monitor is completely different. 
Apple's monitor has a higher video amplifier bandwidth, a tighter convergence
spec, a tighter focus spec, a tighter spot size spec, a tighter raster
positioning spec and a tighter tube defect spec.  Apple's monitor also 
passes FCC class B ( I think Sony's Multi-Scan is a class A device
appropriate only for business use.)  

Apple's monitor also has an industrial design more compatible with the
Mac II.
>
>2) Has anyone actually seen an Apple monitor?  (I hear that they're
>   still impossible to purchase, and may not have been shipped by Sony
>   yet;  the electronic-products tariffs recently enacted have been
>   given as one reason for the ship-slip)
>
The color monitor was the last piece of the Mac II program to fall into
place.  The monitor is not subject to tariffs.

>3) Has anyone performed or observed a controlled comparison of these
>   two monitors (i.e. hooked to a Mac II, using the same video card
>   and the same cable, switching back and forth between monitors)?
>   If so, what were the results?

I have not done this.  It would also be interesting to do this after a
year of wear and tear since mechanical integrity plays a big part in the
quality of monitors of this type.

>4) Has anyone heard any rumors of a color-video card for the Mac II
>   which would be capable of generating RGB output that would be
>   compatible with "normal" RGB-capable monitors (i.e., those that run
>   at the NTSC scanning rate)?

The current Apple card will generate RS170 timing.  But you wouldn't want
to run this kind of timing for day to day use since RS170 is an interlace
standard and has terrible interlace flicker.  Refer to the Amiga 400 line
mode to see how bad this can be.
>
>   My impression has been that monochrome cards/monitors tend to be
>   "crisper" than color cards/monitors with the same number of pixels,
>   and I do like that crispness... so I might be tempted to buy a
>   monochrome card/monitor setup for normal use, and also have a color
>   card that could drive my Sony KV20-XBR on those occasions when I
>   really want color output.  This would be much less expensive than
>   purchasing an extra color monitor, and I'd be willing to accept the
>   lower resolution of the color screen, as I wouldn't be using it for
>   normal day-to-day desktop operations.

There is no distiction made between the monochrome and color cards.  There
is only one card (from Apple) and it will support both monochrome and 
color monitors equally well.  You can buy an expansion kit for the Apple 
card that will let it get to 8 bits per pixel. (with 256 colors available,
you still get the full screen resolution of 640X480 unlike some of our
competitors)

I would suggest that you take a look at the color monitor before you go 
out an buy a monochrome display.  I've seen many people look at the 
color display, not notice the color apple in the corner and ask to
see our color monitor.  Unless you look closely, you can forget that
you are looking at a color display.

Toby Farrand
Apple Computer
Advanced Technology Group

These are my opinions and not necessarily Apple's