powers@jade.wbst128.xerox.com (Mike Powers (temp)) (12/07/89)
Hi all, I have the opportunity to adopt a Mac 512 that currently is sitting unused in a friends closet. The upgrade to a Plus isn't worth the price since I can get a new Plus for close to the same amount. (besides, the Plus will be in the same boat as the 512 after system 7.0 arrives :) Sooo...my question is, is the Mac 512 still semi-usable (eg. what's the most recent release of the OS that it will run, MacWrite?, etc.). Are there any bandaids that can be applied (such as memory enhancments) that will help out? Basically, I would like to make the machine usable as a graduate typewriter replacement. Mike Powers (if the above address is flaky try powers.roch803@xerox.com)
alan@goofy.Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) (12/09/89)
In article <272@spot.wbst128.xerox.com>, powers@jade.wbst128.xerox.com (Mike Powers (temp)) writes: > ... besides, the Plus will be in the same boat as the 512 after > system 7.0 arrives :) This seems to be a popular misconception. System 7.0 WILL RUN JUST FINE on Macintoshes with >= 2MB of memory -- even the "lowly" MacPlus. I own one of these machines and have no plans to sell it. The ONLY feature of System 7.0 that I know of that is new and will not work on a MacPlus is the virtual memory feature. This is NOT REQUIRED to use System 7.0 (in fact, many people will not need to use it even if it does work on their hardware since pagefaults slow things down somewhat). Please don't consider the MacPlus to be a DEAD machine -- it's not. Alan Mimms My opinions are generally Communications Product Development Group pretty worthless, but Apple Computer they *are* my own... "The company has new jobs and Jobs has a new company" -- Harry Anderson
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/09/89)
I believe System 4.2 is the last system rated for the 64K ROM machines. Everything that every ran on the Classic Fat Mac still runs on it, but many development systems generate code that is assumes the 128K ROMs of the 512KE, the Plus, and newer. (The class library of the THINK C version 4 C compiler, for example, is full of calls to traps that aren't present in System 4.2.) It is frustrating for a programmer with friends with unenhanced Macs, but the rationale is, anyone who does not care to invest the ~$300.00 for the upgrade to 128K ROMs, and 800K, faster diskette drives is unlikely to spend much on software. You can still run MacWrite, Word, and many other programs on a classic fat mac. You can often find software for it quite cheap. I know of at least 5 novels, currently in print, that were written in the last 3 years on a classic fat mac.
marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) (12/09/89)
In article <5690@internal.Apple.COM>, alan@goofy.Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) writes: > [ ... ] System 7.0 WILL RUN JUST FINE on Macintoshes with >= 2MB of > memory -- even the "lowly" MacPlus. I never doubted that. I assume it even works well on Macintoshes with >= 8MByte of main memory ;-) The problem is that last time I checked, my MacPlus had only 1MByte of main memory. |=~ ON Even if you tell me that System 7.0 will run in 1MByte, I won't be convinced that the MacPlus isn't dead: I doubt people will be happy if all you can run on your machine is an operating system! And with the rate of frills added in previous new system/finder releases (moving hands in clock, bulging trash can, information messages like "updating desktop" etc), I doubt that 7.0 will even walk with less than 4MByte. At least you'll be in good company with Big Blue and their OS/2. |=~ OFF Summary: I believe it when I see it. -- Robert Marti Phone: +41 1 256 52 36 Institut fur Informationssysteme ETH-Zentrum CSNET/ARPA: marti%inf.ethz.ch@relay.cs.net CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland UUCP: ...uunet!mcvax!ethz!marti
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (12/10/89)
In article <33126@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >I believe System 4.2 is the last system rated for the 64K ROM machines. That should be System 3.2 (and Finder 5.3). Or 3.3/5.4 if you are running with AppleShare. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (12/10/89)
In article <2779@ethz.UUCP> marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) writes: >In article <5690@internal.Apple.COM>, alan@goofy.Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) writes: >> [ ... ] System 7.0 WILL RUN JUST FINE on Macintoshes with >= 2MB of >> memory -- even the "lowly" MacPlus. > >I never doubted that. I assume it even works well on Macintoshes >with >= 8MByte of main memory ;-) The problem is that last time >I checked, my MacPlus had only 1MByte of main memory. But Mac Plus's can be upgraded to more than 1 megabyte of memory. > >|=~ ON >Even if you tell me that System 7.0 will run in 1MByte, I won't be >convinced that the MacPlus isn't dead: I doubt people will be happy >if all you can run on your machine is an operating system! And with >the rate of frills added in previous new system/finder releases >(moving hands in clock, bulging trash can, information messages like >"updating desktop" etc), I doubt that 7.0 will even walk with less >than 4MByte. At least you'll be in good company with Big Blue and >their OS/2. >|=~ OFF OK, we'll stop adding features to our system software. ("Hey, guys? Can you stop what you're doing? Yeah, stop writing 7.0. Seems that there's a guy out there who still has a 1 meg Mac, and he doesn't want us to come out with 7.0. Yeah, I know he