Thread
128k Mac with Twiggy drive
not mine, but somebody is very lucky
http://www.applefritter.com/content/macintosh-128k-prototype-twiggy-drive
Thats pretty awesome - short of the PR shots that Apple did back in the day, I've never seen photos of a Twiggy Mac in the wild that still had the original Twiggy drive (pics surfaced on 'Fritter of a TwiggyMac a few years back that still had the Twiggy sized slot in the front, but with a 3.5" drive :-/ )
The thought crossed my mind also that it could be fake, it wouldn't take too much photoshopping of that 1 picture. Plus, he already had it open and didn't post more pics? That's weird.
I can understand if it has the same blinking question mark 3.5" disk icon as an ordinary Mac, as he mentioned, because it seems reasonable that the ROM was updated later, possibly many times during development.
edit
Well, check again, there are more pics now. I'm convinced.
I can understand if it has the same blinking question mark 3.5" disk icon as an ordinary Mac, as he mentioned, because it seems reasonable that the ROM was updated later, possibly many times during development.
edit
Well, check again, there are more pics now. I'm convinced.
On one forum, he said he hadn't seen any 400k FDs in a while and didn't know if an HD floppy would format to 400k.
ISTR a tool that punched a hole in a lower density FD to turn it into a (mostly flaky) "higher capacity" FD. I wonder if a piece of tape over the hole would reverse the procedure . . . sort of like taping over the removed write protect tab on micro-cassettes and VHS casettes?
If it'll work, somebody let him know!
ISTR a tool that punched a hole in a lower density FD to turn it into a (mostly flaky) "higher capacity" FD. I wonder if a piece of tape over the hole would reverse the procedure . . . sort of like taping over the removed write protect tab on micro-cassettes and VHS casettes?
If it'll work, somebody let him know!
A 400KB disk is just a single sided 800KB disk, which can be had easily from 720KB PC floppies...I wonder if he can just use a 400KB external to boot it and grab the ROMs.
More on this
I wonder why he's posting it to a number of different message boards -- it's really cool and all, but it's not earth shattering.
I wonder why he's posting it to a number of different message boards -- it's really cool and all, but it's not earth shattering.
He knew Tom Owad would want it posted on 'fritter, which gets the most traffic due to the content on the site. The forums are a bust, unless they've picked up lately. On a cursory read, it looks to me like he's at home on the the vintage computer board. Is he new there too?
It IS earth shattering in the MacWorld. I'll bet there were a LOT more Paladin Prototypes made than TwiggyMacs.
edit: back again!
I've got some notions about this newest TwiggMac based on hacking research materials I've glommed off the web over the years.
ClearTwiggyProtoHoaxMacHacks™
It IS earth shattering in the MacWorld. I'll bet there were a LOT more Paladin Prototypes made than TwiggyMacs.
edit: back again!
I've got some notions about this newest TwiggMac based on hacking research materials I've glommed off the web over the years.
ClearTwiggyProtoHoaxMacHacks™
I wonder if Apple had a buttonless (self injecting/ejecting) Twiggy Drive Revision underway?
ISTR, that he production yield of the Twiggy Drive was never high enough to keep up with Lisa Production. So much time, money and effort was spent on the ill-fated attempt to get the Twiggy's problems ironed out that I really doubt even SJ would have complicated matters with by changing the injection/ejection hardware for the Mac.
Woz developed the SWIM in order to use the Sony 3.5" FDDs, AFAIK.
Was that early example of an ASIC backward compatible with the Twiggy Drive?
Is there a SWIM IC on board the TwiggyMac's MoBo?
Dunno, since the TwiggyMacs were a design dead-end, killed off before fit & finish trials were completed, I'll hazard a guess that the Twiggy Drives used in that line of development were production rejects.
If this TwiggyMac was put together out of random prototype parts at a later date with a production Bucket, the FDD may, or may not be operable depending on the answers to these questions.
Only time, and the appearance of more pics and info will tell. :?:
Did the production 128k Buckets have cooling vents on top?
ISTR, that he production yield of the Twiggy Drive was never high enough to keep up with Lisa Production. So much time, money and effort was spent on the ill-fated attempt to get the Twiggy's problems ironed out that I really doubt even SJ would have complicated matters with by changing the injection/ejection hardware for the Mac.
Woz developed the SWIM in order to use the Sony 3.5" FDDs, AFAIK.
Was that early example of an ASIC backward compatible with the Twiggy Drive?
Is there a SWIM IC on board the TwiggyMac's MoBo?
Dunno, since the TwiggyMacs were a design dead-end, killed off before fit & finish trials were completed, I'll hazard a guess that the Twiggy Drives used in that line of development were production rejects.
If this TwiggyMac was put together out of random prototype parts at a later date with a production Bucket, the FDD may, or may not be operable depending on the answers to these questions.
