bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) (02/20/86)
> This may have been discussed before; if so, I missed it. Why is the > ROM upgrade tied to upgrading the internal drive to the two-sided > version? The new ROMs apparently handle external single-sided drives > OK, so why not the old internal as well? The additional cost of the new > drive makes the total cost very high compared to what the new ROMs > alone should cost. (I hope very much this is not the reason behind > this, or Apple will lose face once again.) Not to mention disk hassles > (assuming that not all of my "single-sided" disks will be good enough for > two-sided use.) > Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN > path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Why did Apple choose not to exchange the old keyboards, when they agreed to change the logic boards? Surely one is as useful as the other to them... Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford to do us any more favors... Why has Apple still not come out with the C and Pascal development systems running on the Mac which it promised when the Mac FIRST CAME OUT, n years ago? Why in #$%^ would engineers screw up so bad as to make the write-protect tab overrideable in software?? Now don't get the idea that I dislike the Mac. I'm an almost religious macfanatic. I just thought maybe you'd get the picture. Apple fairly regularly acts like it's being driven by drunken madmen. One must simply learn to like it or lump it. BTW, about the ROM upgrade, I'm told that the AUC schools *begged* en masse to have it unbundled for their *thousands* of macs that they couldn't afford to upgrade at all otherwise. Apple said no way. Just a rumor... Bart Massey ..tektronix!reed!bart -- Bart Massey ..tektronix!reed!bart
gus@Shasta.ARPA (Gus Fernandez) (02/23/86)
> > Why did Apple choose not to exchange the old keyboards, when they agreed > to change the logic boards? Surely one is as useful as the other to them... > Some people like the old keyboards better. For one, the new ones don't fit in a standard mac sack! Thus you can have the best of both worlds. The logic board is strictly an exchange because Apple wants to keep controll of the ROM's. Since this is the only real part that sets the Mac appart from the competition, they do not want to create a 'grey' market of pseudo macs built around 'llose' ROMs. These are the reasons given by the Apple evangelists at a resent Stanford Mac Users Group general meeting. > Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's > considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to > bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford > to do us any more favors... Apple still doesn't believe that they are in the software business. They feel that MW and MP were apps necessary to "kick off" the Mac. Now it is time to provide a window of opportunity for outside software developers to create better alternatives to these two programs without being hampered by the fact the Apple is giving away prograsms that do the same thing (but perhaps not as well) for free. > Why has Apple still not come out with the C and Pascal development systems > running on the Mac which it promised when the Mac FIRST CAME OUT, n years > ago? Apple never promised a C compiler from the start. They promised an assembler (MDS) and a Pascal (Mac Pascal) and they made good on these. Apple never thought that a majority of Mac programmers would be using anything but the Lisa development system for production work. As this became clearly false, work switched over from the Workshop to MPW. All of the Apple people who speak at my Stanford Mac Users Group Developers Subgroup say to look for alpha releases in a couple of months. > Why in #$%^ would engineers screw up so bad as to make the write-protect > tab overrideable in software?? It isn't! The wreite protedct tab is impossible to defeat in software. I finally got this absolutely straight from apple. > Now don't get the idea that I dislike the Mac. I'm an almost religious > macfanatic. I just thought maybe you'd get the picture. Apple fairly > regularly acts like it's being driven by drunken madmen. One must simply > learn to like it or lump it. Indeed, Apple has been criticized for changeing their minds too often. > BTW, about the ROM upgrade, I'm told that the AUC schools *begged* en > masse to have it unbundled for their *thousands* of macs that they > couldn't afford to upgrade at all otherwise. Apple said no way. Just > a rumor... > This, again, might be due to the "loose ROM" problem. I agree that I fail to see the logic completely but I can definitely see where this might be a sensitive legal issue for Apple and I don't exactly blame them for being a bit paranoid. After all, we have seen practically every part of the Mac being replaced by third parties EXCEPT the ROM. (Those who tried got sued!) > Bart Massey > ..tektronix!reed!bart Gus Fernandez Gus@shasta.
