/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4612615
because this existed

The 2Mhz CPU speed might have been a reason. That thing was slooooowwww...

>>4612615
it was intentionally gimped, and the macintosh was the future of personal computing

>>4612643
>>4612645
You needed expensive ricing to get any decent performance out of a IIgs and ultimately about 90% of them were sold to schools rather than private customers.

>>4612615
So did Amiga

>>4612704
what

>>4612645
The Macintosh was so horrible. How was it supposed to compete with the Amiga?

>>4612645
Steve Jobs killed it.

>>4612731
Apple had far more resources to throw into it than Commodore did the Amiga, they had a more positive image as a company, and the Mac was better adapted to business software. Also the design approach used on the Mac (software running within the OS and using strict API calls) was closer to how modern OSes and software work than the late 70s home computer approach on the Amiga with software running off of self-booting disks and bit-banging the hardware registers.

>>4612615
because apple in the late 80s - early 90s was a gong show of autocannibalistic incompetence

>>4612764
Yet the Macintosh still could not compete with PCs for the business market. And then it couldn't compete in the home with the Amiga and ST. No wonder they fucked Jobs off after it flopped.

>>4612764
The Amiga is best described as an early multimedia computer. Problem is, the market for that was really small compared to the vast market for business software, and this occurred before there were any standardized file formats. Multimedia content created on an Amiga couldn't very easily be swapped between other machines, and any artwork created with DeluxePaint stayed in the computer since the printers of that time weren't good enough to replicate it.

>>4612775
>Yet the Macintosh still could not compete with PCs for the business market
Didn't need to. Apple had the educational market locked down tight and the Mac became the go-to machine for desktop publishing. PCs were number-crunching boxes for spreadsheets, CAD, and databases.

>And then it couldn't compete in the home with the Amiga and ST

In terms of sales or performance?

>>4612794
Before we continue. Are you a goblin? This won't work if you are, because you were the only country stupid enough to use the Macintosh. So if you are we can end this now.

>>4612798
>Are you a goblin?

What the fuck is a goblin?

>>4612806
>What the fuck is a goblin?
My god, you've only been on 4chan about a week, haven't you?

>>4612798
Europeans couldn't afford Apple's premium-priced hardware.

>>4612643
...just like the SNES ;^)

>>4612816
Well, there were PCs for office stuff which were only slightly more expensive and could do far, far more. And then you had Amigas and STs that could do everything else better. What was the Macintosh even good for?

>>4612827
It's already been said: publishing. Macs were easily the best for that at the time.

>>4612827
Was all covered in these posts.

>>4612764
>>4612794

Also forgetting that corporate America didn't for the most part take Commodore and Atari seriously as companies, their computers were seen as toys for playing video games on.

>>4612832
For maybe a year, but PC software could handle it just fine. No need to waste $1500 on a paperweight for that.
>>4612834
I don't care about goblinistan.

>>4612835
Desktop publishing software on PCs was crap until the mid-90s, so that was a good number of years where the Mac had an unbroken monopoly of that market.

>>4612841
If it was crap then on the Macintosh it was rubbish at best

>>4612835
>For maybe a year
It was around six years, actually. Macs dominated desktop publishing until Windows 3.0 came out.

>>4612850
No.

>>4612835
>No need to waste $1500 on a paperweight for that

The Mac was actually at that time the cheapest way to perform desktop publishing. There were dedicated machines for it like this CompuGraphic which offered superior features but at a $10,000 price tag.

No one had (relatively, for the time) high resolution screens and pointing devices on consumer machines when these were new. Look up CGA or EGA games for a glimpse at nasty-looking "high resolution" PC graphics. The monochrome stuff on Mac wasn't as colorful, but it was sharper.

Workgroup networking technology was much simpler on Macs for schools and small offices.

High resolution printing from machines like the LaserWriter was hot stuff back then.

>>4612851
Yes.

>>4612854
Apple's displays were no sharper than regular RGB monitors for other computers.

So Apple just exploited stupid people by making simple and restrictive software? Doesn't sound like something they would do.