Only time, and the appearance of more pics and info will tell. :?:
Did the production 128k Buckets have cooling vents on top?
Info on Google Images lead me to believe that this TwiggyMac's Bucket probably represents the very last stage of bucket prototyping . . .
. . . no cooling vents on top! 8-o
credit: DigiBarn
He'd better not be running that beautiful thing for any great length of time with that ventless proto-bucket on it! :O
I'm thinking more and more like TwiggyMac is an External FDD ONLY curiosity piece cobbled together out of proto-goodies remaining on hand after the 128k was released, rather than an actual working prototype in its own right.
The prototyping timelines don't appear to mesh at all to me. Without even the relatively ineffective provision for convection cooling of the 128k, it's certainly not meant to be a usable Mac as shown in the pictures.
It's still waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy
and I've been known to "ASSuuuME too much!" < /oblioque Star Wars reference >
It's in now way a "fake," it's probably just a conglomeration of really cool proto-part leftovers . . .
. . . that works so long as you don't leave it powered up for too long!
)
That's my take and I'm sticking to it! :approve:
. . . no cooling vents on top! 8-o
credit: DigiBarn
He'd better not be running that beautiful thing for any great length of time with that ventless proto-bucket on it! :O
I'm thinking more and more like TwiggyMac is an External FDD ONLY curiosity piece cobbled together out of proto-goodies remaining on hand after the 128k was released, rather than an actual working prototype in its own right.
The prototyping timelines don't appear to mesh at all to me. Without even the relatively ineffective provision for convection cooling of the 128k, it's certainly not meant to be a usable Mac as shown in the pictures.
It's still waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy
and I've been known to "ASSuuuME too much!" < /oblioque Star Wars reference >It's in now way a "fake," it's probably just a conglomeration of really cool proto-part leftovers . . .
. . . that works so long as you don't leave it powered up for too long!
) That's my take and I'm sticking to it! :approve:
I worked with a lot of prototype parts in my previous job and I can say from that experience that when you're developing firmware and software, you grab and cobble together any parts that are available. I certainly did not take the time or expense to always use the latest revision prototype, especially if things were at least mostly functionally compatible. If I could manually cut a trace, or what have you, to bring an old available part up to spec, I'd do that if it was faster. This could even be a prototype that somebody threw together even after the 512k was released if there was some specific thing they were working on where they might damage something and would prefer to blow up older spare parts.
The functionality of the twiggy drive should give us some good thoughts.
The functionality of the twiggy drive should give us some good thoughts.
I seem to recall somewhere on Folklore.org reading that computer-controlled eject was a design requirement by Jobs well before the "what drive is it actually going to use" stage. Further, none of the promo pictures of apparently-functional Twiggy-drive-d Macs show an eject button hole. Thus I'd assume that the mechanism in this machine has auto-eject. I haven't seen a picture of the front of the mechanism in this thing yet, so... on what basis are you assuming that it's exactly the same mechanism used in the Lisa? Is there a picture I haven't seen?
The original Mac had the IWM, no "s", and the IWM IC was also used in the original Lisa. The "high-speed" mode of the IWM (not used when the IC was employed, for instance, in the original Apple IIc) was specifically tailored to the Twiggy, and in fact the Sony 3.5 drive mechanism as used by Apple is substantially hacked to make it compatible with the IWM, not the other way around. (The 400k/800k drive's high average rotational velocity, nearly twice that of a generic 3 1/2 drive, and variable speed are both Twiggy "features" Apple had Sony incorporate into their version.)
Thanks for the info!
I'm not ASSuMEing anything, especially about the Twiggy Drive, except that it was a POS.
It's amazing that SJ would dick around with the Twiggy Drive when it didn't really work as a production unit for the Lisa Program. Was there ever a successful self injecting/ejecting 5.25" FDD?
I know SJ was absolutely set on the 128k/Twiggy concept, but he never had any engineering chops, nor did he ever need to develop them in his role as "idea man/ultimate huckster."
The the 3.5" Sony option was developed under his radar by real engineers who actually had at least a tenuous grasp on the realities of the development process. I find this amazing
I'm just trying to come up with and list the questions to elicit answers like the one you just gave to clear up FDD controller issue.
I wouldn't assume that the Mac/Lisa drives worked or that there was even a drive installed Brochure Picture TwiggyProp Mac.
I'm not ASSuMEing anything, especially about the Twiggy Drive, except that it was a POS.
It's amazing that SJ would dick around with the Twiggy Drive when it didn't really work as a production unit for the Lisa Program. Was there ever a successful self injecting/ejecting 5.25" FDD?
I know SJ was absolutely set on the 128k/Twiggy concept, but he never had any engineering chops, nor did he ever need to develop them in his role as "idea man/ultimate huckster."
The the 3.5" Sony option was developed under his radar by real engineers who actually had at least a tenuous grasp on the realities of the development process. I find this amazing
I'm just trying to come up with and list the questions to elicit answers like the one you just gave to clear up FDD controller issue.
