Thread
Monopoly money for 1991 Nubus cards, and a v. peculiar card
I have been doing bits and pieces of research on some recently acquired hardware. According to this snippet, the RasterOps 24XLI nubus card that I now have bouncing around in a cardboard box once cost $3500. And that $3500 was back in 1991.
Now I know that large screens were cutting edge and the technologies involved were of commercial importance to the burgeoning desktop publishing/ printing industry of the time, but really — $3500? How did the manufacturer get away with it?
The RasterOps 24XLI was, having said that, a rather interesting and obviously high-end video card which supported 24 bit colour on a 20" monitor without further ado, which was quite something back in 1991. The odd thing is that the 24XLI also contained 4 perfectly ordinary 30-pin SIMM slots. So once I get around to firing it up, I'm going to go with 4x 4MB SIMMS for 16MB in a video card from 1991, just to say that I'd done it.
The RAM added can apparently be used either for "Gworlds" use, which nubus video card aficianados will know all about — or, much more eccentrically ... for a RAM disk!
Why the latter functionality on a video card, do you suppose?
Now I know that large screens were cutting edge and the technologies involved were of commercial importance to the burgeoning desktop publishing/ printing industry of the time, but really — $3500? How did the manufacturer get away with it?
The RasterOps 24XLI was, having said that, a rather interesting and obviously high-end video card which supported 24 bit colour on a 20" monitor without further ado, which was quite something back in 1991. The odd thing is that the 24XLI also contained 4 perfectly ordinary 30-pin SIMM slots. So once I get around to firing it up, I'm going to go with 4x 4MB SIMMS for 16MB in a video card from 1991, just to say that I'd done it.
The RAM added can apparently be used either for "Gworlds" use, which nubus video card aficianados will know all about — or, much more eccentrically ... for a RAM disk!
Why the latter functionality on a video card, do you suppose?
A 16MB RAM disk (extremely expensive back then) would hold a decent amount of graphics data allowing you to make edits without using the slow hard drives of the day (scratch disk).
Those Nubus cards were not exactly super fast moving data over the Nubus BUS, so having it stored on the card would make working with big images a whole lot faster.
Those Nubus cards were not exactly super fast moving data over the Nubus BUS, so having it stored on the card would make working with big images a whole lot faster.
This LEM article offers a rather unflattering view of the card, and of its RAM disk capability, but I wonder if this could perhaps be related to the System software (7.5) under which it was tested?
Among the distinctly odd things about these old pieces of hardware is the disconnect between price paid and longevity; a parallel to this would be a nubus card like the 8/24GC from Apple itself, which was supposedly designed specifically for the IIfx (and its little bother, the IIci), both of which machines were designed with a view for the impending release of System 7. Yet the RISC processor and (in effect) separate OS included on the 8/24GC only works properly under System 6.
So you invested heavily ("It costs the eyes out of your head," would be a suitable French idiom for it), only to have a failure of support just a year or two later.
Among the distinctly odd things about these old pieces of hardware is the disconnect between price paid and longevity; a parallel to this would be a nubus card like the 8/24GC from Apple itself, which was supposedly designed specifically for the IIfx (and its little bother, the IIci), both of which machines were designed with a view for the impending release of System 7. Yet the RISC processor and (in effect) separate OS included on the 8/24GC only works properly under System 6.
So you invested heavily ("It costs the eyes out of your head," would be a suitable French idiom for it), only to have a failure of support just a year or two later.
What "Gworlds" is? Eh. Creative googling will sort of explain it:
http://www.mactech.com/articles/develop/issue_08/095-098_Guest_column.html
http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/mac/QuickDraw/QuickDraw-2.html
... (Look at the chapter about "offscreen graphics worlds) and they're mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article on Quickdraw. To oversimplify, it basically seems to boil down to being a form of "double-buffering" in which pointers are set so that Quickdraw, rather than drawing directly to video RAM, renders a complex image element to a RAM buffer which is copied to the display device when it's finished. Apparently it was possible with these Nubus cards with SIMM slots to set the render pointers to the RAM cache on the card so the CPU would render to the offscreen buffer there instead of system RAM, and when the image was ready to display it could be simply blitted by the video card's hardware into VRAM rather than transferred over Nubus. (Which would be comparatively slow compared to a memory-to-memory transfer on the card itself.)
An application had to specifically support doing this, so having that memory in most cases doesn't make anything faster. And apparently OS updates had a bad habit of breaking apps that did do it.
http://www.mactech.com/articles/develop/issue_08/095-098_Guest_column.html
http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/mac/QuickDraw/QuickDraw-2.html
... (Look at the chapter about "offscreen graphics worlds) and they're mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article on Quickdraw. To oversimplify, it basically seems to boil down to being a form of "double-buffering" in which pointers are set so that Quickdraw, rather than drawing directly to video RAM, renders a complex image element to a RAM buffer which is copied to the display device when it's finished. Apparently it was possible with these Nubus cards with SIMM slots to set the render pointers to the RAM cache on the card so the CPU would render to the offscreen buffer there instead of system RAM, and when the image was ready to display it could be simply blitted by the video card's hardware into VRAM rather than transferred over Nubus. (Which would be comparatively slow compared to a memory-to-memory transfer on the card itself.)
An application had to specifically support doing this, so having that memory in most cases doesn't make anything faster. And apparently OS updates had a bad habit of breaking apps that did do it.