>amemega

>>4612873
>fagintosh

>>4612615
There was one very major company that supported it and they used it for Super NES development.

Their 2nd parties used it too for the same reason.

It's widely reported that Apple purposely hamstrung the IIgs so as to not cannibalize Mac sales, but I'm not necessarily sure that was the sole reason for the 2Mhz clock speed. When the IIgs was in development, Apple reportedly had a difficult time getting working 65816 CPUs from Western Design Center, and it's possible they couldn't get them to run any faster than 2Mhz.

Also when they were developing the IIe, they found that its custom LSI chips didn't run as fast as the off-the-shelf TTLs in the II+, so they had to clock the CPU had a higher speed to compensate for the reduced chipset performance. It may have been possible that the IIgs had similar problems and they had to purposely limit the 65816 to 2Mhz or otherwise have to spend all kinds of time and money completely redoing the chipset from the ground up.

One thing that clearly looks like Apple neutering the IIgs was the lack of a stereo output sound jack. The difference in cost might have been less that $3.

>>4612870
>Apple's displays were no sharper than regular RGB monitors for other computers.
This guy is obviously underage and he's never seen an 80s-era CRT monitor running. Protip: Monochrome was favored for business software for a good reason.

>>4612879
I'm saying that Apple's were not great, you underage retard.

>>4612879
They're were cheaper, plus no lollygagging.

The Lisa came about because Apple execs thought a $10,000 machine would be extremely prestigious. When it bombed, they replaced it with the Mac which was only slightly above the Apple II price-wise. For some reason, they thought business software didn't need color, which seems kind of ludicrous when one of the Apple II's big selling points in the late 70s was its color graphics.

>>4612886
The Mac was originally intended to be a lower-end computer. Under Apple's original plan, they intended to create a next-generation family of 680x0 machines to replace the Apple II, with the Lisa being the expensive professional machine and the Mac the home/educational one.

When the Lisa failed, Steve Jobs wrested control of the Mac project from Jeff Raskin and decided to bump it up to the professional market and he wanted an appliance computer with no expansion slots that a novice could simply plug in and turn on. The Mac was monochrome simply because it was the only way to make graphics sharp enough for business use. Jobs explicitly insisted on monochrome over the objections of the rest of the Mac design team.

Jobs didn't like the Apple II from a design or conceptual standpoint and he did his best to insult the Apple II division and tell them they were not part of the company's future direction. Unfortunately, the first Macs bombed and the Apple II continued to generate the vast majority of company profits, which led to Jobs being canned in September 1985. After that, Apple immediately went to work on giving the Mac color graphics, hard disks, expansion slots, and other features Jobs refused to include.

Further evidence of Jobs's attitude about color displays was that early NeXT computers were all limited to monochrome. He thought everything had to be WYSIWYG, thinking a monochrome screen worked better with a laser printer. To some extent he was right, since it was years before high resolution color monitors could match the resolution of monochrome displays and even longer for affordable quality desktop color printing.

>>4612894
The IIgs was supposed to be as powerful as the Mac, but the seeds of Apple II hatred within the company were well established and continued after Jobs' departure. The IIgs was intentionally hobbled to prevent it from competing with the "more prestigious" and finally profitable Mac line. When desktop publishing took hold, that made the Mac even more profitable and the II even more distasteful to execs.

By the early 90s, Apple were finally able to retire the Apple II and replace it with a new family of low-end Macs like the LC. It was only in mid-decade that they started to get in trouble with an excess of Mac models, cheaper clones, the Newton bombing, inability to develop a next-generation Mac OS, and poor management decisions. So with Apple almost on the verge of bankruptcy in 1996, Steve Jobs was hired back from Pixar as a consultant.

So to recap: Jobs made the Mac monochrome with no expandability. Jobs hated the Apple II. Only when Jobs left did the Mac get expansion and color to become profitable. Jobs' antagonism of the Apple II continued at Apple even after he left and lead to a loss of II development and the series's demise. Without Jobs, Apple was very successful for over a decade, then imploded in the mid-90s. Jobs came back after a decade in exile and growing up a lot from being an edgy little 20-something shithead who thought the Apple III didn't need a fan because Apple were above the laws of thermodynamics.