I wouldn't assume that the Mac/Lisa drives worked or that there was even a drive installed Brochure Picture TwiggyProp Mac.
Actually, a little more research reveals that the Lisa Twiggys also had auto-eject. The eject buttons above them on the original bezels aren't mechanical, they're electrical, and they request that the OS eject the disk rather than force the mechanism to do so.
So it all circles around again: why *not* assume that? Clearly the engineers were using Twiggy and had been using it for at least, what, maybe a year and a half before the 11th hour decision to switch to 3 1/2 drives. (*Really* old Mac prototypes were equipped with Apple II-style Disk ][ units but those predated the case tooling.) The 18 page brochure/magazine ad in which several photos of a Twiggy Macintosh appear came out in December 1983; that's only three months after the trigger was pulled on using the Sony drive so honestly I'd suspect there's a fair chance that there were more working Twiggy Macs than Sony Macs floating around the labs, at least with complete cases, which is why they photographed the Twiggy unit.
The Twiggy had perpetual reliability and performance *problems* but it did "work". Those niggling problems combined with the overall mediocrity of the product lead to its ultimate demise but the Mac team (ie, Steve Jobs) was officially in denial about those issues and kept plugging away on it right up to the end. So unless you can find a Mac engineer who can come right out and tell you that the Twiggy Macs *never* worked I'd say you're overreaching.
There is still the question of the "provenance" of this particular unit, IE, why is it that the boot ROM displays an icon of a 3.5" disk instead of a Twiggy disk, but all that conclusively demonstrates is the ROM version it's equipped with is newer than the hardware. It does *not* prove that Mac ROM versions tuned for a Twiggy disk never existed. The story behind the unit (as quoted by the buyer in another forum) is that the previous owner received the unit from Apple to use as a physical model for making a medallion of some sort (probably to be awarded to the Mac team), and Apple never bothered taking it back. The simplest explanation for the mixed-up nature of this beast would be that they grabbed a development unit off someone's desk (which is why it has a more recent ROM), and since 3.5" drives and faceplates were probably in short supply and there'd be no point in wasting one on something like this they shipped an older chassis with a Twiggy drive.
The real question that remains to be answered is if the ROM image in it actually works with a Twiggy drive or if they grabbed a "working, but not pretty" 3.5" development unit and downgraded it to a leftover Twiggy drive before fitting a set of Twiggy skins. It would be fascinating to see if the shipping Mac ROM still had hidden in it the ability to sense a Twiggy drive and function appropriately with it. The drive interface in the Mac does have some rudimentary ability to provide device ID information...
So it all circles around again: why *not* assume that? Clearly the engineers were using Twiggy and had been using it for at least, what, maybe a year and a half before the 11th hour decision to switch to 3 1/2 drives. (*Really* old Mac prototypes were equipped with Apple II-style Disk ][ units but those predated the case tooling.) The 18 page brochure/magazine ad in which several photos of a Twiggy Macintosh appear came out in December 1983; that's only three months after the trigger was pulled on using the Sony drive so honestly I'd suspect there's a fair chance that there were more working Twiggy Macs than Sony Macs floating around the labs, at least with complete cases, which is why they photographed the Twiggy unit.
The Twiggy had perpetual reliability and performance *problems* but it did "work". Those niggling problems combined with the overall mediocrity of the product lead to its ultimate demise but the Mac team (ie, Steve Jobs) was officially in denial about those issues and kept plugging away on it right up to the end. So unless you can find a Mac engineer who can come right out and tell you that the Twiggy Macs *never* worked I'd say you're overreaching.
There is still the question of the "provenance" of this particular unit, IE, why is it that the boot ROM displays an icon of a 3.5" disk instead of a Twiggy disk, but all that conclusively demonstrates is the ROM version it's equipped with is newer than the hardware. It does *not* prove that Mac ROM versions tuned for a Twiggy disk never existed. The story behind the unit (as quoted by the buyer in another forum) is that the previous owner received the unit from Apple to use as a physical model for making a medallion of some sort (probably to be awarded to the Mac team), and Apple never bothered taking it back. The simplest explanation for the mixed-up nature of this beast would be that they grabbed a development unit off someone's desk (which is why it has a more recent ROM), and since 3.5" drives and faceplates were probably in short supply and there'd be no point in wasting one on something like this they shipped an older chassis with a Twiggy drive.
The real question that remains to be answered is if the ROM image in it actually works with a Twiggy drive or if they grabbed a "working, but not pretty" 3.5" development unit and downgraded it to a leftover Twiggy drive before fitting a set of Twiggy skins. It would be fascinating to see if the shipping Mac ROM still had hidden in it the ability to sense a Twiggy drive and function appropriately with it. The drive interface in the Mac does have some rudimentary ability to provide device ID information...
