johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (05/21/91)
In article <1991May21.032658.5617@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes... >I asked them what I should do to use more than ~13 meg of RAM and their answer >was, 'Have you heard of a company called Connectix...?' They said that was >the answer. Personally, I would prefer to see Apple call ME and say "Your copy of MODE32 is in the mail. Thank you for buying an < SE/30; IIcx; IIx, II >. We've been working to find a way to meet the published technical specifications for your computer. The MODE32 init solves the problem with the ROMS in these machines and we plan to support this in future versions of the Macintosh System software." That's what I would like to hear as somebody who spent my entire savings on computer AFTER reading the specs. This would also be the HONORABLE thing to do. It would be the right thing for Apple, and it would be a great deal for Connectix, who would sell MANY more copies of MODE32 if people thought that it would be supported past version 7.01 of the Mac OS. >Does anyone know if this IS the answer? Have you heard any more detail about >MODE32? How completely functional is it? Do I just drop it in the Extensions >and never worry about this problem again? This is the 128 megabyte question, isn't it? Several months ago I posted into one of the first "dirty-ROMS" threads with the suggestion that a ROM-patching init would probably solve the problem without new ROMS. That suggestion was batted down and generally flamed by several net.experts who offered various technical explanations as to why an init-fix wouldn't work. I believe that some of those people were Apple hardware guys, and some of the explanations were convincing. I would imagine that there are quite a few people at Apple who are now working overtime trying to figure out just exactly HOW Connectix tricked the System into 32-bit-cleanliness. Sorry, but I'm not buying into the MODE32 fix without some guarantee that it will be have more than six months compatibility. I can just see a string of paid upgrades to MODE32, which we'll all be forced to buy into as soon as we've emptied our pockets for 4 MB SIMMs. This scenario STINKS. It reeks of the extended vs. expanded vs. pretended memory configuration kludges for DOS and Windows. Sure, alot of us will go for the MODE32 init even if we have to pay for it. My Macintosh cost me twice as much as my car; and yes, I'll probably decide to invest another nickel if it helps me get more out of the damn thing. MODE32 will not be a software-only fix. Connectix plans to bundle it with PMMUs for Mac II owners, and probably bundle it with overpriced memory upgrades for the impatient and/or gullible. MODE32 owners will be developers, "power users", and Mac site administrators who will pour many $$$ into upgrades. Not as easy to disappoint these folks as the few word-processor-users or games-players who complain each time a popular init bites the dust. And if Connectix makes a buck at this, the flood gates open for a host of 3rd-party fixes to the Mac OS. Is that what you want, Apple? My vote for the "Fiddling while Rome Burns" award to whatever idiot in Apple Technical Support gave the go-ahead to use "Connectix" as the catch-all answer to the dirty-ROM problem. Some kind of phone support, huh? If this goes through it's Welcome to "Windows-land". A consultant's dream. Hell, I'll probably make enough money helping people figure out how to upgrade old Macs that I'll be able to afford that IIfx after all. Forget I said anything, Apple. Go ahead and screw things up. Your customers will hate you for it, but "experts" will make a killing. Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (05/22/91)
In article <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: > >Several months ago I posted into one of the first "dirty-ROMS" threads >with the suggestion that a ROM-patching init would probably solve the >problem without new ROMS. That suggestion was batted down and generally >flamed by several net.experts who offered various technical explanations >as to why an init-fix wouldn't work. I believe that some of those people >were Apple hardware guys, and some of the explanations were convincing. But there are at least two proofs that it is possible to do it in software - Connetix and A/UX (yes the first 32-bit clean Mac system runs on MacIIs and above and it has a 32-bit clean system - obviously Apple does have the patches in house already and has had them for years before 7.0) Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P My son is now 2 months old, in that time he has doubled his weight, if he does this every 2 months for the next year he will weigh over 300lbs.