>>4612894
It's a funny thing that history repeated itself when the Kindle was monochrome because surprise, surprise, it's sharper-looking than a color display.

Yes it was easier to read a monochrome monitor although the Mac's 9" display was kind of small compared to the 12" monitors on most other machines.

The Mac's 512x384 resolution was pretty good by mid-80 standards and monochrome required significantly less hardware to implement and if you dont go monkeying with them translate perfectly to a half of a sheet of paper making it a true WYSIWYG.

>>4612905

The Kindle was monochrome for multiple reasons, anon. The screen was cheap, consumed little to no battery life, and it's easy reading.

>>4612905
I don't think the Kindle used monochrome e-ink for clarity alone.

>>4612886
>which seems kind of ludicrous when one of the Apple II's big selling points in the late 70s was its color graphics

While true, it seems that a large majority of Apple IIs were sold with the green mono Display /// rather than a color monitor.

The Mac's 512x384 resolution was pretty good by mid-80s standards (this was when most stuff had 320x200 or 640x200 resolution) and monochrome required significantly less hardware to implement and if you don't go monkeying with them translate perfectly to a half of a sheet of paper making it a true WYSIWYG.

>>4612905
E-Ink is great for reading, but not because it's grayscale. It's great because it's easy on the eyes, readable in sunlight, and uses almost no power. They've been trying to make color E-Ink displays for years; not sure if they ever succeeded or not.

>>4612928
There is colour e-ink now. It's been around a while.

>>4612809
the ironing: the post

macs have always been pieces of shit, in the 90s they would say they are better than pcs but you would ask them what they are better at and they would just tell you nonsense that would not benefit a home user and then you have the fuck off expensive upgrades.

>>4612854
The ST was a cheaper desktop publishing computer that had a good number of advantages over the macintosh -- higher resolution in monochrome mode (640*400), fast high resolution postscript-compatible laser printer that was cheap enough that the whole atari st + laserprinter setup would cost less than a laserwriter alone, and a selection of software made for desktop publishing and text processing (some still being maintained for modern OSes AND atari TTs/falcon). The ST was considered to be the cheaper mac for a reason. It was all over the place in germany's institutions, and a good bunch of newspapers used it there and in france too.
Also, EGA high resolution (640*350) is higher than the macintosh resolution.
>>4612870
>Apple's displays were no sharper than regular RGB monitors for other computers.
You're retarded, monochrome monitors alway were sharper than RGB monitors.

>>4612876
>nintendo used the IIgs to develop on the snes
Source on this? Cause I'm calling bullshit on that one.
>2nd parties
Such things don't exist.

>>4612816
premium overpriced shit you mean.

>>4613089
The Apple IIGS was the only other thing that was using a 65816, Nintendo had no other option.

And explain HAL Labs then.

>>4613212
>The Apple IIGS was the only other thing that was using a 65816, Nintendo had no other option.
They had no other option than using a slower, less capable machine who's only similarity with the SNES was the CPU that was clocked even slower? When they had powerful HP 64000 systems that they were already using to develop famicom games?
>And explain HAL Labs then
HAL Labs are third party developpers that acts as sub-contractors to nintendo. 2nd party dev is a made up term.

>>4613272
Nintendo was using PC-88s with a PCI card that had the NES's hardware on it to make NES games, not a HP 64000, that was Konami.

Also Hal was a 2nd party during 1992 to 2002 due to Arcana's bombing, once Iwata took over he sold back Nintendo's shares of HAL back to HAL in favor for forming Warp Star to manage the Kirby IP during the anime's run, now of days Warp Star just a skeleton company so that HAL stays independent.

>>4612809
>knows a /pol/ memes from 2017
>2017
>calls anyone ELSE new
kek

>>4613035
dumbass

>>4613320
>PC-88
>PCI card
What?