can still run 6.0.x if he needs to, but he still objects. So that's right, we're calling 7.0 off. And throw all your sources in the trash while you're at it. That's it. Thanks!"). There...it's done. But all kidding aside, am curious as to what you think we should do. Here is my way of thinking. Either we keep the system software the way it is, or we enhance it. If we stay still, then we get beat up for not doing anything to keep up with computer technology. So we enhance our software. Now how do you expect us to do that without taking up more memory? All that code we write has to go SOMEWHERE! Where do you propose we put it? As for those frills you mention, those are very low impact items in terms of memory, but are very nice for the user. Spinning the watch? Takes a few lines of code, a few more cursor resources, and the result for the user is tremendous. All told, probably about 100 bytes of code and 476 bytes of PURGEABLE resources. Trash can? About 20 bytes of code, and an additional 256 bytes of resources that will reside only on disk; no memory impact at all, as only one will be in memory at a time. Updating desktop? The string takes about 15 bytes of disk space, and has minimal impact to memory. Drawing it takes only the code to get the resource and call DrawText. So...about 20 bytes? All told, maybe about 150 bytes of extra code to add those "nice little touches" that make the Macintosh have a good user interface. It is not features like these that require one to add a megabyte of memory to their computers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/12/89)
In article <37168@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > Either we keep the system software the > way it is, or we enhance it. If we stay still, then we get beat up for not > doing anything to keep up with computer technology. So we enhance our software. > Now how do you expect us to do that without taking up more memory? All that > code we write has to go SOMEWHERE! Indeed. I occasionally get the feeling that people want Apple & third party developers to upgrade their products retroactively. But surely no one could actually be that dense ... especially not on the net ... :-). Sigh. I'm getting tired of the perennial whining of "I want the best and I want it for free." Look, Apple didn't marry you; they sold you a computer. It's still a good computer. The fact that Apple is making better computers than they used to is a good thing, not evil profiteering. The fact that things like outline fonts, the line layout manager, and so on take up memory and disk space is just one of the facts of life. Like Keith says, they do have to go somewhere, after all. I'd rather have to upgrade a Mac Plus to 2 or 4 megs than to try and run OS/2 on an IBM XT... Grumph. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/13/89)
In article <272@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> powers@jade.UUCP (Mike Powers) writes: >I have the opportunity to adopt a Mac 512 that currently is >sitting unused in a friends closet. The upgrade to a Plus isn't >worth the price since I can get a new Plus for close to the same >amount. True of the Apple upgrade. I've never understood why they seem to want to discourage upgrading to a Plus. Last time I checked, the price was something like $900, which is only $100 less than the retail cost of a new Plus after rebate. However, if you already have a new ROM and double-sided internal floppy drive, then you can get a cheap Mac Plus equivalent upgrade from Dove Computer. They are easy to install and pretty reliable. If you don't have new ROM and double-sided drive, you need to get it; otherwise, the computer ain't worth the price of the plastic. >(besides, the Plus will be in the same boat as the 512 after >system 7.0 arrives :) Not so. The Plus is the computer that made the Mac a going concern. A large segment of the installed base is still Pluses, and it remains a fairly strong seller. No way Apple will be breaking it for at least a few years. I'd be surprised if it became unsupported before 1994. >Sooo...my question is, is the Mac 512 still semi-usable (eg. what's >the most recent release of the OS that it will run, MacWrite?, etc.). >Are there any bandaids that can be applied (such as memory enhancments) >that will help out? See above note. Dove upgrades are widely advertised from the magazine mail-order houses, and you can call Dove to find out which one you need to get. Go for two megabytes and a SCSI port. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "The time is gone, the song is over. Thought I'd something more to say." - Roger Waters, Time
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (12/13/89)
In article <9271@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Not so. The Plus is the computer that made the Mac a going concern. >A large segment of the installed base is still Pluses, and it remains >a fairly strong seller. No way Apple will be breaking it for at least >a few years. I know a way! If Apple would produce a "Color Plus" it would replace the Plus in no time (I think). It would have to be close to a Plus in price and functionality, just a 512 x 342 x 24 color screen (72 dpi) instead of the 512 x 342 black-and-white screen. One thing I'm not sure of is: is it technologically feasible to put a color crt of this quality for this price in the case of Plus? Now, am I right or am I right? -- Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk Path: uunet!fwi.uva.nl!freek #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/14/89)