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (05/22/91)
In article <170@eclectic.COM>, kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) writes... >In article <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: >>Forget I said anything, Apple. Go ahead and screw things up. Your >>customers will hate you for it, but "experts" will make a killing. >With an attitude like that, if I were Apple, I'd tell you to take a >flying leap. Fortunately, they have infinitely more patience with >your type than I do. "My type" is somebody who reads and THINKS before posting. Before anyone else follows up on the excerpts used by Mr. Hancock in his condescending "they have more patience with your type than I do", I hope that they read what I actually said. This is one of the worst hatchet jobs of editing that I have seen in a USENET posting. I wrote an article that described what I saw as the likely outcome of an Apple decision to pass the 32-bit buck on to unsupported 3rd-party solutions. The lines quoted about were the deliberately ironic end to a constructive article. It was posted into a thread which had degenerated into an angry debate about class-action lawsuits with the suggestion that Apple should think carefully before simply passing the buck to 3rd parties. I imagine that Connectix has done an excellent job with MODE32, and my posting did not suggest otherwise. What it did say is that unsupported 3rd-party solutions could lead to a situation in which Apple could end up having to support several versions of a very fundamental part of the operating System. If Apple decides to merely "tolerate" MODE32 without backing it, what's to prevent several companies from jumping in -- perhaps even with less well written 32-bit fixes that Apple will eventually have to support if a few big clients end up buying into it? This scenario is quite contrary to the pattern has served Apple well in the past. Control over the details of the OS has given us a degree of consistency and quality in the Mac OS that is unequalled, even unrivalled in the personal computer industry. Even if Apple does not GIVE us a the 32-bit solution that more than 500 of us have petitioned for, they would be foolish not to try to exercise some influence over the form that that solution takes. Bill Johnston (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu) Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
maxc1158@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Greg Penetrante) (05/22/91)
In article <170@eclectic.COM> kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) writes: >Net.experts didn't really know what they were talking about. >Note that someone pointed out that A/UX runs just dandy in 32bit >mode. There's absolutely NO reason that software can't patch >the problem. This could be a very viable solution that Apple could >choose to support if they so choose to. > [...] >>This scenario STINKS. It reeks of the extended vs. expanded vs. pretended >>memory configuration kludges for DOS and Windows. Sure, alot of us will >>go for the MODE32 init even if we have to pay for it. My Macintosh >>cost me twice as much as my car; and yes, I'll probably decide to invest >>another nickel if it helps me get more out of the damn thing. >> >This is another example of people talking about what they know nothing >about. Do you have ANY idea about what Connectix is doing and how >they are doing it? I doubt it. > >>Forget I said anything, Apple. Go ahead and screw things up. Your >>customers will hate you for it, but "experts" will make a killing. > >With an attitude like that, if I were Apple, I'd tell you to take a >flying leap. Fortunately, they have infinitely more patience with >your type than I do. > >Ken ... So what was your point, Ken?
tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) (05/22/91)
In article <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: > My vote for the "Fiddling while Rome Burns" award to whatever > idiot in Apple Technical Support gave the go-ahead to use > "Connectix" as the catch-all answer to the dirty-ROM problem. Hmmm...with a little more fiddling, I can see the next headline in MacWeek: APPLE FIDDLES WHILE ROM BURNS (Sorry, couldn't resist... ;^)
fdm@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Frank D. Malczewski) (05/22/91)
In article <854@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes: > >But there are at least two proofs that it is possible to do it in software - >Connetix and A/UX (yes the first 32-bit clean Mac system runs on MacIIs >and above and it has a 32-bit clean system - obviously Apple does have the >patches in house already and has had them for years before 7.0) > I'm not an A/UX owner, nor have I followed 2.0 very well (except to know that I sure wouldn't mind owning it :-). Anyhow, the reason that A/UX is "32-bit clean", at least the A/UX 1.x versions has to do with A/UX completely bypassing the ROMs when unix is booted, at least as far as the Memory Manager is concerned (at least that's what I _vaguely_ recall reading at the time this issue came up in that timeframe). I would imagine that with 2.x there may have been some integration with the ROMs, but in this particular case I believe its still an Apples and Oranges situation. --Frank Malczewski (fdm@wlv.imsd.contel.com)
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/23/91)
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes:
--> MODE32 will not be a software-only fix. Connectix plans to bundle it
--> with PMMUs for Mac II owners, and probably bundle it with overpriced
--> memory upgrades for the impatient and/or gullible.