>>4613320
>Nintendo was using PC-88s with a PCI card
>PCI card
Also yes, they did use an HP 64000, at least during super mario bros 3 developement.
>Also Hal was a 2nd party during 1992 to 2002 due to Arcana's bombing
They were a third party studio nintendo owned shares of. As a result they acted as subcontractors. The games nintendo released when HAL was acting as sub-contractors count as first-party releases. 2nd party developers is a made-up term.

>>4613342
>PCI
Well, the PC-88 version of it, I know the PC-88 has expansion slots.
>HP 64000
No they did not, I seen that making of Mario 3 video and they were using PC-88s with cards that had the NES's hardware on them.

Nintendo were using Apple IIGSs for Super NES development, so in short.

>NES=PC-88s with a custom made card that had NES hardware on it, Konami did use the HP 64000 for it's NES development but most companies just used hacked up home units to make NES games (especially for HAL, Sunsoft and Capcom).
>Super NES=Mostly the Apple IIGS, sometimes they will bring in a X68000 for it's color pallet and sound hardware (some of the SNES samples came from a YM2151 chip) bit most of it was done on a Apple IIGS, did not have it's own dev kits until the mid 90s.

>HAL
Nintendo owned over 50% of the company under Yamauchi rule after Arcana's release but once Iwata took over he sold back HAL their stock in favor of finding Warp Star to manage the Kirby IP when the anime was being made, Warp Star is now a skeleton company now so that HAL can remain independent.

>>4613385
>>PCI
>Well, the PC-88 version of it, I know the PC-88 has expansion slots.
C-bus expansion slots, not PCI.
>No they did not, I seen that making of Mario 3 video and they were using PC-88s with cards that had the NES's hardware on them.
Yes they did, there are photos of programmers at nintendo using terminals for the HP 64000, as well as others of mario sprites being made on an Fujitsu FM R50 computer.
>>Super NES=Mostly the Apple IIGS
You need to provide sources on that, otherwise that claim hold as much value as the "capcom used x68000 computezrs to develop CPS1 games" myth.
>>HAL
>Nintendo owned over 50% of the company under Yamauchi
So they were basically owned by nintendo, during that time, thus the games they produced are 1st party. 2nd party developpers is a made-up term.

>>4613427
>C-bus.
Close enough.
>HP
Those were PC-88s, HP 64000 are much larger.
>2nd parties.
Rare was classed as a 2nd party before Microsoft shown up so STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>4613449
Anyway, here is your picture.

>>4613385
>thinking anyone will believe a a dumb kid who said the PC-88 has PCI slots
lol

>>4613449
Not even the guy you're arguing with, but...
>Close enough.
Yeah, you're only a decade off.
>Those were PC-88s, HP 64000 are much larger.
Don't be an idiot, those are HP 64000s in that picture. The PC-88 keyboard layout doesn't even look anything like that.
>Rare was classed as a 2nd party before Microsoft shown up so STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.
The term "third party" originally referred to a company that was neither the console manufacturer (the first party) nor the end-user (the second party). It doesn't make sense to talk about developers as being "second party".

>>4613470
Uhhh... >>4613457

>>4613457
This is a fujitsu FM-R50 you double dumbass. Also no Apple IIgs in sight.
>>4613449
>Those were PC-88s
You've never seen a PC-88 in your life have you? No PC-88 model have the keyboard and the monitor in the same enclosure.
>HP 64000 are much larger.
They aren't.
>Rare was classed as a 2nd party before Microsoft shown up so STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.
Like >>4613470 said, 2nd party developpers aren't a thing, it's a made up term, it's either first party or third-party.

Okay you've just shown that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about.

>>4613510
Higher res pic.

>>4613513
Here the model name so that you can read it.

>>4613514
Also pic related clearly is what you see here >>4613427
So far, no apple IIgs.

>>4613082
>Also, EGA high resolution (640*350) is higher than the macintosh resolution
It's color though, so not as sharp as the Mac and it doesn't work so neatly as 512x384 for half a page.

