baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) (12/13/86)
Come on people, how about some discussion to the point of whether the ol' 64K ROMs should be supported by developers! To date, the discussion has moved tangential to my original subject. PLEASE, I need to see some REAL discussion of this subject. Thanks, Jason Haines
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (12/15/86)
I dunno about the rest of the developers out there, but there are sure a lot of 64K rommed machines out there with people simply dying to have the latest copy of your programs! - William Woody Mac! > ][n && /|\ woody@tybalt.caltech.edu woody@juliet.caltech.edu
oster@lapis.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/15/86)
As a professional developer, anything that I release to the public has
been tested on every hardware configuration I can get my hands on. Unless
it uses fancy sound stuff, I make certain it works on a Lisa, (Which uses
MFS and the old ROMs.) I do this because:
1.) I want to be compatible with future Macs, being compatible with all
past Macs makes this a safe bet.
2.) It helps me catch bugs that fortuitously happen to work on my
personal, development configuration.
Now how do I handle the increased functionality that the new ROMs provide?
I check for the presence of the old ROMs and provide my own replacement
behavior. Here is an example from Calendar 1.5 (Written in LSC.)
/* do right thing for new and old ROMs
* new Rom Resource manager calls
*/
pascal int Count1Resources() = 0xA80D;
pascal Handle Get1IndResource() = 0xA80E;
pascal int Unique1ID() = 0xA810;
/* WhichRoms - returns version number of ROMS
* $FFFF=inRoms64k $7FFF=inRoms128k
*/
#define WhichRoms *((int *) 0x28E)
#define inRoms64k 0xFFFF
xCountResources(res)ResType res;{
if(WhichRoms == inRoms64k)
return CountResources(res);
else
return Count1Resources(res);
}
/* This routine depends on the caller checking for a return value
* of NIL some of the time, and the resource file in question being in the
* global variable rsrc.
*/
Handle xGetIndResource(res, i)ResType res;int i;{
Handle h;
if(WhichRoms == inRoms64k){
h = GetIndResource(res, i);
if(HomeResFile(h) != rsrc)
return NIL;
else
return h;
}else
return Get1IndResource(res, i);
}
int xUniqueID(res)ResType res;{
if(WhichRoms == inRoms64k)
return UniqueID(res);
else
return Unique1ID(res);
}
Notice that I am not re-implementing the new ROMs with my own C code. I am
just making certain that my programs work (even with reduced
functionality) for all Mac owners.
I even try to make my things work on a 128k Mac - This is a good exercise
in making your things compatible with the Switcher. When I can't get
access to a 128K mac (which is often) I have to settle for making it run
in a small switcher partition.
Software is important. People depend on the work of my hands. They depend
on my work to do what it is advertised to do. People depend on software to
be:
1.) reliable (that is, always working.)
2.) correct (that is, producing the right answer when it does work.)
3.) polite (that is, treat them and their intelligence with repect,
neither belittling them nor expecting too much of them.)
4.) gregarious (that is, behaving well in crowds.)
The Mac is a complex environment. It is important for a piece of
software to run well with other software and to clean up after itself
so that software that runs after it will work well.
These are goals, I don't always achieve them but I try. Making sure it
works on the old ROMs helps with reliability, correctness, and gregariousness.
My good name is important to me. My good name depends on my software being
good. (For example, I care less about my writing than my software - as
proof, I have my compiler syntax check all my software but little of my
writing.)
If you don't start from my assumption, you won't reach my conclusion. But
please, as a favor to me and to all of us out here on the net, label your
software as
"personal, experimental software Note: this software has not
been tested except on a a Mac+ with 1 floppy, System 3.2 and
Finder 5.3."
(or whatever.)tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/16/86)
In article <476@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > >Come on people, how about some discussion to the point of whether >the ol' 64K ROMs should be supported by developers! > >To date, the discussion has moved tangential to my original subject. > >PLEASE, I need to see some REAL discussion of this subject. > >Thanks, > Jason Haines I thought my first answer spoke directly to the issue. To repeat, it is absolutely vital to any commercial software that it continue to support the tens of thousands of Macs with only 512K and old ROMs. Yes, yes, yes, continue to support the old ROMs, at least until Apple comes out with a RAM-based version of the new ROMs (which they seem uninterested in doing; they just want everyone to cough up three hundred bucks for the new ones, regardless of the fact that large networks with hundreds or thousands of machines can not conceivably afford to do so). If you do not, your application will not run on a large fraction of the Macs out there. These Macs are *NOT* going to convert next week. On the other hand, fun public domain software (like my backdrop file) need not be developed with such stringent conditions in mind in many cases. I am glad that some people are getting some free fun out of it; it doesn't particularly bother me that some others are cut out. If, however, your public domain software is serious, like my/CMU's MacIP or Dubois' TransSkel, then you definitely should support old ROMs. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (12/16/86)
Yes, support 64K roms, because there are 60000 Mac eXLisa's out there
running MacWorks 3.0 which only emulates the old ROMs.
