steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (05/10/89)
I agree that the description of 7.0 sounds like Apple is addressing most of the complaints/suggestions/etc. for improving the Mac system. I have a question to which somebody may know the answer. The document states that to use virtual memory, I could install the PMMU chip in my Mac II. I phoned our campus distributor, and all they know about is the 68030 board which sells for about $1,600. They said it would probably take about three weeks for information from Apple to trickle down to them. The Apple release says that the 68851 PMMU chip is "currently available." Does anyone have a ballpark figure on what such a chip costs/will cost? Steve Goldfield
kateley@Apple.COM (Jim Kateley) (05/10/89)
In article <24216@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >I have a question to which somebody may know the answer. >The document states that to use virtual memory, I could >install the PMMU chip in my Mac II. I phoned our campus >distributor, and all they know about is the 68030 board >which sells for about $1,600. They said it would probably >take about three weeks for information from Apple to >trickle down to them. The Apple release says that the >68851 PMMU chip is "currently available." Does anyone >have a ballpark figure on what such a chip costs/will cost? > The 68851 PMMU is available from Apple as a finished goods product. It's part number is M0221, and has a SRP of $499.00, which includes dealer installation (which is required). It has been on the retail finished goods price pages for quite awhile, under the A/UX products section. Jim Kateley UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!kateley S,P,HnS! DOMAIN: kateley@apple.COM Applelink: kateley1 Disclaimer: What I say, think, or smell does not reflect any policy or stray thought by Apple Computer, Inc.
labc-3dc@e260-3f.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (05/10/89)
Discussions about the Macintosh do not belong in comp.sys.apple; please edit your "Newsgroups:" lines so that you don't cross-post to an Apple II only group. Thank you. -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ...!ucbvax!cory!fadden labc-3dc@widow.berkeley.edu
dcw@athena.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (05/11/89)
I don't mean to get ugly, but... WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE APPLE //? Who originally posted this stuff to comp.sys.apple? Comp.sys.apple is exclusively Apple // talk, and practically all of us have little or no interest in reading about Mac system upgrades. Now, if somebody inside Apple is anxious to spout off about new system software, then where were you when GS/OS 5.0 was in the works? Granted, I was pleasantly surprised when I watched the demo at AppleFest, but if you are going to write GOBS of stuff about Mac system stuff, I think we Apple // folks can expect to hear about GS/OS stuff when appropriate. Dave Whitney A junior in Computer Science at MIT dcw@athena.mit.edu ...!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!dcw dcw@goldilocks.mit.edu I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info. "This is MIT. Collect and 3rd party calls will not be accepted at this number."
brian@natinst.com (Brian H. Powell) (05/11/89)
In article <30398@apple.Apple.COM>, kateley@Apple.COM (Jim Kateley) writes: > The 68851 PMMU is available from Apple as a finished goods product. > It's part number is M0221, and has a SRP of $499.00, which includes > dealer installation (which is required). Of course, you may be able to get a cheaper price somewhere else. And it's not hard to install the chip if you've had any previous experience installing chips. Of course also, I'm not suggesting that you make any unauthorized modifications to your "open" mac. Especially if it's under warranty. Brian
cramer@athens.iex.com (Bill Cramer) (05/11/89)
In article <30398@apple.Apple.COM> kateley@Apple.COM (Jim Kateley) writes: >The 68851 PMMU is available from Apple as a finished goods product. >It's part number is M0221, and has a SRP of $499.00, which includes >dealer installation (which is required). It has been on the retail >finished goods price pages for quite awhile, under the A/UX products >section. Is there some magic involved in the upgrade or is it as simple as dropping the chip into the empty socket? ($499 seems like a reasonable price for the average Mac user, but being a Mac abuser, I'd like to have the opportunity to bend a few pins for myself :-) Bill Cramer IEX Corporation Plano, Texas {uunet,killer,convex}!iex!cramer