I re-iterate, I'm NOT set on anything, I'm just trying to elicit the kind of answers you're providing to niggling questions I have!
I'm not certain that recollections from the team's members would be accurate, given the ludicrous work schedules and anxiety SJ's demands placed upon the team. I'm NOT saying I doubt any statements as a rule of thumb, just that eye witnesses accounts in courtrooms are considered suspect, even when witnesses were fit as a fiddle when observing events in question.
The ONLY thing I'm sure of whatsoever is this new TwiggyMac had best not be powered up for very long with that Ventless ProtoBucket attached! 8-o
Cool beans regarding your identification of the function of the Lisa's eject button, thanks! :approve:
All else is idle speculation aimed at keeping the discussion rolling and hopefully jogging others into coming up with more observations, examples of possible inconsistencies and relevant data points!
Developing time-line content documentation of the prototyping process of the Mac from the Team's Memoirs, reminiscences and historical references to release dates is something I'd find far more fascinating than simply discussing this singular TwiggyMac example!
)
I'm not certain that recollections from the team's members would be accurate, given the ludicrous work schedules and anxiety SJ's demands placed upon the team. I'm NOT saying I doubt any statements as a rule of thumb, just that eye witnesses accounts in courtrooms are considered suspect, even when witnesses were fit as a fiddle when observing events in question.
The ONLY thing I'm sure of whatsoever is this new TwiggyMac had best not be powered up for very long with that Ventless ProtoBucket attached! 8-o
Cool beans regarding your identification of the function of the Lisa's eject button, thanks! :approve:
All else is idle speculation aimed at keeping the discussion rolling and hopefully jogging others into coming up with more observations, examples of possible inconsistencies and relevant data points!
Developing time-line content documentation of the prototyping process of the Mac from the Team's Memoirs, reminiscences and historical references to release dates is something I'd find far more fascinating than simply discussing this singular TwiggyMac example!
) I heard the interview of the owner of the TwiggyMac on RetroMacCast and it sounds like he is going to flip it to someone else. It's really too bad the original "owner" didn't offer to sell it to someplace like the Computer History Museum since he only let it go for $500.
He could just be doing the work to "flip" it for the "original owner." Having it documented on 'fritter seems like a great way to set it up for private bids. It was a given that T.O. would ask him to do an article. I haven't been following info anywhere but in this thread, but it seemed like the guy is only interested in the 'fritter documentation, not in getting it running as "one of us" would.
Remember the Old-time Radio Hack, that one was sold on eBay. It was listed as "as featured on Applefritter."
Tombstone Mac
Dunno, just suspicious, as a ventless shelled "prototype," configured for self-meltdown is about as questionable a proposition as I can recall.
Remember the Old-time Radio Hack, that one was sold on eBay. It was listed as "as featured on Applefritter."
Tombstone Mac
Dunno, just suspicious, as a ventless shelled "prototype," configured for self-meltdown is about as questionable a proposition as I can recall.
Keep in mind Steve Jobs was the guy that *INSISTED* that not only should the Apple /// not have a fan, it shouldn't even have any ventilation slots. It doesn't surprise me one bit that an early rev of the Mac case bucket would have fewer holes than what finally shipped. (Once the laws of physics had clearly won the day, even to SJ's satisfaction.) The case isn't *completely* ventless. Those lines that just look like lines from the angle Trash posted *are* actually open vents (See the Applefritter pictures.); It's just missing the panel openings in the top. Knowing Steve the last "non-negotiable" design whim they had to talk him out of was a smooth featureless upper surface, making the vented panels a *very* late addition to the bucket.
This actually makes good sense to me. You can't see it in any of the pictures posted thus far, but there should also be a vent under the handle which seems like a Jobs' compromise, effective but hidden. It was probably a gradual evolution - hidden under the handle, then when that wasn't enough, cut into the chamfered corners, and when that didn't work, cut giant holes into the top. Consider too, that the first Macs shipped with an RF/heatsink that ran along the top of the analogue board, but ultimately blocked the vents, causing it to overheat, and subsequently removed. So by the time the Mac shipped, they had still not adequately tested the venting system.
And when you consider the top vents, they are actually separate grilles, glued to the case. This is probably one of the most un-Jobs like design features of the original Mac. so in my mind, it is clearly a last minute addition as the mold had already been created and would have cost a fortune to retool with the same intricacy of Mannock's child-proof grille, rather than just punch a hole in the top of the case.
There are pictures of this prototype on some early Marketing materials. The original Mac manual shows a few, as do some Books, like the Microsoft guide to the Mac. I don't have access to them at the moment, so not sure if any show a top view, but now I'm curious to go back and take a look.
And when you consider the top vents, they are actually separate grilles, glued to the case. This is probably one of the most un-Jobs like design features of the original Mac. so in my mind, it is clearly a last minute addition as the mold had already been created and would have cost a fortune to retool with the same intricacy of Mannock's child-proof grille, rather than just punch a hole in the top of the case.