>>4613082
>The ST was considered to be the cheaper mac for a reason. It was all over the place in germany's institutions, and a good bunch of newspapers used it there and in france too
If only Americans had taken Atari seriously and didn't pigeonhole it as a silly video game company, but there's a reason the ST was not a success here.

>>4612615
>no one support it

that might be the most uninformed claim i've ever read on here. the IIGS was a great system for gaming, at least 20 of my favorite childhood games were exclusive to that system, and every original IIGS game I've seen ported to other systems such as dos, amiga, or snes, were shit ports (not necessarily the systems fault of course). the problem with the IIGS was its heavy pricetag, people wanted cheap crap like the mac instead because they just wanted to do word processing and jobfag stuff like that

>>4612645
>the macintosh was the future of personal computing

lol my sides....

>>4612850

you're trying too hard dude, trolling requires at least a little bit of believability and subdlety

>>4613735
Then again, Apple is still around today while Commodore...is not.

>>4613725
IBM EGA cards had a jumper to allow the use of a monochrome monitor in 640*350, though it was for monitors like the IBM "greener than green" 5151 (doubt that many paper white MDA monitors were around that day)
>>4613732
It did have a niche sector in the US though, recording studios and musicians mainly.

>>4612878
>IIgs was the lack of a stereo output sound jack.

if you didn't even have a PHASOR sound card in your IIGS for stereo (red & black cables) then you definitely aren't qualified to state an opinion about the IIGS, this discussion is for people who actually had the whole computer

>>4613734
>the problem with the IIGS was its heavy pricetag
And, you know, the CPU that ran at a snail's pace.

>>4613745
>doubt that many paper white MDA monitors were around that day

Most of the time they were green or amber, white monochrome was always relatively rare.

The IIgs literally had a //e on a chip for backwards compatibility with 8-bit Apple IIs. By and large, it succeeded and most 8-bit software will run on them without any issues. One minor problem is that the method of checking for the vertical retrace differs between the II/II+, IIe, IIc, and IIgs.

>>4613323
That Picard facepalm meme is from /b/ in like 2007 or something.

>>4613510

>>4613764
Yes and?

>>4613760
It's significantly older than that. You know people were talking about Star Trek TNG on the internet in the 90s, even.

>>4612615
oregon trail on 30 macs per class in hundreds of classrooms in california

>>4613734
Do you have a list?

The IIGs should have been Apple's priority machine.

>>4613514
OK then, But I remember seeing a video about Mario 3 development and that they had PC-88s in that video.
>>4613528
Thats a HP 64100A-33, not a HP 64000, this is a HP 64000, note thats theres one component.

Also we're talking about Super NES development not NES development.

>>4613945
The HP64000 system include one or multiple HP 64100A stations.
>Also we're talking about Super NES development not NES development.
Re-read the thread. The question was why would they be developping SNES stuff on Apple IIgs computers when they were already using more powerful tools to develop NES games.

Was slow and gimped out to shit, thanks to Apple trying to shill the fuck out of their Macintosh product line. Really a shame since the IIgs had pretty nice graphics and sound that rivaled that of the Amiga at the time. But at least Burger lady respected it.

I'm pretty sure the IIgs wasn't sold in Japan so I don't see how they could have been using it as a software development tool.

>>4613834
i'm at work right now but off the top of my head....

alien mind
test drive ii
tass times in tonetown
battle chess
gnarly golf
leisure suit larry in the land of the lounge lizards
marble madness
milestones 2000
out of this world
the immortal
tunnels of armageddon
xenocide

i also really liked some of the music composition programs but i don't remember what any of them were called right now

>>4613748
>And, you know, the CPU that ran at a snail's pace.

not true unless your a 15yo following the typical meme of attempting to talk shit about technology that was popular before your birth by comparing it to today's fastest

>>4613985
Decent list of games if you have a CPU accelerator (the 65816 can clock as high as 16Mhz).

>>4613991
Amiga and Atari ST were 8Mhz, that's a considerable difference against the 2.8Mhz IIgs.

>>4613991
Please, even at the time the CPU speed of the IIGS was slow as shit when even the Amiga 1000 and 500 could run laps around it at 7mhz, even a god damn Intel 8086 was faster. Compare a game like Lemmings on the IIGS to the versions on Amiga and you will see a pretty noticeable difference in speed.