mblakele@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Tad Blakeley) (05/12/89)
In article <2761@natinst.natinst.com> brian@natinst.com (Brian H. Powell) writes: >In article <30398@apple.Apple.COM>, kateley@Apple.COM (Jim Kateley) writes: >> The 68851 PMMU is available from Apple as a finished goods product. >> It's part number is M0221, and has a SRP of $499.00, which includes >> dealer installation (which is required). > Of course, you may be able to get a cheaper price somewhere else. And >it's not hard to install the chip if you've had any previous experience >installing chips. I guess this is the hottest time to strike. I'm writing Motorola tomorrow to ask about minimum orders and pricing of the 68851. If I can get enough interest from netters and other random Mac II owners drooling over virtual memory, I'll order a minimum from Motorola and handle the distribution, nonprofit. I'm hoping to get our end-price down to about $150-$200 this way. Any takers? Please e-mail, as this newsgroup is crowded enough. I'll post updates as events warrant. -- tad -- W "Americans don't care much for beauty; they'll shit in a river, S I Dump oil in an ocean." _Last Great American Whale_ (Live) T B e-mail and random flames to: mblakele@jarthur.claremont.edu R ------- Screw Western Interstate Bank, Savings, and Trust of Riverside -------
mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (05/12/89)
In the release there was mention that All the system will be 32bit clean. Does thins mean that the finder and other *interesting* parts of the macos will be ported to AUX? Will it soon be able to run macos under AUX? Inquiring minds want to know... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "X is just raster-op on wheels" - Bill Joy, January 1987
smithw@yvax.byu.edu (05/13/89)
Hooray for VM. Those who enjoy the MacOS environment but use memory intensive software (mathematica, maple, etc.) have been praying for something like this to come. I have a IIx with 8MB ram and am constantly running out of memory. Now all I want to know is when can I get my greedy little hands on a beta version.... Bill Smith (smithw@yvax.byu.edu) My opinions are my own....
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (05/13/89)
From article <24216@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield): > I agree that the description of 7.0 sounds like Apple is > addressing most of the complaints/suggestions/etc. for > improving the Mac system. ^^^^^^^ > > Steve Goldfield Hey! What is this doing here?!?!?
sarrel@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (05/15/89)
In article <599smithw@yvax.byu.edu> smithw@yvax.byu.edu writes:
Hooray for VM. Those who enjoy the MacOS environment but use memory
intensive software (mathematica, maple, etc.) have been praying for
something like this to come. I have a IIx with 8MB ram and am constantly
running out of memory. Now all I want to know is when can I get my
greedy little hands on a beta version....
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the maximum amount of RAM (real +
virtual) is still 8Meg. Since the applications share a single address
space and the ROMs (in your machine, not Pluses) are addressed
starting at 8Meg (and going up), the only space for RAM is below 8Meg.
--marc
-=-
"Master, why is the letter 'i' the symbol for current?" "Because there is
no letter 'i' in the word 'current'." "Master, why do we use the letter
'j' for sqrt(-1)?" "Because we use the letter 'i' for current." Whereupon
the Master struck the Disciple, and the Disciple became enlightened.ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (05/15/89)
In article <SARREL.89May14224531@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu>, sarrel@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes... [smithw@yvax.byu.edu talks about getting VM on his 8 MB IIx] >Sorry to burst your bubble, but the maximum amount of RAM (real + >virtual) is still 8Meg. Since the applications share a single address >space and the ROMs (in your machine, not Pluses) are addressed >starting at 8Meg (and going up), the only space for RAM is below 8Meg. Hm...in the 7.0 Release, it said: "32-Bit Addressing allows Macintosh computers to extend their memory capacities beyond 8 megabytes to 128 MB of physical RAM and up to 4 Gigabytes of virtual address space." What's the straight dope here? Is this large address space just planned for future machines (with current machines being limited to 8 MB RAM/VM)? Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine ------ MOFO knows!
FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) (05/15/89)
In article <3234@tank.uchicago.edu>, ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <SARREL.89May14224531@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu>, sarrel@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes... >[smithw@yvax.byu.edu talks about getting VM on his 8 MB IIx] > >>[SARREL@GALLEY.CIS asserts that 7.0 will not allow memory addressing ab meg] >Hm...in the 7.0 Release, it said: > >"32-Bit Addressing allows Macintosh computers to extend their >memory capacities beyond 8 megabytes to 128 MB of physical RAM and >up to 4 Gigabytes of virtual address space." While this is by no means a researched and official response, I must agree: all info that I have read on 7.0 indicates that 32-bit addressing will allow Macs ('020 and '030, I believe) to extend their memory access well beyond the current limit of 8 meg. F. Todd Wilson Apple Student Rep, Princeton University AppleLink: ST0161 "My opinions are my own. Who else would want 'em anyway?!" >------
chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) (05/15/89)
In article <SARREL.89May14224531@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu> sarrel@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes: .In article <599smithw@yvax.byu.edu. smithw@yvax.byu.edu writes: . . .Sorry to burst your bubble, but the maximum amount of RAM (real + .virtual) is still 8Meg. Since the applications share a single address .space and the ROMs (in your machine, not Pluses) are addressed .starting at 8Meg (and going up), the only space for RAM is below 8Meg. Not true. The 8Mb RAM limit is only under a 24-bit addressing mode. Since system 7.0 will be running under 32-bit mode, you can have globs of memory. Christopher Chow /---------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | | Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | | US Mail: 202C Grenadier Drive, Liverpool, NY 13090 | | Phone: Work: 1-315-456-3214, Home: 1-315-622-0362 | | Delphi: chow2 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (05/16/89)
In article <7942@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) writes: > Not true. The 8Mb RAM limit is only under a 24-bit addressing mode. Since > system 7.0 will be running under 32-bit mode, you can have globs of memory. System 7.0 will run in either 24 or 32-bit mode. I believe that a reboot will be required to switch between the two. 32-bit clean applications will run in either operating mode, while non-32-but clean applications will only run in 24-bit mode. (Apple has defined a bit in the SIZE resources that indicates if an application claims to be 32-bit clean.) Also, when running in 24-bit mode and using virtual memory, the size of the virtual address space can be up to 8Mb plus 1 Mb for each free NuBus slot. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (05/16/89)
Dear Marc - Sorry to burst your bubble, but the limits for virtual memory will be 14MB when running in 24 bit mode and around 4GB when running in 32 bit mode. I think that that will provide enough memory for folks! Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (05/16/89)
In article <3234@tank.uchicago.edu> ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <SARREL.89May14224531@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu>, sarrel@galley.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes... >Hm...in the 7.0 Release, it said: > >"32-Bit Addressing allows Macintosh computers to extend their >memory capacities beyond 8 megabytes to 128 MB of physical RAM and >up to 4 Gigabytes of virtual address space." > > >What's the straight dope here? Is this large address space just planned for >future machines (with current machines being limited to 8 MB RAM/VM)? If you actually look at the low memory pointer to the rom, you will discover that the rom lives at address 0x40800000. This means that in a 32 bit system, there is plenty of room for it. The NuBus card addresses can already be mapped into higher memory without error (I have done it). The killer is tht the current ROM is not 32 bit clean. In particular, the current ROM doesn't like to have the MMU turned on in 32 bit mode, and the memory manager gets most unhappy. Point is that a new set of ROMS should indeed make it possible to put in up to 128K of real memory. Why you would want to isn't clear, as the system is intrinsically pretty slow. Jon
gae@sphere.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (05/16/89)
In article <9210@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: > >Point is that a new set of ROMS should indeed make it possible to put >in up to 128K of real memory. ^^^^ Back to the original Mac!! This reminds me of a newspaper ad that appeared soon after the "fat" Mac was intruduced. The features of the new machine were enumerated, including: "512 bytes of RAM". -- Gerald A. Edgar Department of Mathematics TS1871@OHSTVMA.bitnet The Ohio State University gae@sphere.mast.ohio-state.edu Columbus, OH 43210 ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!sphere.mast.ohio-state.edu!gae
amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (05/16/89)