There are pictures of this prototype on some early Marketing materials. The original Mac manual shows a few, as do some Books, like the Microsoft guide to the Mac. I don't have access to them at the moment, so not sure if any show a top view, but now I'm curious to go back and take a look.
He said he received offers for it privately and a sale will most likely go through. I wonder if there's some concern that Apple might want it back and bring out their prototype security forces. :b&w: When they asked about how much, he said more than what a Lisa I is going for these days. He also mentioned someone sent him a 400k external drive, boot disk with ROM dump software and will try to format a Twiggy disk.
Podcast: http://retromaccast.libsyn.com/episode-232-mac-twiggy
That would actually be quite an assumption.
Given: There are pictures "a" bucket with one of the short run of soft tool, injection molded, untexturized Twiggy Bezels that was used as a prop for photography.
Opinion: I think it's very unlikely that the "TwiggyPropMac" was anything more than an empty Bucket/Frame/CRT/Front Bezel.
Reasoning: If you have a bunch of prototype parts on hand and several working prototypes. Who in their right mind would send a working prototype off to be used as a prop on a Photo Set?
Note: The image on the screen was obviously a mechanical/comp/paleolithic era "Photoshopping." There's no way to photograph an actual CRT Image even when the set is as poorly lit as this one for the purpose. If there was a CRT in that shell at all, it was more than likely painted green or white.
Observation: The ONLY picture I've collected (and I've collected every single Mac Prototype image I've ever run across) that shows an unquestionably workable (not I didn't say "working") prototype with a Twiggy Bezel was the Sony 3.5" MicroFloppy testbed with holes hand drilled in the top for reality-corrected convection cooling.
The rest of the pics I've posted in a parallel thread are here: http://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=17681
Trash, why not send a friendly email to the proprietor of Folklore.org? I'm sure he could tell you in three sentences or less whether any "buttoned-up" working Twiggy prototypes ever existed.
Note that you undermine your own premise by saying "Who in their right mind would send a working prototype off to be used as a prop on a Photo Set?". The "timeline" stated by the owner of this thing says they got it in late 1983. That would jive perfectly with the idea that "oh, we have plenty of these now-obsolete-and-useless-since-we-switched-to-the-Sony-drive prototypes lying around, let's send one of them instead of a 3 1/2" bezel unit." Or are you referring generally to the Mac used in those promotional photo shoots? In that case, keep in mind that was 1983. Photoshopping a natural-looking screen display onto a static prop took more effort then than it does now. They certainly *could* of used a completely dead doorstop, but your blanket contention that every picture of a "working" Twiggy Mac must be fake sort of borders on Moon Landing conspiracy unless you can produce some evidence. Apple was doing "secret" demos of the Mac to software vendors starting as early as mid-1982, more than a year before they even decided to use the Sony drive; are you saying that every one of those demos was done using a naked circuit board connected to... what?
EDIT, since it was just added as I was typing this: Those *sure* look like working Twiggy Macs (with no vents on top) on a few pages of the original Mac user manual. (See chapters 3 and 4. Could the screen glow be fake? Sure, but... again, how is that a more conservative interpretation of the facts? ) The one shot you picked probably *is* 'shopped because there appears to be a window in the background which would probably at least wash out the screen display, but it's not the only picture in existence.
You seem to be basing the bulk of this supposition on the fact that the pictures of the "Two-face" brutally-hacked-to-hold-the-Sony-drive Mac you found show hand-drilled cooling holes in the top. So... what does that prove? It's certainly evidence that the Twiggy-prototypes might of had a severe overheating problem, but it does nothing to demonstrate that said systems never *worked*, at least for a few hours/days at a time. (Wouldn't you have to actually run the system for a while to discover it has a cooling problem?)
Note that you undermine your own premise by saying "Who in their right mind would send a working prototype off to be used as a prop on a Photo Set?". The "timeline" stated by the owner of this thing says they got it in late 1983. That would jive perfectly with the idea that "oh, we have plenty of these now-obsolete-and-useless-since-we-switched-to-the-Sony-drive prototypes lying around, let's send one of them instead of a 3 1/2" bezel unit." Or are you referring generally to the Mac used in those promotional photo shoots? In that case, keep in mind that was 1983. Photoshopping a natural-looking screen display onto a static prop took more effort then than it does now. They certainly *could* of used a completely dead doorstop, but your blanket contention that every picture of a "working" Twiggy Mac must be fake sort of borders on Moon Landing conspiracy unless you can produce some evidence. Apple was doing "secret" demos of the Mac to software vendors starting as early as mid-1982, more than a year before they even decided to use the Sony drive; are you saying that every one of those demos was done using a naked circuit board connected to... what?