/g/ who let you in here?

>>4614038
this is not a /g/ thread. just because you don't play old COMPUTER games doesn't mean nobody does

>>4613736
Just because you're ignorant of computing history doesn't mean everyone is.

>>4613972
The HP 64000 lacked a 65816 expansion card.

>>4613975
>burger lady
Bill, start using the right restroom and stop wasting company time on 4chan.

>>4614247
What do you expect, burger is incompetent

>>4613457
Holy fuck you're stupid

>>4613945
>b-b-but i remember seeing a video that doesn't exist
>changing the subject
Your damage control level is >9000

>>4614192
The HP64000 lacked a 6502 expansion card too, that didn't stop nintendo from using it for famicom games.

So /vr/, what's your favorite IIGS game?

>>4614689
Someone already pointed out that that was a FMR-50 HD here >>4613514

That video did exist.

>>4615064
It did however have a 6800 expansion card of which the 6502 was based on.

I recently got a Mac Classic II and a Mac SE. I need to figure out what to play on 'em.

Got 2 whole mb of ram in the classic.

>>4616267
>damagecontrol++
>That video did exist
Sure it did. Why would I doubt you? You've been right about everything else so far. kek

>>4616157
arkanoid II

>>4613764
Was the FMR series really 100% IBM compatible?

>>4616898
It wasn't, it had it's own bus, it's own ROM, it's own graphic adapters, and most likely ran it's own version of MS-DOS (it did for OS/2 and Xenix). The first IBM compatible line produced by fujitsu is the FM-V series.

>>4616316
>Got 2 whole mb of ram in the classic.

lol that's ridiculous. 640K should be enough memory for anyone!

>>4612894
>Jobs didn't like the Apple II from a design or conceptual standpoint and he did his best to insult the Apple II division and tell them they were not part of the company's future direction.

I hope his death was slow and painful.

>>4617646
Well, it kind of was.

>>4612615
>>4612648
>>4612731
>>4612841
>>4612850
>>4612878
>ricing

A major problem that Apple had with its IIgs and with its Mac was they required a special programming language to write programs on it, you had to go to a class for this and they were pretty hard to find in the days of 80s and 90s non-interconnectivity. If you didnt have one going on locally which advertised in the paper or a similar interest group you were SOL for learning how to program an Apple.

The IIGS was also sold alot to schools so that students would go home with a disk with their homework on it, and bug mom and dad about getting an Apple so that the kids would help to market their computers.
> after the higher color Mac came out, I believe the IIGS dropped in price and they really started pushing to sell those on a domestic level.
> It had some okay games for it like Midnight Raiders, Lode Runner, Oregon Trail?
Alot of families were lainbrain about tech around the time I started school in the late 80s and once the wife saw it she might chime in saying they ought to get one because it looks so cute, the screen is colorful, and its kinda easy to use. I imagine quite a few got suckered by this.
> My dad didnt, as he had used a Vic20, knew of Commodore 64, and was in the market for a used 8088.

Business computers were usually 8088s or something similar with a monochrome monitor running something like 720x480 resolution or something like that. The reason this was better than CRT is the pixel sharpness (which still looked like scanlines) was alot higher and you could display text clearly. It was useless for anything graphics wise though.

Business computers like these typically cost $4000 but as a business you could soak the cost and write it off, especially if in the 80s you were big enough to give a shit about being computerized (plenty of businesses were paper only up until the 2000's).

>>4617460
The SE has 1mb, but one of the ROM chips are absolutely fucked sadly.

>>4618575
Sorry I meant to say Apple II games:
> Wings Of Fury
> Lode Runner
> Oregon Trail

These were technically backwards compatible so they count I guess. I had some ultra-conservative friends who lived up the street and went to a private christian school when I was a kid (nathan, noah, betsy) and they had either an Apple 2 or a IIgs and I got the chance to play these games on their machine and thought it was pretty awesome.