In article <9210@polya.Stanford.EDU>, shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: > The killer is tht the current ROM is not 32 bit clean. > In particular, the current ROM doesn't like to have the MMU turned on > in 32 bit mode, and the memory manager gets most unhappy. Actually, an awful lot of the II & IIx ROMs actually are 32-bit clean-- witness the A/UX toolbox. The biggest piece seems to be the memory manager, as I remember, but most of that can be handled by making master pointers 8 bytes (a second longword for the flags)... -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.UUCP> InterCon Systems Corporation
stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (05/16/89)
In article <599smithw@yvax.byu.edu> smithw@yvax.byu.edu writes: >Hooray for VM. Those who enjoy the MacOS environment but use memory >intensive software (mathematica, maple, etc.) have been praying for >something like this to come. I have a IIx with 8MB ram and am constantly >running out of memory. Now all I want to know is when can I get my >greedy little hands on a beta version.... WOW! 8megs of real ram must be nice. I am testing the virtual init from connectix and have 8 megs of VMem. This raises two questions. 1) what is the virtual memory limit of 7.0, is it 8megs also or is it limited to disk space. 2) What's going to happen to connectix? Did Apple just obsolete them? >Bill Smith >(smithw@yvax.byu.edu) >My opinions are my own.... so are mine... -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International stores@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
werner@molokai.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) (05/17/89)
In article <30742@apple.Apple.COM>, jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > Dear Marc - > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the limits for virtual memory will be > 14MB when running in 24 bit mode and around 4GB when running in 32 bit mode. > I think that that will provide enough memory for folks! > > Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Darn, for once I thought I was ahead of the game, when I bought these 2 320-Meg drives, planning to run one as virtual memory swap space and the other as home for all those applications I was planning to run at the same time (and never turn off my Mac again) does MultiFinder really support all those applications active in parallel that I can load into that 4 Giga-space? 'cause if you think you can sucker me into buying those 4-Gig drives otherwise, you will have a hard sell with me, Apple ... I want you to know that I'd like my Porsches to come with an engine, not just a fuel-tank !! ((-: (what else is there to say at this God-awful hour ...) -- --------------------------> please send REPLIES to <------------------------ INTERNET: uhrig@mcc.com (if unavailable: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu) UUCP: ...<well-connected-site>!milano!werner ALTERNATIVE: werner@astro.as.utexas.edu OR werner@utastro.UUCP
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (05/18/89)
In article <30672@sri-unix.SRI.COM> stores@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >WOW! 8megs of real ram must be nice. I am testing the virtual init from >connectix and have 8 megs of VMem. This raises two questions. >1) what is the virtual memory limit of 7.0, is it 8megs also > or is it limited to disk space. 4 Gig (in other words, yes, limited by disk space) > >2) What's going to happen to connectix? Did Apple just obsolete them? Sure seems that way, but, it's not like we didn't know (or beg for) Apple would implement virtual memory. I'm still waiting for word on the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) Did anyone else get the feeling that Connectix was just drilling Darin Adler at the Developers' Conference during the Q&A at the OS session. Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (05/19/89)
In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>, holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes... [...] >>2) What's going to happen to connectix? Did Apple just obsolete them? > >Sure seems that way, but, it's not like we didn't know (or beg for) >Apple would implement virtual memory. I'm still waiting for word on >the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of >virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way >to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application >on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) Just as a side note: I think it's kinda interesting that the people who normally bash Apple for it's profit motivation have left Connectix pretty much alone. I mean, Apple is going to give us VM _for free_ and Connectix is suing to make us pay for it! Hey, I have nothing against Connectix, but personally I'd prefer to get my VM for free, and have the process supported by the company that makes the system software in the first place. [And I personally doubt Connectix' suit will get very far; I reckon Apple's been working on Mac VM for years]. Just my 3 cents worth. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine ------ MOFO knows!