korn@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (02/24/86)
In article <2536@reed.UUCP> bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) writes: = >Why did Apple choose not to exchange the old keyboards, when they agreed >to change the logic boards? Surely one is as useful as the other to them... As a concession to the AUC schools? (see below, your comment about $$ and un-bundled upgrades). Also, they can use the old 512K logic boards in any 512K macs they sell (as they are not making them any more). >Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's >considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to >bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford >to do us any more favors... 'Cause this discouraged third party development of like programs. >Why has Apple still not come out with the C and Pascal development systems >running on the Mac which it promised when the Mac FIRST CAME OUT, n years >ago? 'Cause they are hard to write and there are many third party ones already out there, and they are trying for a truely object orniented language, which isn't an easy thing to do. >Why in #$%^ would engineers screw up so bad as to make the write-protect >tab overrideable in software?? 'Cause they goofed? >BTW, about the ROM upgrade, I'm told that the AUC schools *begged* en >masse to have it unbundled for their *thousands* of macs that they >couldn't afford to upgrade at all otherwise. Apple said no way. Just >a rumor... At least these are the reasons I heard when I asked folks. I find 'em believable enough to trust 'em. ----- Peter Korn korn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU {dual,decvax,sdcsvax}!ucbvax!korn
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (02/24/86)
In article <2536@reed.UUCP>, bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) writes: > Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's > considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to > bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford > to do us any more favors... They are not considered worthless. Instead, they felt that bundling reduced any incentive for third-party vendors to develop alternatives. In particular, so the story goes, they are worried and incensed that the only word processor (other than MacWrite) is mediocre MS-Word, which is not terribly Mac-like in its interfaces, and hasn't had a new release in a year, despite obvious performance problems. Now would you spend $250,000 developing a word processor if the manufacturer gave one away with each machine? Would your attitude change if it started charging $125 for each? -- Joel West (619) 457-9681 CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037 {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel gould9!joel@nosc.ARPA
carlile@trwrba.UUCP (Donald E. Carlile) (02/24/86)
[Take this line eater] Bart Massey writes >Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's >considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to >bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford >to do us any more favors... My sense is that Apple wanted to do a favor to developers, and maybe to the rest of us. After all, with everyone getting a word processor for free, why would any developer want to write one? Maybe we'll see a few other word processors from this. Also, there are already two new Paint like programs. I think those are the reasons. BTW, this announcement was VERY well received at the developers conference in January. Don Carlile ...trwrb!trwrba!carlile The opinions expressed above are mine, and mine alone. Don't give anyone else the credit.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (02/24/86)
In article <2536@reed.UUCP> bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) writes: > >Why did Apple quit bundling MacWrite and MacPaint with Macs? If it's >considered worthless software by them, they should be able to afford to >bundle it. If it isn't, I guess they just decided they couldn't afford >to do us any more favors... > They are still bundled with Macs. They are not bundled with Mac+s. I have heard that the reason they did this is so that people will develope better word processing software for the Mac+. Why should a developer go to the bother of developing a good WP for a machine when everyone who has the machine has a free one that is almost good enough? They do have some pricing problems. For example, looking at prices around here, if I wanted to get a new Mac+ and MacWrite and MacPaint, the cheapest way to do it seems to be to buy a 512K Mac, which has them bundled and a full Mac+ upgrade. This comes out around $100 cheaper! >Why in #$%^ would engineers screw up so bad as to make the write-protect >tab overrideable in software?? > They wouldn't. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry) (02/26/86)
> In article <2536@reed.UUCP> bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) writes: > = > >Why did Apple choose not to exchange the old keyboards, when they agreed > >to change the logic boards? Surely one is as useful as the other to them... > > As a concession to the AUC schools? (see below, your comment about $$ and > un-bundled upgrades). Also, they can use the old 512K logic boards in > any 512K macs they sell (as they are not making them any more). Not really. The laws are rather strict about how you can go about selling used merchandise. They could resell either of them but not in "new" macs. > Peter Korn korn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU {dual,decvax,sdcsvax}!ucbvax!korn -- David W. Berry dwb@well.UUCP Delphi: dwb {ucbvax,pyramid,idsvax,bene,oliveb}!tolerant!berry I'm only here for the beer.