Sunny
--
Sunny Kirsten
POB 2025
Loch Lomond, CA 95426-2025
(707)928-5546
USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunnyhogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (12/16/86)
In article <476@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > > Come on people, how about some discussion to the point of whether > the ol' 64K ROMs should be supported by developers! > > PLEASE, I need to see some REAL discussion of this subject. > > Thanks, Jason Haines Yes, the old 64K ROMs should be supported. I've got 'em, and I want your Microsoft-killer program. :-) I know three other Mac users well enough to know their usage habits. We have a usage range of extremely light to everyday, and none of us have seen a need to upgrade that made the upgrade(s) worth the money. I am the closest of the four of us to upgrading, and I'm waiting for this spring's new machines to decide. Perhaps it would help if one of the VERY nice people from Apple who have been contributing to this net could share some estimate of how many 'old' machines there still are out there. After all, it's just (sales of 64K ROM machines) - (sales of upgrades). Or would this info be too proprietary? Maybe they could just say "LOTS" or "Some" or "not too many...." -- What's a noid? And why does everyone think I'm two of them? Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN
munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan Munson) (12/16/86)
Generally yes. Such a case might be after the 68020 machines hit. Then some numerical analysis programs might appear that will only run well with the 68881. Another example would be a $5000 semi-custom program (say its runs a doctor's office). If someone can afford the program, they can probably afford a Mac+. These are obscure examples but might represent sensible marketing choices. Ethan Munson munson@berkeley.berkeley.edu
akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Who is John Galt ?) (12/17/86)
>In article <476@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: >>Come on people, how about some discussion to the point of whether >>the ol' 64K ROMs should be supported by developers! >> Jason Haines I am of the opinion that the time spent on making an application run on all Macs is a waste and that time could be better spent in making the product bug free (if there is such a thing). If the product turns out to be good and just what the user needs he/she can then upgrade to the new ROMS. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ atheism all the way!! Atul Kacker UUCP : {allegra|seismo|decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/18/86)
Sorry for the delay; news system problems.
First, David, your proposed solution for getting to globals at the interrupt
level without using writes into relative code space is incorrect. CurrentA5
gives the A5 of the *current application*. This strategy will fail very
badly under Switcher, causing the globals of various other applicvations to
be modified in undefined ways, and bringing the whole system to a lovely,
gnarly, crunchy crash. I can see you've never written a socket listener or
protocol handler. Care to make another stab at an answer?
Second, I rather resent your tone. You keep trying to make it seem like I
am some fiend bent on screwing millions of people out of their Macs. If
more software manufacturers had an upgrade policy as rational as Apple's,
then there would be no problem with cleaning up the OS. Yes, some old
versions would break, and people would have to get the new versions. Big
deal. This isn't screwing over the users; it's refusal by the maufacturers
to upgrade every few months that screws over the users. Upgrades are a
reality of software; nothing is perfectly bug free, and nothing is ever as
good as it could be with another few weeks of hacking. (Apple could help
this process along by instituting a third-party software upgrade system
through registered Apple dealers.)
What causes my resentment is that we at Centram have had to do a huge amount
of compatibility hacking that serves no purpose but to make our software
work with some arcane software or hardware product for the Mac. (A main
source of our compatibility problems is that the late introduction of record
locking forced a number of DB applications to depend on undocumented FS
behavior; this has also prevented any reasonable network caching.)
Fortunately, this phase ended shortly before release, we have almost no
compatibility problems now. Do you think you're the only ones who suffer
from the fact that so many Mac programs and peripherals are ill-behaved? Do
you think a professional developer neccessarily has less comprehension of
compatibility problems?
I think this upgrade/"don't step on Bill Gates' toes" problem is receding
into the past. Mac software used to be a gamble, on which one could barely
squeeze through with luck. Manufacturers were unwilling to spend a pittance
on upgrades for software that would have only a small margin of profit
anyway. Now, in 1986, things are very different. Mac sales exploded with
the Mac+, as I'm sure you know. Suddenly everyone and his brother wants to
jump on the bandwagon. Apple is now in a position 180 degrees opposed to
its earlier begging and pleading with developers to pleeeeeez write Mac
software; now it can dictate terms. If the terms involved a general upgrade
cycle to last over six months or a year, the devlopers would jump to get
their software compatible first.
Third, do you inform developers when their software has to be specially
accomodated in the ROM? (We usually do this with TOPS compatibility
problems.) It seems to me that if Apple did this, then the ill-behaved
software could be wiped out in under a year. This would then free *Apple*
to do some *serious* OS improvements, like adding multitasking on the 512K
and Mac+, improving the speed of the Resource Manager, adding more
user-selectable user interface operations, and so forth, instead of millions
of patches to keep things running. Anyone who's stepped through the new
ROMs knows that they're a nightmare of "where was I called from" and "minor
hack to cope with incorrect calls". I can't imagine how the current
software could possibly survive another revision cycle.
Seriously, compare the rate of improvement of the Mac OS with, say, UNIX or
VMS. Pretty sorry, isn't it?
Fourth, it appears that I was correct about Apple overestimating the
difficulty of re-implementing the Mac OS, since according to Computer
Currents, the first Mac clone is through development. To stay ahead in a
market of clones, Apple is going to have to clean up the OS so it will be
able to move faster than the clone makers.
Fifth, it might be interesting to examine why so many Mac applications are
so poorly behaved, as compared to, say, UNIX applications. Obviously part
of it is that Hertzfeld and Haeberli are no way up to Ritchie's standards
(no insult there! Very few are!), and part of it is the lack of memory
protection, but I think it strikes deeper than that. It is weird that in an
OS so obviously influenced by Smalltalk, all the things that help make
Smalltalk (and most OS's) reliable have been ignored. I am referring, of
course, to data representation hiding.
All through the Mac, the OS is presented not merely as a set of typed
objects on which various operations can be performed, as in Smalltalk or
UNIX, but as a set of data structures in process memory and ways of
manipulating them. Example: NewMenu, NewDialog, and so forth should return
*typed descriptors* referring to *internal* system data structures not meant
to be touched by the application. Imagine if UNIX, instead of returning a
descriptor on a file open, returned the system inode data structure for the
file; not just a copy, but the real data structure, and it would be
considered OK for the process to do whatever it wants with it. Reliability
would plummet, security would be inconceivable, and it would be impossible
to extend the file system (as with the FSS mechanism) because of program
reliance on system data structures. Sound familiar?
Programmers love to prove to themselves how clever they are. Given a choice
between a clean, message/syscall-style way of accomplishing something, and a
dirty, sly, tricky way that shows that the person really knows what he is
doing, an awful lot of programmers will choose the latter. Leaving these
back doors open, and even encouraging them by providing documentation on
internal system data structures to the application programmer, is suicide.