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (05/19/89)
In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >In article <30672@sri-unix.SRI.COM> stores@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >>2) What's going to happen to connectix? Did Apple just obsolete them? > >Sure seems that way, but, it's not like we didn't know (or beg for) >Apple would implement virtual memory. I'm still waiting for word on >the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of >virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way >to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application >on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) I don't think they are going to succeed. Then again I am not familiar with patent law. Will they be able to patent if someone else has previously published the method? A year ago virtual memory was discussed on the net. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
vogelei@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Todd Vogelei) (05/19/89)
In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com! holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: !In article <30672@sri-unix.SRI.COM! stores@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: !!WOW! 8megs of real ram must be nice. I am testing the virtual init from !!connectix and have 8 megs of VMem. This raises two questions. !!1) what is the virtual memory limit of 7.0, is it 8megs also !! or is it limited to disk space. ! !4 Gig (in other words, yes, limited by disk space) ! !! !!2) What's going to happen to connectix? Did Apple just obsolete them? ! !Sure seems that way, but, it's not like we didn't know (or beg for) !Apple would implement virtual memory. I'm still waiting for word on I just finished reading my June Macworld and there is an article about memory expansion possibilities for the macII*'s and there is no mention of virtual memory being implemented in system 7.0. In fact the author advocates people buy the Virtual init and PMMU (if applicable) as a way to expand mac memory! Of course he quotes the price of SIMMs as being about $265 per 1M so I guess this article must have been written some time ago and only published recently. Why do I susbscribe to such outdated info sources? {8-) !Fred Hollander !Computer Science Center !Texas Instruments, Inc. !hollander@ti.com ! !The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments. Todd vogelei@nmtsun
FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) (05/19/89)
In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>, holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes: >In article <30672@sri-unix.SRI.COM> stores@unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >I'm still waiting for word on >the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of >virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way >to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application >on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) > >Fred Hollander I had read the same quote soem time before I went to MacWorld in D.C. Having the rumours of VM in 7.0 in mind I walked up to a rep of Connectix and asked them about the statement (Garber, above). The rep said that it would probably depend upon how Apple decided to do it, or more specifically, on whether they planned on incorporating it into an extensive system rewrite. In other words, if it were going to be something of an add on, like an init, then very probably, according to this person's statement, Connectix might have grounds for a suit. But since it does not appear that that is the way that Apple is doing it.... F. Todd Wilson, Apple Student Consultant, Princeton University AppleLink: ST0161 "My opinions are my own. Who else would want'em anyway?!"
jyen@cs.utexas.edu (John Yen) (05/19/89)
> In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >I'm still waiting for word on >the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of >virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way >to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application >on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) Granted that reality doesn't always interface with the law very well, but the last time I studied all the techniques collectively called virtual memory, I didn't see just one solution. Does anyone know exactly what Connectix is filing a patent application on? John Yen (jyen@cs.utexas.edu)
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (05/20/89)
In article <5558@cs.utexas.edu>, jyen@cs.utexas.edu (John Yen) writes... >> In article <78153@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >>I'm still waiting for word on >>the lawsuit. Connectix said they have a patent on the only method of >>virtual memory for the Mac. "As far as I know, there's only one way >>to do virtual memory on the Mac, and I've filed a patent application >>on it." -- Jonathan Garber, president, Connectix (MacWeek, 1/31/89) > > Granted that reality doesn't always interface with the law very well, but the >last time I studied all the techniques collectively called virtual memory, I >didn't see just one solution. Does anyone know exactly what Connectix >is filing a patent application on? Sorry about that last note: I tried to cancel my send and it sent it anyway. I'm curious about this too. I'm not patent lawyer, and I think much of the activity regarding software patents is getting really odd, but this would seem to me to be the oddest move of all: an outside party patenting a part of a computer manufacturer's system software? If some other company had filed a patent application on a MultiFinder equivalent before Apple released MF (operative word here is released), Apple couldn't release MF? Ridiculous. Anyway, wouldn't VM on the Mac have to make use of system software (like the Memory Manager)? It seems to me somewhat odd to file a patent which relies on another person's software. And wasn't there some talk on the net awhile ago saying that if a VM scheme used the MMU from Motorola, it wasn't patentable. To paraphrase a slogan I saw once on the net: Connectix, keep your lawyers off our VM! :-> Anyway, just my $0.01 worth. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine ------ MOFO knows!
