eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (09/28/84)
It appears that the most important issues, and reasonable solutions, have
been obscured by the mass of vague accusations and spleen-venting flames
(including by own). I will summarize what I feel are critical:
1) Apple Computer misrepresented the 128k machine as being a
reasonable memory configuration for which there would soon
be large quantities of software.
2) Apple Computer knew that the 128k machines would be made
obsolete by the 512k machines without an expensive upgrade.
3) Owners gripes about depreciation of their machines are
unreasonable. The drop in price was anticipated by many.
However, owners complaints about obsolence are well founded.
To have a machine only 6 months old be shunted away from the
main stream of new software is unreasonable.
4) Apple has announced plans to continue producing 128k Macs (at
least until they can get enough 256k rams to keep production
going).
Items 1 and 2 are particularly damning, and sufficient grounds to expect
Apple to lose a few bucks retrofitting 128k Macs.
Retrofit with what?
Not with 512k boards, at least not for free (maybe for the cost of the
chips alone).
I propose Apple redesign the memory board the way they should have
designed it in the beginning. A simple board with 16 sockets and a
personality module (or jumpers) to allow the use of 64k or 256k rams (or
even 1 meg rams, if compatible).
Former Apple ][ owners will recognize the design approach. Apple did
just this on the early mother boards. Three rows of 8 sockets each were
controlled by three personality modules. Each row could accept either 4k
or 16k chips. Talk about expandibility! From the early 4k machines to
the 64k ][+ is a factor of 16 -- this without a costly trip to the dealer
or replacing a board. If the Mac were similary expandable, original
owners could go from 128k to 2 Meg.
This new board should be given to all 128k owners, gratis, and, screw the
stockholders (I myself am one, and I do not own a Mac-- I'm not that
naive). All new 128k machines should be supplied with this new board as
standard equipment. This will allow those on limited budgets to
experience the Mac environment and upgrade when chip prices fall.
Such a simple thing, such a reasonable thing, but who ever heard of an
upgradeable bar of soap?
--
Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!evemarc@wlcrjs.UUCP (Marc Lavine) (10/05/84)
> I propose Apple redesign the memory board the way they should have > designed it in the beginning. A simple board with 16 sockets and a > personality module (or jumpers) to allow the use of 64k or 256k rams (or > even 1 meg rams, if compatible). From what I have heard and read, there is NO difference between the 128K boards and the 512K boards except for the type of RAM chips installed. In other words, the boards were designed to take either type of chip from the beginning (or sometime around then). Apple wanted the Mac to be a closed system in terms of hardware, and that appears to be their reasoning in not using sockets for the RAM chips. Marc Lavine -- Marc Lavine ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!marc
ward@hao.UUCP (10/08/84)
> From what I have heard and read, there is NO difference between the 128K > boards and the 512K boards except for the type of RAM chips installed. > In other words, the boards were designed to take either type of chip from > the beginning (or sometime around then). Apple now says that there were four versions of the 128K board made, and the latest version is identical to the 512K board. Hardly "from the begining". Also, some expensive and difficult to use de-soldering equipment is needed to remove the old chips. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
BILLW@sri-kl.ARPA (10/08/84)
1) Apple Computer misrepresented the 128k machine as being a
reasonable memory configuration for which there would soon
be large quantities of software.
2) Apple Computer knew that the 128k machines would be made
obsolete by the 512k machines without an expensive upgrade.
Are these statments true? Is a 128K Mac really worthless? Most of
the complaints that I have seen on this list, and on INFO-MAC, having
to do with memory space limitaions concern things like BASIC, various
compilers, and other DEVELOPMENT tools. The MAC was never intended
to be a development machine - it was designed for users. How many
of the applications available or planned are severly handicapped by
having only 128K? Do not include applications written in a compiler
forced to fit in the same memory - most development these days is
done on a larger computer.
It is neither unreasonable nor uncommon for a "development" system
to cost much more than a "user" system. I do not think that the
requirement of a LISA or a VAX is a serious flaw - Apple is currently
trying to get the MAJOR applications running on the apple - and the
companies making them can easilly aford a seperate development system.
Of course there are all of those cosortium people who wanted to use
the MAC for teaching programming, and that might be difficult without
the extra memory - good compilers will come in time, though - compare
Turbo Pascal for the IBMPC to the Pascal from IBM...
BillW
PS: Everybody should go out and read a copy of "Atlas Shrugged"
By Ayn Rand.... $$ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/09/84)
> How many > of the applications available or planned are severly handicapped by > having only 128K? Macwrite Macpaint Multiplan Overvue The Lotus Product Word Draw Project The Font Editor These are the ones that come right to mind. I'm sure there are others. > PS: Everybody should go out and read a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" > By Ayn Rand.... $$ Oh, Lord, will we always have sophomores to plague us? -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307