Especially Wings Of Fury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_of_Fury
which clearly required more skill than I had to keep track of things at the time

There was also a game I loved playing on the Apple IIgs at school called Mind Castle, pretty much a problem solving educational piece.

>>4618575
>A major problem that Apple had with its IIgs and with its Mac was they required a special programming language to write programs on it, you had to go to a class for this and they were pretty hard to find in the days of 80s and 90s non-interconnectivity. If you didnt have one going on locally which advertised in the paper or a similar interest group you were SOL for learning how to program an Apple.

That's not at all true. You programmed them the same as any other machine, by buying a compiler for them, usually C, Pascal, or assembly language. I guess since they were 16-bit machines, HLLs would have been more commonly used than assembly.

>>4618608
That's really rare for a ROM chip to go bad.

>>4618575
>It was useless for anything graphics wise though
Hercules cards were pretty good at business graphics. Games...next to worthless.

>>4618839
Macs had a booming free/shareware game scene in the late 80s-early 90s although commercial games outside of eduware were relatively few. Some major titles did exist for them however like Leisure Suit Larry and Pirates!

>>4618909
You don’t have a clue what the fuck you’re talking about

>>4619393
Speak ye any English?

>>4612731
>Initially only 2 colors
>Embarrassing amount of ram
>Simple audio hardware that was only good for playing about one digital sample at a time
>Hefty price tag
It really couldn't and didn't, other than being "simple and mostly out of the box" with a comfy graphical OS (And I will admit that old Mac OS was pretty as fuck). Really wasn't too long before Macs started to resemble PCs (As in not be all in ones, internals housed in a case and video output on a separate monitor), and had color, but were still very expensive and had a confusing number of various model series, when you could just get an Amiga under a thousand dollars and "It's good for most of your wants/needs", until around the point when you could get a pretty nice decently featured 286 or 386 pc that was VGA capable for a fair price.

>>4618841
It really is. I haven't been able to revive it though.

I get a one line 00000001 error message. I take out the ram, I get the same error message. I unplug the hard drive, same message. I unplug everything and just leave the ROM chips in, I get that message.

Sometimes I get a loading screen for a moment, then it craps out to the error screen.

Thankfully the Classic II works after I washed the board, just need to recap it.

>>4619778
The Mac dominated the desktop publishing market.

>>4618841
He'll have to burn a new ROM.

>>4620043
This was answered in depth earlier. The Mac did have a lot of advantages for certain kinds of application software.

>>4620053
I agree with you, but this is a retro game board and when it comes to gaming, 80s Macs fell short against the Amiga by a long distance.

>>4620053
How did it have an advantage over the Amiga? People in Europe used them for work stuff and they were cheaper and substantially more capable machines.

>>4620061
Apple had substantially more resources than Commodore and especially an infinitely superior marketing machine. Also Apple were taken seriously as a company while Commodore weren't.

The Mac's hardware, while not as sophisticated as the Amiga, had less overhead and was more suited to application software. They used a lot of the same design philosophy as the Apple II, which was building a machine out of off-the-shelf components. The Amiga had numerous handicaps as a work computer that have been discussed here before.

>>4620073
I don't know specifically about the Amiga, but the Atari ST was the big arbeitkomputer in Germany. Many Germans are surprised to learn it had a gaming scene. They were also substantially cheaper than Macs.

>>4612827
>What was the Macintosh even good for?
In terms of hardware... fuck all. Relatively slow, not enough RAM (and when dealing with GUI programs, that's a big deal), B/W only. Single-channel CPU driven low-quality audio output.

That being said, Apple had a few advantages, such as being first to market a consumer-level GUI machine, they had an absurdly nicer UI than the Amiga (no seriously, AmigaOS's UI not only looks like ass, but feels like ass), and had fairly strong software support where it counted (Microsoft was a major Mac developer for years).

>>4618575
>special programming language
Pascal was being widely taught around that time.

