Live data from Hacker News

Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

512pixels.net

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#71
post #29

The article didn't nail down an exact reason. Here is my guess. The quote from Andy Hertzfeld suggests the limiting factor was the memory bandwidth not the memory volume: > The most important decision was admitting that the software would never fit into 64K of memory and going with a full 16-bit memory bus, requiring 16 RAM chips instead of 8. The extra memory bandwidth allowed him to double the display resolution, g…

It's also interesting to look at other architectures at the time to get an idea of how fiendish a problem this is. At this time, Commodore, Nintendo, and some others, had dedicated silicon for video rendering. This frees the CPU from having to generate a video signal directly, using a fraction of those cycles to talk to the video subsystem instead. The major drawback with a video chip of some kind is of course cost (…

Both the key 8-bit contenders of yore, Atari 8-bit series and Commodore 64 custom graphics chips (Antic and Vic-II) “stole” cycles from the 6502 (or 6510 in the case of C64) did "cycle stealing", when it needed to access memory.

I remember writing a cpu intensive code on the Atari and using video blanking to speed up the code.

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#72

I always assumed it was a compromise between memory usage, refresh speed, and the GUI that they wanted. Don't forget that the Macintosh was preceded by the Lisa (800x364) and the IIGS (640x200), so they probably had a good sense for what was comfortable given a certain resolution.

> Don't forget that the Macintosh was preceded by the Lisa (800x364) and the IIGS (640x200),

Lisa was January 1983

Macintosh was January 1984

Apple IIgs was September 1986

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#74

> “To minimize CRT flicker, Apple worked to achieve a vertical refresh rate of 60 Hz” … a limitation that many Macs, and even some iPhones, are still stuck with over 40 years later!

But there is less need because LCDs do not flicker (except some designed for videogames that strobe the backlight for some strange reason IIUC).

I know I found the flicker of CRTs annoying even at 60 Hz.

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#75
post #52
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Displays are still bandwidth killers today, we kept scaling them up with everything else. Today you might have a 4k 30bpp 144hz display and just keeping that fed takes 33Gbit/s purely for scanout, not even composing it.

I have a 4k 60Hz monitor connected to my laptop over one USB-C cable for data and power, but because of bandwidth limitations my options are 4k30 and USB 3.x support or 4k60 and USB 2.0. I love the monitor, it's sharp and clear and almost kind of HDR a lot of the time, but the fact that it has a bunch of USB 3.0 ports that only get USB 2.0 speeds because I don't want choppy 30Hz gaming is just... weird.

Should have gone for thunderbolt :)

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#76
The answer is something that's harder and harder to do these days with all the layers of abstraction -- set a performance target and use arithmetic to arrive at the specifications that you hit and still achieve your performance goal.

It's a bit of work, but I suspect you can arithmetic your way through the problem. Supposing they wanted 60 Hz on the display and a framebuffer you need 196,608 bits/24,576 bytes/24 kbytes [below] on a 1-bit display at 512x384.

The Mac 128k shipped with a Motorola 68k at 7.8336 Mhz giving it 130560 Hz per frame @ 60 fps.

IIR the word length of the 68k is 32bits, so imagining a scenario where the screen was plotted in words, it's something like 20 cycles per fetch [1], you can get about 6528 fetches per frame. At 32-bits a fetch, you need 6144 or so fetches from memory to fill the screen. You need a moment for horizontal refresh so you lose time waiting for that, thus 6528-6144 = (drumroll) 384, the number of horizontal lines on a display.

I'm obviously hitting the wavetops here, and missing lots of details. But my point is that it's calculable with enough information, which is how engineers of yor used to spec things out.

1 - https://wiki.neogeodev.org/index.php?title=68k_instructions_...

below - why bits? The original Mac used 1-bit display, meaning each pixel used 1-bit to set it as either on or off. Because it didn't need 3 subpixels to produce color, the display was tighter and sharper than color displays, and even at the lower resolution appeared somewhat paperlike. The article is correct that the DPI was around 72. Another way to think about it, and what the Mac was targeting was pre-press desktop publishing. Many printing houses could print at around 150-200 lines per inch. Houses with very good equipment could hit 300 or more. Different measures, but the Mac, being positioned as a WYSISWYG tool, did a good job of approximating analog printing equipment of the time. (source: grew up in a family printing business)

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#77

I always assumed it was a compromise between memory usage, refresh speed, and the GUI that they wanted. Don't forget that the Macintosh was preceded by the Lisa (800x364) and the IIGS (640x200), so they probably had a good sense for what was comfortable given a certain resolution.

The Lisa was also about twice as expensive as the Macintosh which is why it failed hard. So the price limited the hardware and that caused this display bandwidth constraint.

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#78

> “To minimize CRT flicker, Apple worked to achieve a vertical refresh rate of 60 Hz” … a limitation that many Macs, and even some iPhones, are still stuck with over 40 years later!

It's always surprising for me to see people regard 60 Hz CRT as "flicker-free", or "minimal flicker", etc. Whenever I saw a CRT running at 60 Hz, I'd be immediately be able to tell. Always used at minimum 75 Hz but preferably 85 Hz at home (early 2000s, Windows).

Me too. I'm also really sensitive to PWM. I tried using 85Hz on my VGA monitor but the higher signal bandwidth and cheap hardware made the video noticeably blurrier. 70 wasn't a great compromise either.

Since TFTs came I was bothered a lot less by it because the lack of flicker (though some 4 bit cheap TN LCDs still had it with some colours)

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#79
post #29

The article didn't nail down an exact reason. Here is my guess. The quote from Andy Hertzfeld suggests the limiting factor was the memory bandwidth not the memory volume: > The most important decision was admitting that the software would never fit into 64K of memory and going with a full 16-bit memory bus, requiring 16 RAM chips instead of 8. The extra memory bandwidth allowed him to double the display resolution, g…

It's also interesting to look at other architectures at the time to get an idea of how fiendish a problem this is. At this time, Commodore, Nintendo, and some others, had dedicated silicon for video rendering. This frees the CPU from having to generate a video signal directly, using a fraction of those cycles to talk to the video subsystem instead. The major drawback with a video chip of some kind is of course cost (…

And yet despite the lower parts count the Macintosh was more expensive than competing products from Commodore and Atari that had dedicated silicon for video rendering. I guess Apple must have had huge gross margins on hardware sales given how little was in the box.

Re: Why the original Macintosh had a screen resolution of 512×324

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember frankly. For what it's worth, TV sets would always be 50 Hz here (PAL) (unless they did some tomfoolery I'm not aware of and ran at 100 Hz "in secret" or something) and evidently I could watch those on end without too many holdups for years and years, so clearly it wasn't a dealbreaker. But on monitors, yeah, I just wouldn't tolerate it, whereas 85 Hz felt perfect (no discernible flicker for me that…

- I hear that some later digital PAL TVs stored an image in a framebuffer and scanned it out twice at 100 Hz, which retro gamers today avoid because it increases latency relative to direct scanout. - I've heard mixed reports over whether CRT monitors had faster-decaying phosphors than televisions. Maybe part of it is a computer has a white image, which causes more noticeable flicker than a dark background with white…

My old amber and green CRTs definitely had slower phosphor than any TV. They couldn't show a normal TV frame rate without huge ghosting. They also didn't have noticeable flicker though even in black on white mode (some programs could do that and my monitors also had an inverse video button)
Post reply on HN