(Putting the data structures in an area of memory used by the application
for its own bookkepping also decreases reliability, of course. A slightly
incorrect program is much more likely to write incorrect data near where it
is supposed to be writing it than it is to start writing to a random area.
And this storing of system data structures in process memory makes it
impossible to increase OS reliability by later adding memory protection.)
If these problems with lack of data rep hiding in the OS are not clear, I
will be happy to expand on them. But it should be plain that one
significant reason for misbehavior of so many Mac applications is that the
whole design of the Mac OS encourages applications to screw around with
things that properly belong to the OS exclusively.
I realize my tone here is not overly polite, but I really don't appreciate
being accused of being out to screw everyone over, as you so delicately put
it. It also doesn't help to have incorrect solutions presented in an
overbearing and self-righteous manner. I am perfectly willing to have a
calm and polite discussion of the subject, but you are going to have to
drop your defensiveness and innuendos. To point out that the Mac OS has
flaws is not a personal attack on David Gold, and to respond with
indignation and insult is not likely to convince anyone I am wrong.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)jeanne@reed.UUCP (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (12/18/86)
In article <907@ur-tut.UUCP> akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Who is John Galt ?) writes: >I am of the opinion that the time spent on making an application run >on all Macs is a waste and that time could be better spent in making >the product bug free (if there is such a thing). If the product turns >out to be good and just what the user needs he/she can then upgrade to >the new ROMS. Well, while we're expressing our opinions... *I* am of the opinion that a program which will not run on all configurations of the machine it's targeted for is by definition a buggy program. Especially when the machines it won't run on constitute a majority of the target population. -- jeanne a. e. devoto | "The mind is an infinite resource...but ...!tektronix!reed!jeanne | only if you don't squander it." USsnail: 5353 SE 28th #38 | Portland, OR 97202 | James Hogan, "Voyage From Yesteryear"
zen@utcs.UUCP (12/19/86)
In article <4939@reed.UUCP> jeanne@reed.UUCP (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) writes: >In article <907@ur-tut.UUCP> akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Who is John Galt ?) writes: >>I am of the opinion that the time spent on making an application run >>on all Macs is a waste and that time could be better spent in making >>the product bug free (if there is such a thing). If the product turns >>out to be good and just what the user needs he/she can then upgrade to >>the new ROMS. > >Well, while we're expressing our opinions... > >*I* am of the opinion that a program which will not run on all configurations >of the machine it's targeted for is by definition a buggy program. Especially >when the machines it won't run on constitute a majority of the target >population. >-- >jeanne a. e. devoto | "The mind is an infinite resource...but >...!tektronix!reed!jeanne | only if you don't squander it." >USsnail: 5353 SE 28th #38 | > Portland, OR 97202 | James Hogan, "Voyage From Yesteryear" If somebody wants to write a program that only runs on the new Roms let them. Hey I won't buy and niether will about 70-80% of the Mac owners I know. Nick zen@utc
oster@lapis.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/20/86)
I left the office for a few minutes this afternoon, and when I returned the following had mysteriously appeared on my screen: Greetings to you, from the 68000 processor. Life forms think that we're just a hunk of silicon, but we care, just like anybody else ... excuse me ... SystemTask ... There, that's better. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that we processors feel that the 64K ROMs should be supported, and we think our opinions should count! Remember our feelings the next time you write some code. Remember: We don't write the stuff, we just work here.
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (12/20/86)
In article <781@rosevax.UUCP>, hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) writes: > Perhaps it would help if one of the VERY nice people from Apple who > have been contributing to this net could share some estimate of how > many 'old' machines there still are out there. Unfortunately, the people at Apple who are on this net are technical, and that is a marketing question. Needless to say, releasing marketing info (even if they had it) from a technical division would not be a good way to improve one's tenure. The estimate I heard (not directly from Apple) was that at the end of 1986, the new ROM's would outnumber the old ROM's. We do know that the Mac sold about 250,000 units in the first year. The second year was probably less, certainly sales were 'sluggish'. Once the Mac Plus was introduced, sales (including the 512ke) really took off. (I believe the ratio given in an earlier Delphi digest was Plus:512ke at 3:1 or 2:1). In short, new Mac sales in 1986 equal previous years put together. This ignore upgrades, which is good, since upgrades are now (at least in San Diego) very hard to get. Of course, the new workstations will support all the features of the 128k ROM. And anyone who has an old-ROM machine who's too cheap to upgrade to a 800k internal disk drive, may be too cheap to buy a $200 or $300 piece of software. (Nothing personal, send hate mail to /dev/null) It's my personal observation that the software purchase curve for most machines peaks in the first 6 months after acquisitionn, and tails off after that, when the owner is all set up and satisfied. My view is that by next summer, those who release software for certain vertical markets can safely ignore old-ROM machines. Of course, no one wants to deliberately lose sales from a market segment, and you shouldn't do this unless there's a good technical reason to do so. But how important is it to develop software for a 48k Apple II+ or a 128k IBM PC nowadays, even if there were zillions of them sold? -- Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879 Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083 {cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA
mrh@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Marc Hannah) (12/22/86)
In article <1986Dec19.114200.23189@utcs.uucp>, zen@utcs.uucp (Nick Zentena) writes: > > > If somebody wants to write a program that only runs on the > new Roms let them. Hey I won't buy and niether will about > 70-80% of the Mac owners I know. > > Nick > zen@utc Let me just point out that at the current time, neither Cricket Draw (an upcoming drawing program for the Mac which looks extremely promising) nor Servant by Andy Hertzfeld will run on a Mac. I would buy both programs if they are as promised and I suspect so would lots of others. I think the decision to not support users with the older roms is purely a marketing one and if a company chooses to do so that is there perogative as it is you choice whether to upgrade. Personally I would try to make my programs run on as many Macs as possible. David Gelphman BITNET address: DAVEG@SLACVM Bin #88 SLAC ARPANET address: DAVEG@SLACVM.BITNET Stanford, Calif. 94305 UUCP address: ...psuvax1!daveg%slacvm.bitnet 415-854-3300 x2538 usual disclaimer #432 applies: my employer apologies for the fact that I have access to this net.
