dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (06/16/88)
My apologies to the net about some incorrect information that I recently posted about PACKs 4, 6, and 7. They are ACTUALLY MISSING from System 6.0, as was originally posted by some good soul out there in netland. I had long hoped that the redundant PACKs WOULD be removed from the System, but I guess they had always been around so that the System would be compatible with the Macintosh 512K. Since System 6.0 is for Mac Plus and beyond, they finally got rid of them. Probably to save some disk space. Very sorry about the screwup. Dan Allen Apple Computer
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (06/19/88)
In article <12287@apple.Apple.COM> dan@apple.apple.com.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >Since System 6.0 is for Mac Plus and beyond, they finally got rid of >them. Probably to save some disk space. Does this mean that those of us who have 512Ke's with more memory don't get to use the new System? I have the new ROM's and 2 megs of memory? But I can't use the new sytem. Did Apple design the new system so that it doesn't work on an upgraded 512Ke? -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (06/22/88)
In article <3221@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >In article <12287@apple.Apple.COM> dan@apple.apple.com.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >>Since System 6.0 is for Mac Plus and beyond, they finally got rid of >>them. Probably to save some disk space. > > Does this mean that those of us who have 512Ke's with more memory don't get >to use the new System? I have the new ROM's and 2 megs of memory? But I >can't use the new sytem. > > Did Apple design the new system so that it doesn't work on an upgraded 512Ke? >-- To be honest, I am not sure if System 6.0 is for 512Ke's or not. Since it has the same ROM as the Mac Plus, PACK-wise everything should be okay. The biggest problem is probably the memory, with the system heap ever growing. If you have a 2 MB upgrade, though, everything should be okay. Dan Allen Apple Computer
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (06/22/88)
In article <12594@apple.Apple.COM> dan@apple.apple.com.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >To be honest, I am not sure if System 6.0 is for 512Ke's or not. Since >it has the same ROM as the Mac Plus, PACK-wise everything should be >okay. The biggest problem is probably the memory, with the system heap >ever growing. If you have a 2 MB upgrade, though, everything should be >okay. Well since posting this some very nice people have responded and informed me that System 6.0's sound Manger uses the additional Parameter RAM on the Plus for some reason. Soooooooo, 512Ke owner don't get to use the Sound Manager. To be honest I'm not overly dissappointed is this aspect of System 6.0. But no one has yet been able to tell me why System 6.0 has such problem dealing with the Serial Port's on the Mac 512K. If Apple or some smart person who can deal with the Serial Driver were to come out with a patch that fixed this problem then 512Ke owners could use System 6.0 minus the Sound Manger which I don't think anyone would miss anyways. Comments anyone???? -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
thecloud@pnet06.cts.com (Ken Mcleod) (06/23/88)
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: > Well since posting this some very nice people have responded and informed >me that System 6.0's sound Manger uses the additional Parameter RAM on the >Plus for some reason. I don't think this can be the problem, and I'll tell you why: I have a 512K Mac upgraded with the Dove 2 meg board (and the Dove SCSI port). I don't have the extra PRAM that a Plus does. Yet System 6.0 runs just beautifully on my machine!!!!!!! I don't use the Sound cdev for beep sounds, though, as I like CheapBeep and SoundMaster's options. But applications which use the Sound Manager seem to work fine (Larry Resenstein's "Time Keeper" with its hourly chimes, for one). Can anyone be more specific as to how/if the "extra" PRAM is used???? Have I just been narrowly avoiding danger up til now? I installed System 6.0 on my Jasmine 20 by booting from the 6.0 floppy, then trashing all system files and cdevs on the hard disk, and running the installer with the "full MacPlus" script. In case this makes any difference. With my hardware configuration and System 6.0/Finder 6.1/MF 6.0, I have had NO problems with MS Word or Excel, MacWrite, MacPaint, Red Ryder, Microphone 1.1, Termworks 1.3, MPW 2.0.2, HyperCard 1.2.1, SuperPaint 1.1, and others... in fact, the only trouble I had initially was with some cdevs that relied on PACK 7 being in the System. According to the 6.0 Change History documentation I have (dated May 2nd) *no* changes were made to either the SCSI Manager or the serial driver. Here is a list of resources that were REMOVED from the System: PACK ID=4 SANE, floating point package PACK ID=5 SANE, elementary math functions PACK ID=7 SANE, various conversion routines WDEF ID=0 Window definition procedure DRVR ID=9 AppleTalk protocol package handler DRVR ID=10 AppleTalk transaction protocol handler These are now in all ROMs, 128K and greater. There have been so many posts by people having problems with 6.0 that I'm running a little worried, waiting for something to crash. It would be great if someone "in the know" could tell us exactly what 'extra' hardware 6.0 needs that 5.0 didn't...if indeed it does. On the other hand, is it possible that a glitch crept into some of the distribution disks and not others? I have heard from several people who received their 4 disks, and 2 of them were *identical*, right down to the volume name. Is it still too early, or has anyone compiled a 6.0 bug list? Disclaimer: This may be all hearsay. I may not really be Dan Rather. Ken McLeod ========================= ....... ====================== UUCP: {crash uunet}!pnet06!thecloud :. .: Chief Weapons of UNIX: ARPA: crash!pnet06!thecloud@nosc.mil :::.. ..::: "Fear, surprise, and INET: thecloud@pnet06.cts.com //// ruthless efficiency."