Greg_Mark_Finnegan@cup.portal.com (05/22/89)
Jonathan Garber's quote ("...there's only one way to do virtual memory...")
bothers me a bit. The Connectix VM scheme limits you to 8Meg period. Apple's
method lets you go to 14Meg by mucking with NuBus (in 24 bit mode) and gobs
more in 32 bit mode.
Sounds like 2 ways to do virtual memory to me (and probably a judge).
Greg.hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (05/23/89)
In article <18660@cup.portal.com> Greg_Mark_Finnegan@cup.portal.com writes: >Jonathan Garber's quote ("...there's only one way to do virtual memory...") >bothers me a bit. The Connectix VM scheme limits you to 8Meg period. Apple's >method lets you go to 14Meg by mucking with NuBus (in 24 bit mode) and gobs >more in 32 bit mode. > >Sounds like 2 ways to do virtual memory to me (and probably a judge). > >Greg. No, No, No, No, No. You are confusing 2 issues. Apples VM scheme allows the full Operating system's Memory range to be handled, as does Virtual's. It's just that at the moment the OS allows only 8 Megs. If apple had VM now it would have the same constraints as Connectix's. It's just that Apple is wait- ing to do VM until thay also support full Memory Range. Connectix said all along that as soon as the OS supports more than 8 Megs they will release a version of virtual that does. Note that this has nothing to do with the merits of Garber's statement (that is my point) and I have little opinion on that matter. I suspect that the key to the truth of that statement lies in what someone recently quoted Garber as saying, that there is only one way "without a full OS rewrite"; which is exact- ly what Apple is doing. Josh ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-5423 (school office)
mha@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mark H. Anbinder) (05/23/89)
In article <18660@cup.portal.com> Greg_Mark_Finnegan@cup.portal.com writes: >Jonathan Garber's quote ("...there's only one way to do virtual memory...") >bothers me a bit. The Connectix VM scheme limits you to 8Meg period. Apple's >method lets you go to 14Meg by mucking with NuBus (in 24 bit mode) and gobs >more in 32 bit mode. > >Sounds like 2 ways to do virtual memory to me (and probably a judge). I'd have to disagree with you and the judge. :-) In 24-bit mode, Apple is giving users up to 14 megs by allowing their virtual memory program to access the one megabyte of addressable memory that is allotted to each NuBus slot (NOT one meg IN each slot; it's just using the address space), using the space that isn't being used by unused slots. In 32-bit mode, the computer can address gobs more memory, so they let the virtual memory program do so, if you've got the SCSI disk space! (Lucky you, if you do! :-). They may be using EXACTLY the same method of implementing virtual memory as Connectix, the same way of swapping memory pages, whatever, despite the additional space their version will be able to access (I don't know whether the mechanisms each company is using truly are the same). If the VM algorithm itself is substantially the same, THAT is what any putative future court case would consider, NOT whether one or the other implementation has additional features. -- Mark H. Anbinder ** MHA@TCGould.tn.cornell.edu NG33 MVR Hall, Media Services Dept. ** THCY@CRNLVAX5.BITNET Cornell University H: (607) 257-7587 ******** Ithaca, NY 14853 W: (607) 255-1566 ******* "It's not safe out here." Q
amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (05/23/89)
In article <18660@cup.portal.com>, Greg_Mark_Finnegan@cup.portal.com writes: > Jonathan Garber's quote ("...there's only one way to do virtual memory...") > bothers me a bit. The Connectix VM scheme limits you to 8Meg period. Apple's > method lets you go to 14Meg by mucking with NuBus (in 24 bit mode) and gobs > more in 32 bit mode. > > Sounds like 2 ways to do virtual memory to me (and probably a judge). First of all, the approaches will be similar in many respects simply because they both use the same hardware, i.e., a Motorola PMMU in a Macintosh. That's not what's patentable. From everything I've seen on both of these schemes (which isn't any more than most of the rest of the group :-)), there seem to be some major differences in how they are implemented. I think these differences are simply the result of Connectix being a third-party developer, and Apple being, well, Apple... From the descriptions that have appeared here and in the trade rags, Virtual is a marvelously clever piece of software, but it looks like the authors have attempted to do as little messing about as possible with the lower levels of the system, which means that the