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (12/22/86)
[ should the 64K Line Eater Bug be supported ? ]
A few concrete examples:
Example case 1:
I'm writing a data collection program; one aspect of it would be
aided by the ListManager routines. This program will run on a
small # of Macs; it will be cost effective for the University to
simply restrict the program to only work on the new ROMs, so I am
not going to try and replace the ListManager stuff with equivalent
functionality. On start up, it tests for the new ROM, and if it is
running on the old ROMs it will disable those routines and substitute
a crufty TTY style interface instead: see a list of your choices and
type your response. This is provided for the day when every lab Mac
is in the shop for repairs, and someone pulls out their personal
machine instead. Many functions will still work (printing,
data analysis, etc.) and even those parts which use list
manager routines *can* be made to work, although less conveniently
than usual. This seems to be a reasonable compromise position.
I can't justify making their lab pay for program code that *they*
don't need for their site, in the name of compatibility with older
machines.
Example Case 2:
On the other hand, I'm writing a program for my personal use also;
I am avoiding all 128K rom calls in it because I don't know what
machine I'll be using it on, and at least some of the ones around
here will not have updates. Programming costs aren't important here;
this is hobbyist work.
Supporting the 64K roms requires asking these questions:
(1) Just how much do I gain by excluding the 64K ROMs? In case 1,
above, I save a lot of programming time, and don't exclude any
workstation that I know of in the lab I'm writing for; but in case
2 the added functionality would be minimal compared to the restriction
of places I could use the program.
(2) Can I provide a program that works partially on the 64K machine?
It's easy to test for; in case 1 above there are specific features
that won't work, but the program as a whole will still run.
(3) How much do I lose if I can't provide any support for 64K ROMs?
In case 2, the loss is in my freedom to use my program: I'd rather
spend the programming time and be able to use it anywhere; in a
commercial sense I'd look at the time cost vs. the loss of potential
market.
--
"I'll do it -- I've got the GUTS. I'm the PRESIDENT."
"Maybe we should take that box away from him." "Why bother?"
Rick Keir -- one floor up from the Oyster Tank -- UWisc - Madison
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rickbaron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) (12/23/86)
ows exactly who's got what ROM, whether 64 or 128K. I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. I have a question about Icon Editing. Suppose you want to write an Icon editor which can do the icon->mask process that ResEdit does. Does anyone have any C code to do it? Or do I resort to the new 128K ROM routines for QuickDraw - CalcMask,etc.? TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs.......... G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! <If I had the money, I would get a nice 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM, and lotsa goodies!> Well, I bought my ROM/Drive upgrade with my Tax Refund cheque. It cost me $570 (Australian - about US$370), and I am VERY pleased with it! ------------- I'd say Merry Christmas if I wasn't an Athiest. So, Best Wishes and a Happy New Year
frankng@basser.oz (Frank Ng) (12/23/86)
In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > ... > > I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the > ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new > ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. > ... There are many good reasons, most of them involve money. The ~AUS$600 for the upgrade is not an insignificant sum. My mac (and HD20 (lucky me) and imagewriter) was generously provided to me through my department from a research grant from the government. Even if I wanted to I cannot upgrade the machine myself since I don't officially *own* it. To upgrade it would require the hassle of getting a further grant of some sort. I am sure there are more machines in a similar situation. 64K ROMS should be supported! ----- Frank Ng Basser Department of Computer Science University of Sydney New South Wales 2006 AUSTRALIA ACSnet: frankng@basser ARPA: frankng%basser.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP: seismo!munnari!basser.oz!frankng _____
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/24/86)
In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the > ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new > ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. Suppose you're a company or a university or some such thing, and you bought dozens or hundreds of Macs before the Plus became a reality. (This was mentioned before, but I'll repeat it. I don't think it will do any good, since you seem to have had your mind made up before you asked the question.) Suppose you have a Mac, and would really like to upgrade but such mundane things food, rent, clothes for the kids keep getting in the way. People actually find themselves in this situation. > TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs.......... > > G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! I have just such a machine. I don't appreciate your arrogance. If you want to write programs that don't work on a 64K ROM, go ahead. Please do not tell us to upgrade our machines to suit your taste, particularly in the absence of compelling reasons why we should do so, other than that you don't like them. Perhaps I should make my programs detect 128K ROMs and refuse to run on them. :-) And distribute binary only. --- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- dubois@rhesus | | "What is lacking cannot be counted." - Solomon the cladist (Ecclesiastes 1:15)
dsc@izimbra.CSS.GOV (David S. Comay) (12/24/86)
In article <531@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (James Tiberius Kirk @ The Mutara Nebula) writes: > >I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the >ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new >ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. > well, my personal excuse for not getting one is that they are very difficult to find here in the d.c. area. with the exception of replacement power supplies, the most out of stock item at d.c. apple dealers seems to be the upgrade (when i last checked about three weeks ago, most dealers told me to wait until sometime in january or february before asking them again if the upgrades have come in.)
abbott@dean.Berkeley.EDU (+Mark Abbott) (12/24/86)
In article <531@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (James Tiberius Kirk @ The Mutara Nebula) writes: >I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the >ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new >ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. >..................... >TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs.......... > > G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! > ><If I had the money, I would get a nice 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM, and lotsa >goodies!> > >Well, I bought my ROM/Drive upgrade with my Tax Refund cheque. It cost me $570 >(Australian - about US$370), and I am VERY pleased with it! > >------------- Well, I love my upgrade too but let's be reasonable. I scrimped for 3 months to pay for it, and even so I knew that it was not the best thing to be doing with the money at that time. When I bought my Mac, 2 years ago, our household had a substantially larger income than now - it's harder to buy the upgrade now than it was to buy the Mac in the first place. I'm sure that there are plenty of users out there who want upgrades but just can't afford them. In addition, what about all the users who don't need the upgrade? For most of the casual users, people who don't rely on their Mac as part of their work, the upgrade isn't necessary. Should they be forced to buy added power they don't really need? >I'd say Merry Christmas if I wasn't an Athiest. >So, > > Best Wishes and a Happy New Year Happy holidays to you as well. Mark Abbott abbott@dean.BERKELEY.EDU (arpanet)
steele@unc.UUCP (Oliver Steele) (12/27/86)
What does a Mac+ have, that a Mac(-?) doesn't have, that people want to
write programs that take advantage of? Are these things
1) Functions that add efficiency but not functionality
(e.g.: the NoQuiche patches)?