In article <2779@ethz.UUCP> marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) writes: >In article <5690@internal.Apple.COM>, alan@goofy.Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) writes: >> [ ... ] System 7.0 WILL RUN JUST FINE on Macintoshes with >= 2MB of >> memory -- even the "lowly" MacPlus. > >I never doubted that. I assume it even works well on Macintoshes >with >= 8MByte of main memory ;-) The problem is that last time >I checked, my MacPlus had only 1MByte of main memory. That's your problem. SIMMs are cheap; go out and buy a couple, and System 7.0 will run just fine on your Plus. Don't blame Apple just because you haven't done a cheap upgrade. >Even if you tell me that System 7.0 will run in 1MByte, It won't. But it is the work of a few minutes and a few marks to give your Plus 2.5 megabytes. A few marks more and you can have 4 megabytes. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "American women, especially some of those on the net, might profit by being less concerned with their careers and more concerned with getting a good, old fashioned roll in the hay." -- William J. Fallon, wjf@cbnews.att.com, on soc.women (also uses the alias Walter J. Ficklestein)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/15/89)
In article <9271@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Not so. The Plus is the computer that made the Mac a going concern. >>A large segment of the installed base is still Pluses, and it remains >>a fairly strong seller. No way Apple will be breaking it for at least >>a few years. In article <285@fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >I know a way! If Apple would produce a "Color Plus" it would replace >the Plus in no time (I think). No, not really. You have to look at the characteristics of the installed base; it's not going to roll over just because something better is available. An awful lot of universities have Mac clusters made up primarily of Mac Pluses; they simply can't afford to spend the millions of dollars to replace them. Likewise, in corporations, high-level and technical personnel do tend to get new machines as they become available, but the old machines stay in the company, going to new hires and to established low-level employees who didn't have a computer at all previously. The Mac Plus is here to stay, at least for a few years -- probably at least four or five years. And quite possibly longer. >It would have to be close to a Plus in >price and functionality, just a 512 x 342 x 24 color screen (72 dpi) >instead of the 512 x 342 black-and-white screen. One thing I'm not >sure of is: is it technologically feasible to put a color crt of this >quality for this price in the case of Plus? But it still isn't cheaper than keeping the old Plus! It will never be cheaper to buy a new computer than to keep an old one, unless the old one is obsolete. >Now, am I right or am I right? Er, is this a trick question? -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Genuinely skillful use of obscenities is uniformly absent on the Internet." -- Karl Kleinpaste on gnu.gcc
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (12/16/89)
In article <9298@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > It will never be > cheaper to buy a new computer than to keep an old one, unless the old > one is obsolete. Isn't this a truism? And isn't the thrust of some of the argument that the Plus is pretty darned close to being obsolete? A large part of the answer to the question, I think, has to come from what you mean by things like "viable" and "obsolete." The Plus will always be able to run System 6.x, and applications that will run in one megabyte or less under System 6.x, so yeah, the Plus will be around for an indeterminate amount of time equal to however long the users find that combination (Plus, System 6.x, their favorite apps) useful. As for how long Apple Computer, Inc. will continue to manufacture the Plus and continue upgrading its System Software, that's anybody's guess. __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________ C++ -- The language in which only friends can access your private members. __________________________________________________________________________
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (12/16/89)
In article <5799@internal.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: ... >A large part of the answer to the question, I think, has to come from what >you mean by things like "viable" and "obsolete." The Plus will always be >able to run System 6.x, and applications that will run in one megabyte or >less under System 6.x, so yeah, the Plus will be around for an >indeterminate amount of time equal to however long the users find that >combination (Plus, System 6.x, their favorite apps) useful. > >As for how long Apple Computer, Inc. will continue to manufacture >the Plus and continue upgrading its System Software, that's anybody's guess. I was under the impression that the Plus would be able to run System 7.0 with 2 Mb installed. I own a Plus. Don't scare me like this, Paul! In addition, at least one manufacturer makes a 68030 add-on board for the Plus and claims full compatibility with System 7.0 virtual memory. These boards are cheap. A Plus with one installed and a math chip will cost about half the price of an SE/30, especially if you use a Plus you already have and figure in its present value rather than the cost of a new box. There isn't a whole lot of difference between such a Plus and an SE/30, either, except for those 256k ROM calls that are not (yet) implemented on a Plus. You can put all the hardware you presently need into a Plus, so Apple will continue to support the Plus for quite a long time yet, assuming that the place is run by Nice People who are grateful to the customers who put them where they are now. I don't see any reason for the Plus to become obsolete for a while yet. In my opinion, what really separates a stock Plus from better Macintoshes is the 68000. When the Plus goes, the 68000 SE isn't too far behind. Earle R. Horton
