Talk:Macintosh XL

message: What did it use? rectangles? --Gbleem 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear so. See, for example, this page from Dartmouth College. —Grstain | Talk 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BROWSING COMPUTERS 129.205.201.252 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Aw, it's so cute when they're this young, isn't it? Yes, of course non-square pixels were rectangular instead, either wider or taller than the now-standard square. It used to be pretty common on old machines, and the savvy programmer would account for this when drawing graphics, if they were making a program where it actually mattered (or were using hardware that actually allowed pixel-level graphics anyway). You have your wide/short pixels of a Vic20, or VCS, or a C64/MSX/CPC/BBC/etc in low-rez mode, or even a 4:3 PAL TV broadcast/videotape/DVD (and more particularly any widescreen broadcast or recording, or any DVD at "half D1" resolution)... and more commonly the narrow/tall pixels of the Lisa/stock XL, a PC CGA or EGA card in hi-rez mode, an Atari ST or Amiga in medium rez (and arguably all four of those plus VGA/MCGA in low rez, if you adjusted the monitor for minimal borders, plus the Hercules Mono card and, technically speaking at least, the MDA text-only adaptor with which it shared a signal generator), or a 4:3 NTSC broadcast/recording. It's only since the rise of VGA that square pixels have been a given anywhere except with the Macs... (I was going to say "VGA and LCD", but then realised even the early LCD screens had rectangular pels, and technically speaking a modern colour LCD is made of pixels three times taller than they are wide, covered with a stripey red-green-blue filter gel... And some of those used e.g. on camera viewfinders have a hexagonal arrangement instead, aping that of old non-trinitron CRT TVs and monitors). Oddly I think one other place you got square ones was on certain old consoles, despite their having resolutions that would on a more regular computer lead to non-square-ness, hence their employing rather wide horizontal borders... e.g. the NES and SNES... TMYK and all that. 87.113.33.192 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The answers above aren't accurate; the Lisa always had rectangular pixels but Apple offered a modification that altered its resolution to 608x431, i.e. to square pixels, for use with MacWorks. Sources seem to disagree about whether that became a standard feature as the machine became essentially only a Macintosh. See e.g. the marketing image https://3894a8e173f5f8870a41-c88208a08312eda3cf96a15131ffd631.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/mac-xl1513185191571.jpg — compare and contrast the aspect ratio of the text in that to the text on a Macintosh. It's identical. That's a Lisa with square pixels. — 100.8.186.224 (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square pixels? 

message: Was there any physical difference, even from a cosmetic standpoint, between the Lisa 2 and Mac XL? Did the XL have a different product sticker label on the underside? Could it still run the Lisa OS? Did it even ship in a different box with different manual?
From the article the only difference mention is the inclusion of different set of floppy disks in the box.--Apple2gs 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macintosh XL versus Lisa 2/10 

message: Here, there is an image of an actual Macintosh XL.  Can we replace the current one iwth this one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensign Q (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Picture 

message: OK, so the article text says that the line was discontinued despite unexpectedly high demand when Apple ran out of parts with which to make them, but then the timeline box has a note that the unsold units were buried at a landfill, Atari ET style. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it? 87.113.33.192 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was their actual eventual fate?