EDIT, since it was just added as I was typing this: Those *sure* look like working Twiggy Macs (with no vents on top) on a few pages of the original Mac user manual. (See chapters 3 and 4. Could the screen glow be fake? Sure, but... again, how is that a more conservative interpretation of the facts? ) The one shot you picked probably *is* 'shopped because there appears to be a window in the background which would probably at least wash out the screen display, but it's not the only picture in existence.
You seem to be basing the bulk of this supposition on the fact that the pictures of the "Two-face" brutally-hacked-to-hold-the-Sony-drive Mac you found show hand-drilled cooling holes in the top. So... what does that prove? It's certainly evidence that the Twiggy-prototypes might of had a severe overheating problem, but it does nothing to demonstrate that said systems never *worked*, at least for a few hours/days at a time. (Wouldn't you have to actually run the system for a while to discover it has a cooling problem?)
I never said that Twiggy Prototypes couldn't work or never worked. I just said this guy shouldn't run this particular system with the bucket on it for any length of time!
Shutters, Film and Lighting are mutually incompatible with CRT Scan Lines and Brightness Levels on any photo set. Ask 4seasonphoto, I'll bet he backs me up on this.
Gross Generalization: All pictures of All Computer screens are USUALLY retouched.composited/faked due to these incompatibilities.
It's not conspiracy theory, it's graphic art production!
Take a look of the pic of the guy illuminated in blue by the Mac CRT, there was a blue gel/photoflood in that case!
Retouching/Compositing were standard graphic arts and cinematic processes in 1983. Doing it "manually" today is still sometimes easier that doing the same thing in Photoshop, it's just that nobody knows how to do it the old way except guerilla filmmakers and the old timers at ILM.
It's like the old saw: When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Photoshop's a digital pixel hammer.
)
Shutters, Film and Lighting are mutually incompatible with CRT Scan Lines and Brightness Levels on any photo set. Ask 4seasonphoto, I'll bet he backs me up on this.
Gross Generalization: All pictures of All Computer screens are USUALLY retouched.composited/faked due to these incompatibilities.
It's not conspiracy theory, it's graphic art production!
Take a look of the pic of the guy illuminated in blue by the Mac CRT, there was a blue gel/photoflood in that case!
Retouching/Compositing were standard graphic arts and cinematic processes in 1983. Doing it "manually" today is still sometimes easier that doing the same thing in Photoshop, it's just that nobody knows how to do it the old way except guerilla filmmakers and the old timers at ILM.
It's like the old saw: When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Photoshop's a digital pixel hammer.
Considering the cooling problems/failure rates of the production 128k . . . I'd say: NO! Not in hindsight anyway.
) Oh. Okay. If that's what you said then I'll agree that, yes, he probably shouldn't be leaving it on for days at a time because chances are it has a dysfunctional cooling system. Not an unusual problem for a prototype to have.
The thing is, when you say things like "The prototyping timelines don't appear to mesh at all to me. Without even the relatively ineffective provision for convection cooling of the 128k, it's certainly not meant to be a usable Mac as shown in the pictures." it certainly sounds like you're saying a lot more than that, something along the lines of: "Clearly, based on the lack of vent holes on top there's no way anyone could possibly of had one of these assembled and turned on for more than five minutes without it bursting like a sparkler bomb and killing everyone within a twenty yard radius. Therefore all those pictures of people working on Twiggy-Macs have just *got* to be fake." Not to mention your statements expressing doubt that Apple's entire (ill-fated, granted) disk drive division could *possibly* turn out enough semi-working Twiggy drives for the Mac developers to use prior to the Sony salesman showing up at the door despite the fact they actually managed to get a few thousand two-drive Lisa 1s out the door during the same period. Which worked, sort of.
I dunno, it just reads a bit like you're extrapolating a bit. But maybe it's just me. My apologies. Again, if you're convinced the dates mentioned on folklore.org are wrong it's probably possible to get in touch with some of the people who may or may not of been taking Twiggymacs home/on other road trips.
You miss the general point, the pics of people using any Macs (or PCs) in such publications are probably "faked." It's a whole lot easier to retouch or replace the CRT image in the compositing room than it is to get a usable photo of someone using the image on a working CRT on a photo set in real time. That's the way it was done and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way it's still done to this day.
That's a graphic arts process observation. I've seen film-making documentary that suggests that it's still being done for computer displays with smoke & mirrors/digital hammers.
I only said the time lines for this particular kluge of prototype parts to have been an actual working prototype seem to be off.
I AM extrapolating and I AM playing devil's advocate to some degree. I have a healthy level of skepticism about most everything, this TwiggyMacPrototype is well worth examining as closely as possible for minor discrepancies. Especially so since it appears (to me) to be a moneymaking effort on the part of the owner, who's not all that interested (or so it appears to me) in actually testing the unit, just in photographing and hyping it.