pager sits (more or less) between the application and the toolbox. Since they are using the standard SCSI manager, they can't handle page faults during I/O operations. They get around this by preflighting disk accesses in order to insure that all of the buffers are paged in before the operation starts. This does in fact seem to work, although it causes problems for scanners and other devices that talk to the SCSI manager directly instead of via the file manager. I'll call this method "second guessing the applications," and I suspect that this is what the patent application covers. Apple seems to be taking another approach, namely rewriting the SCSI manager to be reentrant, so that page faults can be serviced even when other SCSI operations are pending. This localizes most of the patching to one area, but it's something I think only Apple can do effectively, since they are in control of what the standard system software consists of, and I don't see how it would infringe on Virtual's stuff, since it removes the need for most of the cleverness involved in using the current SCSI manager. Both schemes involve tradeoffs: Virtual involves lots of little patches all over the I/O system, while Apple's VM involves completely replacing one OS manager and leaving the rest of the I/O system more or less alone. Apple's scheme involves a fair amount of cleverness, too, with the idea of remapping the NuBus to make room for more memory in a 24-bit addressed system. Once you see it, it seems obvious, but I still think it was pretty ingenious on the part of whoever thought it up in the first place. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.UUCP> InterCon Systems Corporation
ge@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) (06/02/89)
In article <30742@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: >Dear Marc - > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the limits for virtual memory will be >14MB when running in 24 bit mode and around 4GB when running in 32 bit mode. >I think that that will provide enough memory for folks! Not if you're running huge (LISP) programs :-( or huge functional language programs :-).
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (06/15/89)
>In article <30742@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: >>Dear Marc - >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the limits for virtual memory will be >>14MB when running in 24 bit mode and around 4GB when running in 32 bit mode. >>I think that that will provide enough memory for folks! In article <202@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> ge@cs.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes: >Not if you're running huge (LISP) programs :-( or huge functional language >programs :-). I agree, and I write in C. I've already got a program with a 16 MB virtual image, and it's only going to get bigger ... Howard A. Landman landman@sun.com
olm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Ron Searle) (04/08/90)
What's the status of System 7.0? It was originally (albeit, a while ago) supposed to be out in the first quarter. That's past, so does anyone know? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Searle Personal Consulting Services (317) 743-4050
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (04/09/90)
olm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Ron Searle) writes: >What's the status of System 7.0? I heard late summer... --Glenn
stoffel@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Stoffel) (04/11/90)
In article <3575@expert.cc.purdue.edu> olm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Ron Searle) writes: >What's the status of System 7.0? We just got briefed by a rep. from Falcon Microsystems (our GSA supplier for Apple). The rep. said that Apple is telling them "sometime this summer". BTW, he also said that there would be a charge for the system 7 documentation ($49.00 GSA price). Bill /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Any statements and opinions are mine | and mine alone, and are in no case | "First things first, but not those of my activity. (Elvis might | necessarily in that order" agree however, I'll ask him tomorrow) | | -The Doctor stoffel@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil | (301) 267-3825 | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
a544@mindlink.UUCP (Rick McCormack) (04/13/90)
Word from our co-ordinator at MacWorld Expo last night was that there was da** little about 7.0 all week down there.
comorad@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David Comora) (06/13/90)
Does anybody know what the exact release date for Sys.7.0? --David