adail@pnet06.cts.com (Alan Dail) (06/23/88)
I am currently writing a program that uses the sound manager that I
would like to have work on the Mac 512E if system 6.0 or later is running.
In the past it was still possible to use the latest system on the 512E if
you can live with a smaller heap space. It would be nice if the only thing
the system releases depended on was having the Plus ROM or later so that
supporting 512E users would be easier (possible). I have found that
syncronous sound seems to work fine onthe 512E, but async sound hangs.
Apple, Please fix this in a release 6.0.1.
Alan Dail
UUCP: {crash uunet}!pnet06!adail
ARPA: crash!pnet06!adail@nosc.mil
INET: adail@pnet06.cts.comdwb@Apple.COM (David W. Berry) (06/25/88)
In article <3234@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >In article <12594@apple.Apple.COM> dan@apple.apple.com.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >>To be honest, I am not sure if System 6.0 is for 512Ke's or not. Since >>it has the same ROM as the Mac Plus, PACK-wise everything should be >>okay. The biggest problem is probably the memory, with the system heap >>ever growing. If you have a 2 MB upgrade, though, everything should be >>okay. > > Well since posting this some very nice people have responded and informed >me that System 6.0's sound Manger uses the additional Parameter RAM on the >Plus for some reason. > > Soooooooo, 512Ke owner don't get to use the Sound Manager. To be honest >I'm not overly dissappointed is this aspect of System 6.0. > > But no one has yet been able to tell me why System 6.0 has such problem >dealing with the Serial Port's on the Mac 512K. If Apple or some smart >person who can deal with the Serial Driver were to come out with a patch that >fixed this problem then 512Ke owners could use System 6.0 minus the Sound >Manger which I don't think anyone would miss anyways. > > Comments anyone???? Well, I just spoke with Brian McGhie (who's some sort of boss around the toolbox group:-) and according to him, System 6.0 is not supported on the Mac 512Ke. The reasons included some real hardware differences between it and the Plus, address lines brought to the ROM are different, the clock chip has more parameter ram, and serial chip addressing is different. Opinions: MINE, ALL MINE! (greedy evil chuckle) David W. Berry apple!dwb@sun.com dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell
thecloud@pnet06.cts.com (Ken Mcleod) (06/26/88)
dwb@Apple.COM (David W. Berry) writes: > (according to Brian McGhie) System 6.0 is not supported >on the Mac 512Ke. The reasons included some real hardware differences >between it and the Plus, address lines brought to the ROM are different, >the clock chip has more parameter ram, and serial chip addressing is >different. Please...be more specific! If the ROM in a 512KE is the same as a Plus (I have the 'Lonely Heifer' ROMs, along with the vast majority of Pluses) how are "address lines brought to the ROM" or any other kind of addressing "different"??? --given that the 512KE has been upgraded to >= 1MB. OK, the clock chip has more parameter RAM, and 6.0's Sound Manager uses it. So why does it work fine on MY machine, which is a 2MB 512KE without the MacPlus logic board/clock chip??? The only thing I can think of is perhaps I have a "magic combination" of patched traps from all those INITs in my System Folder. This would then imply that (as David O'Rourke suggested) it would be possible to patch something for 6.0 to run on a 512KE w/1 meg or greater. I still have my DB-9 serial ports. And they're working great with 6.0. Again, here's my setup: Mac 512K with disk drive/ROM upgrade and 2 meg Dove MacSnap upgrade, Dove SCSI port/daughter board, Jasmine DD20 HD, Apple 800K external floppy drive, original ("classic") keyboard & mouse. It may sound odd, but WHAT AM I DOING RIGHT? Ken McLeod ========================= ....... ====================== UUCP: {crash uunet}!pnet06!thecloud :. .: Chief Weapons of UNIX: ARPA: crash!pnet06!thecloud@nosc.mil :::.. ..::: "Fear, surprise, and INET: thecloud@pnet06.cts.com //// ruthless efficiency."