2) Functions that are in ROM in Mac+ and PACK in Mac-
(e.g.: List Manager)?
3) Functions that can be easily called conditionally
(e.g.: Zoombox handling)?
4) More memory/disk capacity?
5) Added functionality that can't easily be patched in
(e.g.: fractional font widths)?
6) Something else?
4) isn't really a difference between Mac+/-. Only 5) and 6) justify the
creation of incompatable programs. As a technote-deprived user, I haven't
heard of anything in these two categories that would be useful to most
programs. From the fervency of this discussion, I assume that there are
other enhancements.
What are they?
--
Oliver Steele----------------------------------steele@unc
When a tree dies, ...!{decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!unc!steele
plant another in its place. steele%unc@csnet-relay.csnetbaron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) (12/29/86)
> upgrade? For most of the casual users, people who don't rely on their > Mac as part of their work, the upgrade isn't necessary. Should they be > forced to buy added power they don't really need? My thinking is that if someone doesn't upgrade at least the ROMs/Drive, they do so for the following reasons :- 1) Lack of money; 2) Lack of brains; 3) shortage of upgrades; 4) no need, just a casual user; or 5) some other strange reason. Now people that fit into box 1) don't have the money to buy the upgrade, so they have little money to spend on software. These are a major body of software pirates, since they lack the money to buy software, they copy what they need. The shortage of upgrades is a valid point - implies that people are falling over each other to get upgrades. People in box 4) need very little software, so that a 128K ROM ONLY position can be supported. Anything else? Jason Haines BTW, Happy New Year
dennisg@fritz.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) (12/31/86)
In article <531@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ writes: > >I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the >ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new >ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. > ... >TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs.......... > G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! OK, sounds like a vanilla flame against people who don't get the latest everything. Then he adds > ><If I had the money, I would get a nice 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM, and lotsa >goodies!> So I would like to pose the following question: Should we continue to support machines without 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM, and other goodies like 68020, FPU and MMU chips? And paraphrase baron@runx.OZ's answer: Surely most Mac users want the extra power that these new upgrades give them over the vanilla machines. TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITHOUT THE GOODIES.......... G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! BTW, :-)
leeke@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Steven D. Leeke) (12/31/86)
In article <542@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: >My thinking is that if someone doesn't upgrade at least the ROMs/Drive, they >do so for the following reasons :- > >1) Lack of money; >2) Lack of brains; >3) shortage of upgrades; >4) no need, just a casual user; or >5) some other strange reason. > >Now people that fit into box 1) don't have the money to buy the upgrade, so they >have little money to spend on software. These are a major body of software >pirates, since they lack the money to buy software, they copy what they need. > >... > >Anything else? > >Jason Haines > >BTW, Happy New Year As a matter of fact there is a lot 'else': Just because I don't have the money to upgrade to the new ROMS I'm a software pirate? You seem to have a great ability to offend a maximal amount of people with a minimal amount of effort. Why don't you put your brain in gear and think about the implications of what you are writing? I can not afford to upgrade my Mac to the new ROM/drive ( because I am a graduate student in EE - which has nothing to do with your statement anyway, but just for completeness I put it in ). I can not afford a lot of software AND I DO WITHOUT IF I CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT!!! On top of that, I doubt that the folks in my lab who still have vanilla Macs would be cited for a 'lack of brains'. Nor are we casual users. We just don't have the money to spend or choose to spend in that way. One reason people often give for 'righteous pirating' is high prices. Well, software prices may be screwed up (thanks to Borland and the Mac in general that's changing) but HIGH PRICES DO NOT EXCUSE PIRATING. We had to suffer through your Max Speaks garbage and now this. Why don't you do many folks a favor and think twice before you post another thing to the net. I'll resist the temptation to really flame and hope an increase in maturity over the next few years will to your ability to contribute positively to the net. Steven D. Leeke -- Steven D. Leeke, Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!leeke, leeke@cascade.stanford.edu Disclaimer: I disclaim any knowledge of the above message and its contents.
munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan Munson) (01/05/87)
[For the line-eater] I would like to add my vote to Joel West's on this topic (my last posting got messed up). In my opinion, the decision about which ROMs to support should be made on the basis of what kind of product you are selling. If you are making a balance-the-checkbook/kill-the-evil-monsters/ home-computing oriented product, you should definitely support all versions of the Mac. If your program is expensive (at least $250, maybe approaching $1000) and needs Mac+ features or performance or better (Paris/Alladin) then, by all means assume that the user has the new ROMs. Just make sure the product says so clearly. Many of the people on the net have been Mac owners for a long time and as a result have older machines. The reality appears to be that most Mac owners now have a Plus or a 512Ke. It's a decision that has to be made separately for each product. I suspect that in three years, many programs will require the 128K ROMs, if the extra features are really useful. Ethan Munson
oster@lapis.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (01/06/87)
I've said this before, the List Manager is not in the new ROMs. It is entirely contained in PACK 0. ResEdit works on all machines by having a copy of PACK 0 among its resources. If you use System Version 3.2, then you have a second copy in your system file. The List Manager is not in the ROMs.
