gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/01/87)
I notice now there is "Inside Macintosh", volume I, II, III, IV, and
V. This is getting ridiculous folks. If I want to know everything
about Mac family computers, do I really need to buy 5 manuals? Does
someone else publish a condensed (say, 2 volume) summary of the
Macintosh computers from Apple?
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
singer@endor.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <76000024@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I notice now there is "Inside Macintosh", volume I, II, III, IV, and >V. This is getting ridiculous folks. If I want to know everything >about Mac family computers, do I really need to buy 5 manuals? Does Not necessarily. Volumes 4 and 5 are "delta guides"; they explain the differences between the Mac Plus & 512KEnhanced (Volume 4),, and the Mac SE and Mac II (Volume 5) from the original Macintosh series. Volumes 1 through 3 are the definitive references for writing universal Macintosh programs. What is useful about volumes 4 and 5 is that they also explain the newer system software, which can be useful. --Rich **The opinions stated herein are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of my employer (THINK Technologies, Inc). Richard M. Siegel Customer Support Representative THINK Technologies, Inc. Uucp: {decvax, ucbvax, sun}!harvard!endor!singer Internet/Arpanet: singer@harvard.harvard.edu No one writes programs that work right the first time. If they did, I'd be out of a job.
gardner@prls.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <3998@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > >the 512 is dead and new software is and should be >written for a 512Ke minimum. Just how true is this statement? I know this was hashed out on the net before regarding 128K RAM Macs, but I'm curious about 128K ROM vs. 64K ROM machines. (The claim was that there are no more than 20,000 128K RAM machines left.) We're trying to convince people that coding for old ROMs is no longer necessary, but we can't get enough info to be pursuasive. Our simple surveys suggest that there are a lot more than 20,000 128K RAM machines, let alone old ROM machines. Where did this figure come from? I would guess that virtually all old ROM machines are in homes rather than businesses. It seems that Apple has enough info to answer this conclusively, since they should know how many old ROM machines they sold and how many new ROM upgrades they've sold. They may not want to release sales figures, but they could at least tell us percentages. I think this would provide a great service to developers. What fraction of our potential market do we lose if our applications can't run on 64K ROMs? Robert Gardner P.S. I keep a 64K ROM Mac at home just to test software on to make sure it runs (usually agonizingly slowly! You tend to forget how snail-like the original Macs were!). I'd sure like to upgrade that Mac!
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (10/04/87)
This question (of how many old-ROM machines) is one that always comes
up at any developer's meeting with Apple, either one-on-one or
in groups. If anyone at Apple knows, it seems to be on a need-to-know
basis.
20% (200,000) seems to be a reasonable upper bound. Note these machines
won't run the current System release or, to my knowledge, HyperCard.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
So. California: where the ground does the Rocking 'N Rolling for youwmcb@ecsvax.UUCP (William C. Bauldry) (10/06/87)
In article <4011@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: >This question (of how many old-ROM machines) is one that always comes >up at any developer's meeting with Apple, either one-on-one or > >20% (200,000) seems to be a reasonable upper bound. Note these machines >won't run the current System release or, to my knowledge, HyperCard. >-- Are we talking about Finder 5.5, Sys 4.1 here? My [pick one] antique/ tiny/ memory starved/ cuisinart/ Mac (that has been working since Feb of ..) runs these nicely.. bill
shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro) (10/20/87)
In article <6555@prls.UUCP>, gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: > In article <3998@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: > > > >the 512 is dead and new software is and should be > >written for a 512Ke minimum. > > Just how true is this statement? I know this was hashed out on the net > before regarding 128K RAM Macs, but I'm curious about 128K ROM vs. 64K ROM > machines. The emphasis in apple's documentation seems to be on coding for 128k rom and up machines, although both the Mac Plus and the 512ke are being payed some (minimal) attention. If I were beginning an application right now, I would code it for the 128k ROMS and up. Not having a working version of HFS is a severe handicap for most of the things I would be interested in doing, and the kinds of applications I am likely to write aren't likely to fit gracefully on a 512k or smaller machine in any case. Jon Shapiro