BTW: I LOVE the stuff on folklore, but it's presented as:
Those characters were t * i * r * e * d from a frenzied workpace, in a secretive workplace and being whipsawed back and forth on developmental dead-ends at the whim of a brilliant madman. SJ was more like an architect, who makes pretty drawings and models to sell a concept and then drives everyone on the worksite crazy about what details of his inspiration remain, after having had them cut down several notches and had his nose rubbed in the realities of structural engineering, by the engineers who do the actual design work.
IMHO, of course, but I've been on a lot of job sites and had to deal with a lot of architects!)
Fortunately and unfortunately, SJ was the owner/operator of the shop that did the structural engineering, so much of the Mac's successful developmental detail went on under his radar/outside the reality distortion field.
That's a graphic arts process observation. I've seen film-making documentary that suggests that it's still being done for computer displays with smoke & mirrors/digital hammers.
I only said the time lines for this particular kluge of prototype parts to have been an actual working prototype seem to be off.
I AM extrapolating and I AM playing devil's advocate to some degree. I have a healthy level of skepticism about most everything, this TwiggyMacPrototype is well worth examining as closely as possible for minor discrepancies. Especially so since it appears (to me) to be a moneymaking effort on the part of the owner, who's not all that interested (or so it appears to me) in actually testing the unit, just in photographing and hyping it.
BTW: I LOVE the stuff on folklore, but it's presented as:
Anecdote is to Documentary as Memoir is to AutoBiography. They're not the same thing and not necessarily as factual as the latter, so much as entertaining/informative and accurate within the framework that memory allows.
Those characters were t * i * r * e * d from a frenzied workpace, in a secretive workplace and being whipsawed back and forth on developmental dead-ends at the whim of a brilliant madman. SJ was more like an architect, who makes pretty drawings and models to sell a concept and then drives everyone on the worksite crazy about what details of his inspiration remain, after having had them cut down several notches and had his nose rubbed in the realities of structural engineering, by the engineers who do the actual design work.
IMHO, of course, but I've been on a lot of job sites and had to deal with a lot of architects!
) Fortunately and unfortunately, SJ was the owner/operator of the shop that did the structural engineering, so much of the Mac's successful developmental detail went on under his radar/outside the reality distortion field.
400KB Sony external?
Whoever buys that better should have some Twiggy disks.
As for the CRT issue, I'm guessing they can make a transparency with Mac graphics printed on it and glue it to the front shell, then put a light bulb behind it. Needless to say the black border surrounding the display is a little smaller than it should be...although that depends on distance.
You can take a photograph of an image on a CRT if you put the camera on a tripod, set the shutter speed really slow, and set the F-stop really small, so as to allow lots of scans of the screen through the shutter. It also helps to use a time delay so you aren't touching the camera during the exposure. I did this in my high school photography class and it turned out very well, crisp and no lines.
Agreed, it can be done, if that''s the only thing you're trying to photograph.
Such is not a priority in a photography session for publication, television or the movies. It was difficult enough to get a great set of usable shots of the rest of the set, the models and the equipment to be advertised or documented back in the day of pre-digital Polaroid proofing for film shoots. Cluttering up a shoot with a real computer that needed to display any kind of image at all would never have been a serious consideration. That image was almost always done in post production for video, movies and print.
Heck, the ads and brochure pages were done as paste-up comps for process photography and photo-lithographic plates in that way-pre-PageMaker era.
How many of you kids have even seen a process camera?
Such is not a priority in a photography session for publication, television or the movies. It was difficult enough to get a great set of usable shots of the rest of the set, the models and the equipment to be advertised or documented back in the day of pre-digital Polaroid proofing for film shoots. Cluttering up a shoot with a real computer that needed to display any kind of image at all would never have been a serious consideration. That image was almost always done in post production for video, movies and print.
Heck, the ads and brochure pages were done as paste-up comps for process photography and photo-lithographic plates in that way-pre-PageMaker era.
How many of you kids have even seen a process camera?
Has anyone been following updates on the TwiggyMac? :?:
http://www.applefritter.com/content/macintosh-128k-prototype-twiggy-drive
http://www.applefritter.com/content/macintosh-128k-prototype-twiggy-drive
I'm sure it would make a nice discussion piece, coupled with a working demo and all that, could keep me interested for at least an hour.
For now though, it looks like a flop. Pity, since I was piqued by it. Then I noted the lack of twiggy disks on the 'net, and that was all I figured I needed to know. Unless someone has a stash of twiggy disks, and a way to put an OS on it, I see a pass-around orphan machine.
For now though, it looks like a flop. Pity, since I was piqued by it. Then I noted the lack of twiggy disks on the 'net, and that was all I figured I needed to know. Unless someone has a stash of twiggy disks, and a way to put an OS on it, I see a pass-around orphan machine.
I would swear at some point I saw a page where someone claimed at least some success "manufacturing" twiggy disks by carefully skinning standard 1.2 MB AT floppies, creatively cutting-and-pasting the jacket, and reassembling the disk. I don't know how wise/workable that actually is, but... could be worth a shot if someone were serious about fiddling with the machine. (Unfortunately Google is failing me in finding a reference to said process.)