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (01/06/87)
In article <16748@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ethan Munson) writes: >The reality appears to be that most Mac owners now have a Plus or a >512Ke. >Ethan Munson Really? I wonder. Is there any reliable statistical evidence to support this view? I am not arguing one way or another, just curious about this point. Some posters are saying more or less the same thing, but without hard supporting data, it's all conjecture.
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (01/06/87)
For those of you who are arrogant enough to believe that those of us who'd
rather buy food than the new ROMS for our macs are stupid, I have but
one thing to say:
PHFFFFFFFFFFT!
There ain't that many additional routines in the new ROMS, and so it
shouldn't be that difficult to support the old ROMS. And you should at
least give support of the old ROMS a shot; what the heck, I may just buy
your next product instead of the new ROMS when I have the money.
It'd be nice to have the new ROMS, but if I have the choice between the
old ROMS and useful software, or the new ROMS with no useful software, the
choice is easy. I don't want a fancy doorstop. (Of course, I'd rather
have both, but I'd get very very hungry very very fast. $300 can feed this
starving student very well for a long time.)
- William Woody Mac! > ][n && /|\
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu
woody@juliet.caltech.edutim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/07/87)
While staying very firmly on the side of supporting the old ROMs, I'd like
to say that I wish very much it were not so. There are simply too many
configuration options now, two large dimensions of choice. When doing file
operations, you have to ask, first, is this machine running HFS or MFS?
Then you have to ask, is this volume that I'm working on an HFS or an MFS
volume? Finally, you have to ask whether this machine has old or new ROMs
(an old ROM machine could be running RAM-based HFS, after all.) Yeccchh!
That's an awful lot of special cases to have to put into your code.
Increases in code complexity tend to be correlated with decreases in code
readability and therefore maintainability.
I would like to see Apple declare MFS and MFS volumes obsolete and do a real
upgrade of the operating system, one where you can do things the right way
without having to include the wrong way in a special case. The MFS disk
format could still be supported, with some overhead for interpreting its
DeskTop-resource folders as HFS directories. Of course Apple will not do
this, because in terms of profit per unit it doesn't pay. And after all,
it's not like they have enough money in the bank to be able to afford to do
something purely for something unimportant like developer relations or
improved reliability :-)
But if bitching made it so, then I would have saved the world by now....
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)mlr0@bunny.UUCP (Martin Resnick) (01/07/87)
In article <758@uwmacc.UUCP>, rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) writes:
-> [ should the 64K Line Eater Bug be supported ? ]
->
-> A few concrete examples:
->
-> Example case 1:
->
-> I'm writing a data collection program; one aspect of it would be
-> aided by the ListManager routines. This program will run on a
-> small # of Macs; it will be cost effective for the University to
-> simply restrict the program to only work on the new ROMs, so I am
-> not going to try and replace the ListManager stuff with equivalent
-> functionality. On start up, it tests for the new ROM, and if it is
-> running on the old ROMs it will disable those routines and substitute
-> a crufty TTY style interface instead:
The List Manager is not in ROM, it is a package in the System File. You
can use the List Manager Package on 64K ROM machines.clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society) (01/07/87)
In article <246@cascade.STANFORD.EDU> leeke@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Steven D. Leeke) writes: >Just because I don't have the money to upgrade to the new ROMS I'm a >software pirate? You seem to have a great ability to offend a maximal >amount of people with a minimal amount of effort. Why don't you put your >brain in gear and think about the implications of what you are writing? Your pronounced lack of character is indicated in the above. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote? I *NEVER* said anything to the effect that ALL vanilla Mac-owners are pirates! I simply stated an observation based on considerably more experience in this area than you (judging from your reaction). There are a *LOT* of people with 512K Macs who aren't pirates, *BUT* there are a *LOT* that have insufficient funds to purchase software, and so 'acquire' it by another means. >I can not afford to upgrade my Mac to the new ROM/drive ( because I am >a graduate student in EE - which has nothing to do with your statement >anyway, but just for completeness I put it in ). I can not afford a lot >of software AND I DO WITHOUT IF I CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT!!! On top >of that, I doubt that the folks in my lab who still have vanilla Macs would >be cited for a 'lack of brains'. Nor are we casual users. We just don't >have the money to spend or choose to spend in that way. OK, so you can't afford $300 for a ROM/Drive upgrade. Can I infer from this that you cannot afford much software for your Mac? If so, why should a developer hold back behind the wall of compatibility, if there is an affordable (within the bounds of the price of the software being developed) upgrade? Certainly, US$300 is in the 'ball-park' of Mac software? If you can afford software like Lightspeed C, MS Word, Nosy-II, can't you afford to at least upgrade the ROMs/Drive of your old Mac 512K ? >One reason people often give for 'righteous pirating' is high prices. Well, >software prices may be screwed up (thanks to Borland and the Mac in general >that's changing) but HIGH PRICES DO NOT EXCUSE PIRATING. I agree. But piracy of all forms of work will continue so long as it is advantageous to do so. There are guys in a local Apple // users group with 300+ disks of pirated games! These people are silly, because 90% of the games will get played once and never see the disk drive again unless for copying. To reduce software piracy, developers have to take the first step off the merry-go-round of developer vs. pirate (anyone remember Beneath Apple Dos?). Otherwise, creativity will be stifled because money is wasted in producing banal protection schemes. Another thing, how many University students using Macs do you know that don't have a 'bootleg' copy of the latest Copy II Mac? You may be an exception, but most likely you have a copy, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course! (Just keep a civil tongue) >We had to suffer through your Max Speaks garbage and now this. Why don't >you do many folks a favor and think twice before you post another thing to >the net. I'll resist the temptation to really flame and hope an increase >in maturity over the next few years will to your ability to contribute >positively to the net. I agree that the Max Speaks posting was wrong, and it won't be repeated by me at least. HOWEVER, the ratio of requests for more Max outweighed the abuse (such as your uninspired monosyllabism) by 57 to 3! In addition, judging from your previous postings to the net, you wouldn't be missed. Apologies: To all readers other than Steven Leak, please accept my apologies for mixing flame with my argument.