>>4613427
x68k is not a myth you cunt http://arcadehacker.blogspot.com/2015/05/capcom-cps1-part-2.html

and neither is the apple iigs, go read the credits for wolfenstein 3d for snes: "Programmed on an Apple IIgs"

>>4620245
>at being said, Apple had a few advantages, such as being first to market a consumer-level GUI machine, they had an absurdly nicer UI than the Amiga (no seriously, AmigaOS's UI not only looks like ass, but feels like ass), and had fairly strong software support where it counted (Microsoft was a major Mac developer for years).

Also its monochrome graphics were useful for business software unlike the Amiga's 200 line 8x8 character fuzz.

In defense of the Amiga's OS, it did have preemptive multitasking in 1985 while the Mac OS somehow wouldn't have that for almost 20 years. The earliest Mac OSes were single tasking only, then they went to concurrent multitasking and still had this Bronze Age setup years after even Windows had dropped it.

>>4620375
>still had this Bronze Age setup years after even Windows had dropped it.
To be fair, Apple spent the early-mid 90s trying to replace the kludge that was MultiFinder with a new preemptively multitasked OS, and all those projects fell through.
then Jobs came back and they based OS X off of NeXTStep

If I were doing the company payroll, I would take the Mac any day. It had real, professional application software like MS Excel for productivity tasks, plus the monochrome screen would be much easier on the eyes. The library of application software for the Amiga was limited and mostly low budget stuff that didn't compare with Lotus 123, Excel, or dBase (ok, it did get a belated WordPerfect port).

Yes, the Amiga was good at gaming and drawing stuff in DP, but the real moneymaker in the personal computer world was business software and it fell way short in that field.

>>4620267
Well look like the link you provided do prove that the x68k was used by capcom but
>go read the credits for wolfenstein 3d for snes: "Programmed on an Apple IIgs"
Isn't a proof nintendo used an apple IIgs though.

>>4620061
Macs were much simpler, had better operating system and generally "just worked" for stuff like desktop publishing and simpler things where having a computer was an advantage but one issue was learning curve that one needed to over come in order to use one. Everything else required you to navigate big manuals just to get a simple idea of what to do, not to mention needed a bit of setting up, Macs were literally all in one, just turn it on and you can get right to work. For some one used to type writers, Macs were easier to get the gist of, and were pretty influential as the next decade or so was spent on ways to make computer operations easier to access, understand, and use.
>>4620267
Rebecca Heineman loved the shit out of her IIGS, and literally even she will admit that her "SNES Devkit" was literally just a wiring hack of interfacing her turbo charged riced out IIGS with a SNES because Interplay was cheap and Nintendo were bastards about letting gaijin develop for their console. So don't give me the whole "Nintendo used it", because they didn't, some random lazy loner at interplay that got mocked or just plain ignored used it and would later go on to make dumb fanfiction.

>>4620414
>Macs were much simpler
This above all else. The Amiga's custom chipset was complicated to code for and had tons of "gotchas" that you didn't have to worry about with the Mac's dumb frame buffer graphics and bleeper sound.

nice i had a iigs, still have it around here somewhere, i think i had marble madness, rampage, and skate or die on 3.5 floppy disks for it, i mainly used it for making basic programs that they put each month in 3-2-1 contact magazine

>>4620414
meant to add "used it" to the end of that last sentence... oops

>>4620387
>>4620267
How does that link proof it?
The provided pictures don't show a single x68k in Capcom's offices nor do they provide any actual quotes.
There are no Japanese sources indicating Capcom using x68k, nor did Capcom support the system much.

>>4612615
Had one as my second computer. Only had Gauntlet 2 and Kings Quest 2 as far as IIgs games went. Everything else was IIe stuff.

>>4616157
For me, it's Impossible Mission

>>4612642
My nigga

>>4623421
>finally samefag replied to your week-old post after it didn't get any (Yous)

>>4623423
LOL u know it

>>4623298
Thanks anon, I heard it too

>>4612615
Steve Jobs wanted it to fail because he was an asshole.

>>4617719
That doesn't excuse the unprofessional and hostile work environment Jobs created for the people who were working in the Apple II part of the company.

>>4612615
Shame Elite wasn't ported to this system.

Bump