nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (10/05/88)
In article <76000290@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I guess if Apple really intended to support virtual memory soon in all >macintoshes, then it would have put a 68020 or at least a 68010 in the >Mac SE. But since most machines (SE's, Plus's) have the 68000, these >machines will not have virtual memory any time soon. I have this recurring nightmare. Here I am, having spent a lot of money on a Mac Plus. (Mac's are *expensive* here in the UK - full shop price for a Mac Plus is around $2500-3000). The Mac SE was/is just out-of-reach. I'm looking forward to having the Plus for a number of years, using it for a variety of tasks at home. I keep having this horrible fear of an announcement by Apple: "We are committed to memory management on Macintoshes. The new System n.0 will run on a 68020-based machine only. In line with our past upgrade policies, we will sell 68020 boards to SE owners for $not-much. We consider the 68000-based Mac to be obselete. The minimal Macintosh is a 68020-based one. The Mac Plus is a bad dream. We will not support it. Future software will not run on it." Mummy, mummy, make the bad dream go away.... :-) [disclaimer: I'm not suggesting for a moment that anything like this is in the works. It's just a fear I have.] >Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ...while the builders of the cages sleep with bullets, bars and stone, they do not see your road to freedom that you build with flesh and bone.
sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto) (10/10/88)
In article <815@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >[Macs cos $3000 in UK, etc.] I keep having this horrible >fear of an announcement by Apple: > "We are committed to memory management on Macintoshes. The new >System n.0 will run on a 68020-based machine only. In line with our >past upgrade policies, we will sell 68020 boards to SE owners for >$not-much. We consider the 68000-based Mac to be obselete. The minimal >Macintosh is a 68020-based one. The Mac Plus is a bad dream. We will >not support it. Future software will not run on it." > Mummy, mummy, make the bad dream go away.... :-) > >[disclaimer: I'm not suggesting for a moment that anything like this is in > the works. It's just a fear I have.] I *am* suggesting (but only for a moment) that something like this is in the works. There was a timeline in either MacUser or MacWorld about what's in store for the system software. Now, I don't remember what it was about exactly, and I can't seem to find the right issue (if anyone else can figure out which issue this is, I'd like to read this.) so take this all with a grain of salt. For all I know, it could have been one of those what-the-editors-think-is-in-store- though-we-know-even-less-than-you-do stories. But I distinctly remember that after some time (maybe a year) they were planning on completely moving over to a 32 bit architecture with real memory management, and everyone with a 68000 would get frozen into some old system like the folks without the Plus ROMs. Pretty scary. -Sho
hpoppe@scdpyr.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) (10/10/88)
In article <1519@pur-phy> sho@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >In article <815@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >>[Macs cos $3000 in UK, etc.] I keep having this horrible >>fear of an announcement by Apple: >> "We are committed to memory management on Macintoshes. The new >>System n.0 will run on a 68020-based machine only. In line with our >>past upgrade policies, we will sell 68020 boards to SE owners for >>$not-much. We consider the 68000-based Mac to be obselete. The minimal >>Macintosh is a 68020-based one. The Mac Plus is a bad dream. We will >>not support it. Future software will not run on it." >> Mummy, mummy, make the bad dream go away.... :-) >> >>[disclaimer: I'm not suggesting for a moment that anything like this is in >> the works. It's just a fear I have.] > >I *am* suggesting (but only for a moment) that something like this is >in the works. There was a timeline in either MacUser or MacWorld >about what's in store for the system software. Now, I don't remember >what it was about exactly, and I can't seem to find the right issue >(if anyone else can figure out which issue this is, I'd like to read >this.) so take this all with a grain of salt. For all I know, it >could have been one of those what-the-editors-think-is-in-store- >though-we-know-even-less-than-you-do stories. But I distinctly >remember that after some time (maybe a year) they were planning on >completely moving over to a 32 bit architecture with real memory >management, and everyone with a 68000 would get frozen into some old >system like the folks without the Plus ROMs. Pretty scary. > >-Sho Is the sky falling? I doubt it. It is rumored that Apple will introduce the following two Macs (among others) next year. One is a laptop, the other a Mac targeted at K-12. Laptops, if battery powered, need to draw low current. This means they are constructed from ICs fabricated with the CMOS process. Hence, the laptop is rumored to be based on the Motorola 68HC000. To my knowledge, this is the only CMOS 680xx in production. The K-12 Mac, if it is to be successful selling into its targeted niche, must be relatively inexpensive. The 68000 is cheaper than the 68020/68030. I would expect the K-12 Mac to be 68000 based. Would Apple introduce two new machines that would be obsolete within a year. I don't think so. It is rumored that Apple is commited to a "modular" operating system in the future. In short, you get to use those features of the operating system that your harware supports. The more you pay, the more you get. Apple really does try hard to provide new features to "old" systems. Look at the Sound Manager patches in 6.0.2 for the Plus and SE. But if you want stereo, you have to have a II. How do I know (guess) all this? I read all the same rags you guys do. Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@scdpyr.UUCP
mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) (10/10/88)
> though-we-know-even-less-than-you-do stories. But I distinctly > remember that after some time (maybe a year) they were planning on > completely moving over to a 32 bit architecture with real memory > management, and everyone with a 68000 would get frozen into some old > system like the folks without the Plus ROMs. Pretty scary. Hmm, I distinctly remember that Apple offered an upgrade path to owners of old 64K ROM Macs. It may not have been an affordable choice for >>everyone<< (e.g., university departments with 10s to 100s of old Macs), but at least the option existed. I don't think it entirely unrealistic to expect that Apple will offer an upgrade path to owners of 68000 Macs if they would otherwise get frozen into "some old system". What they probably won't do is unbundle ROM changes from CPU/PMMU upgrades so that you can buy a (cheaper) non-Apple version of the latter. Mike Khaw -- internet: mkhaw@teknowledge.arpa uucp: {uunet|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|uw-beaver}!mkhaw%teknowledge.arpa hardcopy: Teknowledge Inc, 1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119, Palo Alto, CA 94303