dennisg@fritz.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) (01/09/87)
In article <1629@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >While staying very firmly on the side of supporting the old ROMs, I'd like >to say that I wish very much it were not so. There are simply too many >configuration options now, two large dimensions of choice. When doing file >operations, you have to ask, first, is this machine running HFS or MFS? >Then you have to ask, is this volume that I'm working on an HFS or an MFS >volume? Finally, you have to ask whether this machine has old or new ROMs >(an old ROM machine could be running RAM-based HFS, after all.) Yeccchh! The really sad thing about the whole affair is "why should it matter?" I have never liked machines with vast amounts of software locked away in ROMs. The only reason I overcame this aversion with the Mac was because of the effort that Apple expended to make it patchable. In the best of all possible worlds, a Mac would never become obsolete. Don't have new ROMs with list manager? Get a fresh PACK resource. Nasty serial driver in ROM? Use a RAM one instead. Want HFS? Add HD-20. All of this should be invisible to the application. A Mac owner would never be forced to upgrade, but might have to keep adding things to his boot disk to keep up to date. Even the thriftiest Mac owner might go for new ROMs when his system folder started taking up his whole boot disk! >I would like to see Apple declare MFS and MFS volumes obsolete and do a real >upgrade of the operating system, one where you can do things the right way >without having to include the wrong way in a special case. The MFS disk >format could still be supported, with some overhead for interpreting its >DeskTop-resource folders as HFS directories. Sounds neat. Just make sure that I don't have to toss all of my MFS disks out!
clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society) (01/09/87)
In article <764@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: >> I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the >> ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new >> ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. > >Suppose you're a company or a university or some such thing, and you >bought dozens or hundreds of Macs before the Plus became a reality. >(This was mentioned before, but I'll repeat it. I don't think it will >do any good, since you seem to have had your mind made up before you >asked the question.) Now this is a valid point - 100s of ROM/Drive Upgrades = BIG BUCKS >Suppose you have a Mac, and would really like to upgrade but such mundane >things food, rent, clothes for the kids keep getting in the way. People >actually find themselves in this situation. Now, are these same people going to have money to spend on a program you have written? I doubt it. If they don't have US$300 to spend on an upgrade they don't have money to spend on software. I am *NOT* saying "Get a ROM/Drive Upgrade or Else!", I am in no position to make such demands. The point I was making was that if an individual doesn't have the money to spend on a ROM/Drive Upgrade, he obviously hasn't the money to buy software, and is therefore out of the market for that software. There is a considerable body of software which appeals to individuals and *NOT* corporations. So, if you can write a better program using 128K ROMs than 64K ROMs, and your program targets affluent individuals, then I say "Go ahead and ignore the 64K ROM machines!". Apple has gone out of its way to make the upgrades affordable. If there are people who cannot get any of the upgrades, that's OK. But pampering to 64K ROM users who haven't got the money to buy the software seems a little more than odd. Features like window zooming are easy to case out - HOWEVER, there are many other routines in the 128K ROMs that cannot be. You can always write some workaround code if you want, but this 64K ROM implementation is likely to be inferior to the 128K ROM one.
clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society) (01/09/87)
In article <16748@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ethan Munson) writes: > >product. I suspect that in three years, many programs will require >the 128K ROMs, if the extra features are really useful. > Three years? Don't you think the 256K ROMs (or even the 1 Meg ROMs) may be necessary for the upmarket Macintosh family software?
leeke@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Steven D. Leeke) (01/09/87)
Jason:
Please accept my apologies. I was the one whose brain was out of gear. In
Proverbs it says that 'sin is not far from much speaking' - how true. Thank
you for stating that MaxSpeaks will not be repeated.
First, whether a developer supports the old ROMS or not will be determined
by several things:
1) If they are top pros like Microsoft they will because that's
the way to sell the most copies of a program.
2) If they have special features that would be hard to do on
the old ROMS (i.e. lots of patches such as servant) they will
force you to get new ROMS. e.g. Servant, some of the new draw
programs.
3) If they are a small operation (or a private individual that
is doing this for their own enjoyment) they will have limited
resources. Most likely will choose to develop for whatever
set of ROMS they currently have in the new machine (most likely
the new ones these days, but not necessarily) - unless they have
a VERY strong committment to general machine development and
trying to serve the full range of configurations (and this is
on a closed machine - wait until Paris and Alladin are here).
I do not see how there can be a definitive statement about whether both ROMS
should be suppported or only one. I believe that the best possible case
will be that both ROMS will be supported, but I think that the three cases
above will exist.
Second, as the person who gets asked on many occasions in our lab about what
to buy for our Mac systems I get very ticked off that everyone assumes that
by some right of existence they deserve (hot) copies of:
1) Copy II Mac
2) MacWrite (which is NOT included w/ the Plus)
3) MacPaint (")
4) MacDraw
5) VersaTerm/MacTerminal
and I wind up explaining why we should buy software and how pirating is
just a discrete form of shoplifting (and can be a felony at some of the
prices publishers charge). I am perhaps oversensitive to this because of
a summer I spent at a company that ENFORCED pirating on its employees as a
matter of policy. We were all handed copies of the manual and disk for
1-2-3 and EasyWriter when we started. The corporate counsel did nothing to
assure me that a change would be made when I complained - and since I left
shortly thereafter to return to school I don't know if they ever changed.
We have had much better luck with pirating in my lab lately since the Mac
has been embraced by the lab and purchased in quantity - with software -
rather than one here or there.
I should have reacted to your message with the following rather than with
what I did say:
Jason:
It sounds from your last posting that you might be
equating vanilla-Mac owners with priates. I doubt
you intended this, and I do agree that pirating is a
severe problem - but how about a disclaimer for those
of us with vanilla-Macs next time? If we want companies
to do away with copy-protection let's reinforce the
positives.
The above would have saved keystrokes, time, and anguish.
Good luck with LSP C 2.x.