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (12/16/89)
In article <17929@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: > In article <5799@internal.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > ... > >A large part of the answer to the question, I think, has to come from what > >you mean by things like "viable" and "obsolete." The Plus will always be > >able to run System 6.x, and applications that will run in one megabyte or > >less under System 6.x, so yeah, the Plus will be around for an > >indeterminate amount of time equal to however long the users find that > >combination (Plus, System 6.x, their favorite apps) useful. > > > >As for how long Apple Computer, Inc. will continue to manufacture > >the Plus and continue upgrading its System Software, that's anybody's guess. > > I was under the impression that the Plus would be able to run System > 7.0 with 2 Mb installed. I own a Plus. Don't scare me like this, Paul! Sorry, Earl; I didn't mean to imply that the Plus would only run System 6.x; I was trying to point out that since a lot of users never upgrade beyond a certain point, the Plus will be viable for them for quite some time. In article <17929@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: > In addition, at least one manufacturer makes a 68030 add-on board for > the Plus and claims full compatibility with System 7.0 virtual memory. > These boards are cheap. A Plus with one installed and a math chip will > cost about half the price of an SE/30, especially if you use a Plus you > already have and figure in its present value rather than the cost of a > new box. There isn't a whole lot of difference between such a Plus and > an SE/30, either, except for those 256k ROM calls that are not (yet) > implemented on a Plus. You can put all the hardware you presently need > into a Plus, so Apple will continue to support the Plus for quite a > long time yet, assuming that the place is run by Nice People who are > grateful to the customers who put them where they are now. Cool, but what you get when you do this is no longer a Macintosh Plus--it's some mutation of one. And the SE/30 is a heckuva lot closer to a IIcx than it is to a Plus. And you may be right about us continuing to support the vanilla Plus, but you never can tell for sure. In article <17929@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: > I don't see any reason for the Plus to become obsolete for a while > yet. In my opinion, what really separates a stock Plus from better > Macintoshes is the 68000. When the Plus goes, the 68000 SE isn't too > far behind. Good point. __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________ C++ -- The language in which only friends can access your private members. __________________________________________________________________________
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (12/17/89)
In article <5799@internal.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >In article <9298@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> It will never be >> cheaper to buy a new computer than to keep an old one, unless the old >> one is obsolete. > >Isn't this a truism? And isn't the thrust of some of the argument that >the Plus is pretty darned close to being obsolete? > >A large part of the answer to the question, I think, has to come from what >you mean by things like "viable" and "obsolete." The Plus will always be >able to run System 6.x, and applications that will run in one megabyte or >less under System 6.x, so yeah, the Plus will be around for an >indeterminate amount of time equal to however long the users find that >combination (Plus, System 6.x, their favorite apps) useful. Those that bash the Plus, and keep saying "Why don't you buy a IIci?", are forgetting a couple of things: 1. Few companies treat any item which costs more than $1000 as a throw-away. Expensive items such as computers are capitalized, and paid for internally over several years. Until the advent of personal computers, the shortest common period of depreciation was five years. Which meant that if you junked it after three, you'd still be paying for it for two more years. Modern corporations have changed their rules, and now depreciate personal computers over three years. However, if we purchased a Mac Plus at our company for $1200 last July, there would still be $200 of depreciation charged in 1992. 2. Rarely does anything really get thrown away. We've still got some 64k motherboard IBM PCs; they were taken out of service recently because they died, not because they were obsolete. 3. The most important issue is: Although there are no Mac clones, Apple still must compete on price. There are many people at my company today who say, "With Windows and OS/2, can't a PC do everything in the world of graphics that a Mac can?" To which my reply has always been: "Yes, but Windows and OS/2 require a vitamin-packed PC on steroids. The Mac Plus can run Pagemaker just fine." If there is no low-end Mac, or the low-end Mac is obsoleted quickly, you lose that argument. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}