Of course, call me jaded but I don't think the guy who has the TwiggyTosh is really that serious about *playing* with the machine.
Of course, call me jaded but I don't think the guy who has the TwiggyTosh is really that serious about *playing* with the machine.
There has been Apple FileWare / Twiggy disks on ebay for months from this seller:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Apple-Lisa-1-Computer-5-25-Twiggy-Disk-c-1983-/370473987514?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5641f86dba
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Apple-Lisa-1-Computer-5-25-Twiggy-Disk-c-1983-/370473987514?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5641f86dba
Then you need a Lisa that works or someone that does to copy the operating system to the twiggy disk.
And then what can you do next?
Networking, for a start. Since it is a 128K, it can't use the HD20 without the INIT, so then a working HD20 has to be procured and the INIT loaded. And then what?
And then what can you do next?
Networking, for a start. Since it is a 128K, it can't use the HD20 without the INIT, so then a working HD20 has to be procured and the INIT loaded. And then what?
A couple of thoughts.
1) As Apple engineers were actively developing the 400K disk behind Steve Jobs back, the ROM likely supports the Sony driver found in a 400K external drive at this late date in the prototyping. Then again, they may have kept the Sony drive development ROMs under lock and key lest Steve accidentally stumble upon it like the ill-fated diagnostic port.
2) Even if the ROM supports the 400K drive, it may not support the production model that shipped, in much the same way the Rev. A ROMs do not support the 2nd generation drive that shipped in late 1984.
3) Assuming the 400K external drive would work, there is no guarantee any version of the available early Mac software would boot this Mac, depending on the ROM version. Likewise for the Twiggy drive. Do we really know anything about it for the Mac? The Mac did almost everything differently. Why would Jobs settle for an off-the-shelf implementation of the Twiggy drive? How would one even load an early version of the Mac software onto a Twiggy disk via the drive in that Mac in any reliable way? Assuming it is possible, considering the tweaks that were made in the 11th hour after the 400K drive had been adopted, would any of it actually work with the earliest Mac software available to us? Seems unlikely.
1) As Apple engineers were actively developing the 400K disk behind Steve Jobs back, the ROM likely supports the Sony driver found in a 400K external drive at this late date in the prototyping. Then again, they may have kept the Sony drive development ROMs under lock and key lest Steve accidentally stumble upon it like the ill-fated diagnostic port.
2) Even if the ROM supports the 400K drive, it may not support the production model that shipped, in much the same way the Rev. A ROMs do not support the 2nd generation drive that shipped in late 1984.
3) Assuming the 400K external drive would work, there is no guarantee any version of the available early Mac software would boot this Mac, depending on the ROM version. Likewise for the Twiggy drive. Do we really know anything about it for the Mac? The Mac did almost everything differently. Why would Jobs settle for an off-the-shelf implementation of the Twiggy drive? How would one even load an early version of the Mac software onto a Twiggy disk via the drive in that Mac in any reliable way? Assuming it is possible, considering the tweaks that were made in the 11th hour after the 400K drive had been adopted, would any of it actually work with the earliest Mac software available to us? Seems unlikely.
It's alive!...
I hope the following will set the records straight. Some of you may know me as eBay seller "wozniac". I just want you let you all know that over the past year I have exausted many resourses and went as far as I could go in order to facilitate the resurrection of this Twiggy Macintosh 128k prototype. To everyone's delight, yes - it lives! 2 disks were found.
I was able to have the disks shipped up to me in Canada, then sent over to James McPhail who was able to archive and duplicate the disks by means of the Basic Lisa Utility which he wrote. This is a truly amazing feat and discovery. I wish to share all of this with you.
More stories and information to come, This is "insanely great" !
Steve Sez...
I hope the following will set the records straight. Some of you may know me as eBay seller "wozniac". I just want you let you all know that over the past year I have exausted many resourses and went as far as I could go in order to facilitate the resurrection of this Twiggy Macintosh 128k prototype. To everyone's delight, yes - it lives! 2 disks were found.
I was able to have the disks shipped up to me in Canada, then sent over to James McPhail who was able to archive and duplicate the disks by means of the Basic Lisa Utility which he wrote. This is a truly amazing feat and discovery. I wish to share all of this with you.
More stories and information to come, This is "insanely great" !
Steve Sez...
OOM - save it buddy…
You have no idea what so ever how much Mac512k put forth in order to share this wonderful information with us.
This man is as serious as they get. And all I can say is WOW, sir. Thanks for hanging in there and sharing this with us.
This really is Insanely great!
You have no idea what so ever how much Mac512k put forth in order to share this wonderful information with us.
This man is as serious as they get. And all I can say is WOW, sir. Thanks for hanging in there and sharing this with us.
This really is Insanely great!