Steve Leeke
--
Steven D. Leeke, Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University
{ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!leeke, leeke@cascade.stanford.edu
"I suppose they don't use money in the 23rd century?"zen@utcs.UUCP (01/11/87)
In article <581@runx.OZ> James Tiberius Kirk@runx.OZ (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <764@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >>In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > > Now, are these same people going to have money to spend on a program you > have written? I doubt it. If they don't have US$300 to spend on an upgrade > they don't have money to spend on software. > > I am *NOT* saying "Get a ROM/Drive Upgrade or Else!", I am in no position > to make such demands. > > The point I was making was that if an individual doesn't have the money > to spend on a ROM/Drive Upgrade, he obviously hasn't the money to buy > software, and is therefore out of the market for that software. > > There is a considerable body of software which appeals to individuals > and *NOT* corporations. So, if you can write a better program using > 128K ROMs than 64K ROMs, and your program targets affluent individuals, > then I say "Go ahead and ignore the 64K ROM machines!". > > Apple has gone out of its way to make the upgrades affordable. If there > are people who cannot get any of the upgrades, that's OK. But pampering > to 64K ROM users who haven't got the money to buy the software seems a > little more than odd. > > Features like window zooming are easy to case out - HOWEVER, there are > many other routines in the 128K ROMs that cannot be. You can always > write some workaround code if you want, but this 64K ROM implementation > is likely to be inferior to the 128K ROM one. One problem with the above. If I had the choice between buying a good piece of software OR getting a drive upgrade I'd get the software. Just because people can't justify the expense of the drive doesn't mean they can't justify software. -- Nick Zentena zen@utcs {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid} I don't need no stinking signature
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (01/11/87)
All right, let's end this once and for all.
Knowing the interest on the net regarding this very question, I stood up
in front of a packed auditorium at the Macworld Expo and asked Kin Seto,
Apple evangelist.
Q1: Do the majority of machines have the new ROM?
A1: It depends on the market:
Business: yes, they have the Plus
Universities: no, many 512
Home: mix, including many 128's with 3rd-party 512 upgrades
As he points out, most products have two targets:
"Minimum"--512, external drive, ImageWriter
"Satisfactory"--Plus, hard disk, LaserWriter
Q2: When can we assume the new ROM on product shipped? (A fellow panelist
asked for shipping all distributions on 800kb floppies)
A2: "late 1987"
--
Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879
Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083
{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPAdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (01/12/87)
In article <581@runx.OZ>, clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society) writes: > In article <764@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > >> I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the > >> ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new > >> ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. > > >Suppose you have a Mac, and would really like to upgrade but such mundane > >things food, rent, clothes for the kids keep getting in the way. People > >actually find themselves in this situation. > > Now, are these same people going to have money to spend on a program you > have written? I doubt it. If they don't have US$300 to spend on an upgrade > they don't have money to spend on software. Your question at this point was not "should 64K ROMs be supported?," but "why not get an upgrade?" So your reply, though factually true, is irrelevant to the question you asked. You are also making the assumption that the programs in question are programs to be *sold* - an assumption that does not always apply, and in my case, never applies. Getting back to the original question, I guess Servant's policy seems to me a reasonable one - it announces that it doesn't work with the 64K ROM, waits for a click in the OK box, and exits. It's polite, and it doesn't crash and burn. By the way, you'll be happy to know that I got a ROM upgrade (today!), so I'm no longer a brainless idiot. :-) --- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- dubois@rhesus | | "Don't we have enough madmen around here already?" I Samuel 21:15
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/14/87)
In article <581@runx.OZ>, clubmac@runx.OZ (Sydney University Macintosh Society) writes: > In article <764@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: >>> I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not >>> getting the ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that >>> extra power that the new ROMs and new 800K drive give them over >>> the vanilla 512K. > >> Suppose you have a Mac, and would really like to upgrade but such mundane >> things food, rent, clothes for the kids keep getting in the way. People >> actually find themselves in this situation. > > Now, are these same people going to have money to spend on a program you > have written? I doubt it. If they don't have US$300 to spend on an upgrade > they don't have money to spend on software. Suppose one has a 512k Mac, and has managed to come up with $300 to spend. If the choice is buy an upgrade, and have no money left for software, or buy $300 worth of software, a lot of people will take the software. Do you buy computers and upgrades because you want to have the biggest system on the block, or do you buy them to get a job done? If it is to get a job done, then the instroduction of a new model does *not* make the old model useless! -- Religion: just say "no" Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
broome@daffy.UUCP (01/15/87)
In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: >> I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the >> ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new >> ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. Um, where does that put those of us with good old Lisa's (aka Mac XL)? I didn't even find out about the XL-to-Mac+ upgrade until it was a month too late. So it looks like I'm stuck with Finder 5.0 running under System 2.0, unless someone has managed to get newer versions to work on the Lisa (as you may have already guessed, the Apple dealer around here is pretty pathetic.) While I'm at it, has anyone heard if HFS will ever work on the Lisa? ============================================================================== Jonathan C. Broome Abel Image Research, Hollywood, Ca. {cogsci.berkeley.edu, randvax, styx} \ !abel!{broome,root,uucp,etc ...} {celerit, culler, omnilax, vortex} / ==============================================================================
aiy@i.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (01/16/87)
>Suppose one has a 512k Mac, and has managed to come up with $300 to spend. >If the choice is buy an upgrade, and have no money left for software, or >buy $300 worth of software, a lot of people will take the software. There ARE other options to choose from, ya know, other than buying the upgrade or buying the software to have a more powerful system. I have a "vanilla 512K Mac". What I really needed was just additional disk space and I didn't want to spend much more than $200. The solution? An 800K external drive. Now I can use double-sided disks AND run some of the software written for the 128K ROM provided I have Finder 5.1 or newer installed on the disks. John O'Malley (Go ahead and send me mail to tell me what I did wrong... Yes, this IS my first posting to the net.)