I was pleased to hear that the 8 24GC works under 7.1. I have been doing some further googling in response to this piece of information, and now see that there were ROM updates for a while.
As the article referenced shows, it was quite the nubus card.
As for resolution, I think it is meant to drive a large monitor quite happily at 1024x768 or better.
As the article referenced shows, it was quite the nubus card.
As for resolution, I think it is meant to drive a large monitor quite happily at 1024x768 or better.
I forgot that that monitor has a converter DIP box on it, so I'll have to try later (it's forcing a particular resolution) when I can find the DIP setting page again. In the meantime, though, I think it also depends greatly on how much RAM is installed. I was very fortunate to find a card with the full 8MB of option RAM installed (for a total of 10MB, including the built-in 2MB buffer). If yours is RAM impaired, maybe that explains the problem.
As it has come up, could you tell us what RAM chips are in the 8 24CG that you have? There are conflicting reports concerning whether or not IIfx RAM works, and I am thinking of trying to find the chips if I can find out precisely what to look for. 8MB would be rather good in the card, I think.
The RAM can be used for GWorlds, but I don't know if it has any other feature. Incidentally, found this rather nice article: http://www.mactech.com/articles/develop/issue_03/824GC_V007.html That article simply calls it DRAM for the GC kernel, so I might be wrong about resolution depending on it. However, LEM says it can go up to 1152 x 870, though I have never tried that resolution: http://lowendmac.com/video/apple8-24gc.shtml
Anyway, they appear to be 64-pin sticks, and they do resemble the IIfx sticks I have seen. The chip code is (Samsung?) KM44C256AJ-8.
Anyway, they appear to be 64-pin sticks, and they do resemble the IIfx sticks I have seen. The chip code is (Samsung?) KM44C256AJ-8.
Well there are LOTS of hits from "KM44C256AJ-8" if you do a search, but I am wondering if this is the number of the chip used on the vram card or the number of the card part itself. I get mixed messages from a hit like this, which on the one hand makes the part look cheap and readily available, but which also suggests that the number refers to the SOJ used rather than to the part number of the actual vram needed.
Still, very helpful lead.
Still, very helpful lead.
I'll say this. If I EVER pay $3500 for a video card, that company better damn well still be in business 20 years from now and supporting their product because I'll still be using it. No way do I pay that much for something and end up scrapping it or selling it for a pittance just because it's old.
Rasterops sucked, though, because when they were dying and no longer making video cards but still supporting their old ones they were charging a ton of money for drivers and software so if you were looking for a used graphics accelerator back then you avoided Rasterops cards like the plague because even if you got the card for free, you'd be paying through the nose if you needed drivers or software.
Rasterops sucked, though, because when they were dying and no longer making video cards but still supporting their old ones they were charging a ton of money for drivers and software so if you were looking for a used graphics accelerator back then you avoided Rasterops cards like the plague because even if you got the card for free, you'd be paying through the nose if you needed drivers or software.
You pay a mint for bleeding edge equipment (still do), and it gets old fast.
Rasterops made some nice cards in the early days of Nubus, they were also one of the first with add-on cards for acceleration so you didn't have to toss the old one out. I think Truevision which made very good video capture cards was purchased by Rasterops very early in its life and did well under them. My understanding is Rasterops charged $75 or something like that for drivers making it uneconomical to purchase (by then obsolete) Nubus cards. I think they sold off the inventory and files to a third party who tried to make a living with support, hence the $$$ fees. It took me a while to find OS 6 drivers for Rasterops cards, but they work well. I could be wrong but I think Rasterops cards (at least the video editing ones) were cheaper then anything Radius and Supermac sold around the same time.
Rasterops made some nice cards in the early days of Nubus, they were also one of the first with add-on cards for acceleration so you didn't have to toss the old one out. I think Truevision which made very good video capture cards was purchased by Rasterops very early in its life and did well under them. My understanding is Rasterops charged $75 or something like that for drivers making it uneconomical to purchase (by then obsolete) Nubus cards. I think they sold off the inventory and files to a third party who tried to make a living with support, hence the $$$ fees. It took me a while to find OS 6 drivers for Rasterops cards, but they work well. I could be wrong but I think Rasterops cards (at least the video editing ones) were cheaper then anything Radius and Supermac sold around the same time.
well yes, and it was about the cost of a pimped out home computer back then too...
I beg to differ
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=ubuntu&q=Quadro+FX+5800&oe=utf-8&cid=14324056962796127611&ei=Y04DTLazDoGSwQWE9IjMCQ&sa=title&ved=0CBcQ8wIwAzgA#p
According to The Inflation Calculator, $3500 in 1991 was $5444 in 2009. Doesn't go to 2010 for some reason, so let's call it a round $5500.
Ouch! ... is that ... my wallet ... bleeding...?
One of the things the younger members of this forum might not appreciate is how expensive Macs, Mac accessories, & Mac software all were back in the 80s and early- to mid-90s. It started to improve after maybe 1997. Today you pay a premium; then you absolutely clobbered. And that, children, is why Apple deserved to just about go out of business.
Ouch! ... is that ... my wallet ... bleeding...?
One of the things the younger members of this forum might not appreciate is how expensive Macs, Mac accessories, & Mac software all were back in the 80s and early- to mid-90s. It started to improve after maybe 1997. Today you pay a premium; then you absolutely clobbered. And that, children, is why Apple deserved to just about go out of business.