4 ms·
By today’s standards the machine is a dinosaur. It boasts a nine-inch black-and-white display. That was pretty ancient-seeming back then. At least, as a kid,
by mynameishere 7y ago
By today’s standards the machine is a dinosaur. It boasts a nine-inch black-and-white display.
That was pretty ancient-seeming back then. At least, as a kid, I couldn't fathom what they were thinking. It made the old Apple II seem better, and certainly anything from Commodore blew it straight out of the water. That was my impression then anyway.
- sowbug 7y agoThe 512x342 resolution was crisp compared to the Apple II's 280x192, in part because the Mac had a built-in display, while the Apple II was typically connected to the family TV set using an RF modulator. I remember seeing the Mac screen for the first time. The experience was like seeing your first HDTV images; you could never truly see the older technology the same way again after that.
- scarface74 7y agoBy the time the Mac came out, the Apple //e could do 560x192 Black and White.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- flomo 7y agoAtari ST had a similar hires/hicontrast black-on-white designed for text display monitor available. If Commodore sold anything similar, I never saw it.
- ahje 7y agoI know there was mention of one in the manual for my Amiga, but I never saw it in action anywhere.
- LocalH 7y agoCommodore had the A2024 monitor. 1024x800 for NTSC and 1024x1024 for PAL. https://www.bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/product.aspx?id=863 https://www.bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/product.aspx?id...
- flomo 7y agoSounds like an interesting hack :) But from the picture its unclear if it had the sharp bright pixels of the old toaster Macs.