Do you *know* that they're not selling it unbundled, or is this just
speculation on your part? Perhaps you should find out before you start
flaming again?
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (05/23/91)
In article <674959843.4@blkcat.FidoNet>, Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes... >johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: > >--> MODE32 will not be a software-only fix. Connectix plans to bundle it >--> with PMMUs for Mac II owners, and probably bundle it with overpriced >--> memory upgrades for the impatient and/or gullible. > Do you *know* that they're not selling it unbundled, or is this just > speculation on your part? Perhaps you should find out before you start > flaming again? The article was not a "flame", nor was it critical of Connectix. The article WAS critical of Apple. Facts first: Connectix has announced that it will bundle MODE32 with the PMMU for Mac II owners (at an additional price that is probably a good deal for the PMMU). They also have announced an "unbundled" price for people who don't need the PMMU. Both the prices were reasonable, in my opinion; the actual $$$ were cited in an article posted to comp.sys.mac.announce with the permission of Connectix. (I apologize if my wording impugned the motives of Connectix, who should be applauded for coming up with the right product at the right time. That was unintentional.) My point was that people will be investing more just the price of the init when they invest in MODE32. Many users will buy MODE32 in order to enable the use of > 14 MB physical RAM in Macs that lack 32-bit- clean ROMs. The user who upgrades from 5 or 8 to 17 or 20 MB with a new set of 4 MB SIMMs suddenly becomes dependent on MODE32 to take advantage of the investment. I argued that Apple should do more than point to the existence of MODE32 as the "solution" to the dirty-ROMs problem. I think that Apple would do well to officially endorse MODE32, work with Connectix, perhaps even obtain the rights to the software as a way of standardizing this very fundamental aspect of the operating system. If Apple fails to endorse a particular solution, the likely outcome is that several competing fixes will emerge. Not all of these are likely to be as good as the Connectix MODE32 init. If Apple has the chutzpah to tell developers how to design a user interface (a good idea that has given us good, consistent software) surely they ought to have an opinion on the right way to access more than 14 MB in a < IIx, IIcx, SE/30, etc. >. The alternative is not unlike the memory hassles that plague the PC-clone world. We don't need this any more than we need class- action lawsuits. A definitive answer from Apple, please! Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) (05/23/91)
In article <54426@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > > I argued that Apple should do more than point to the existence of > MODE32 as the "solution" to the dirty-ROMs problem. I think that > Apple would do well to officially endorse MODE32, work with Connectix, > perhaps even obtain the rights to the software as a way of standardizing > this very fundamental aspect of the operating system. I absolutely agree with this point. There needs to be some standard here to avoid all sorts of chaos in the future. RTeally, if Apple takes any pride in their work, it only seems natural that they would do something along these lines. The question I have, after all our jawing, is: Does Apple read this list? Are they aware of the concerns brought up here? I know that Silicon Graphics reads the SGI list, TI used to read the Explorer list (when they were still selling and supporting them), and HP's David Neff has enough pride to read this list about the Deskwriter (a thousand thank yous for everything, by the way). I hope Apple monitors this list to help keep track of what people are thinking. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) "People make me pro-nuclear." -- Margarette Smith
ph@ssd.kodak.com (Pete Hoch) (06/04/91)
In article <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: >In article <1991May21.032658.5617@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes... >>I asked them what I should do to use more than ~13 meg of RAM and their answer >>was, 'Have you heard of a company called Connectix...?' They said that was >>the answer. >>Does anyone know if this IS the answer? Have you heard any more detail about >>MODE32? How completely functional is it? Do I just drop it in the Extensions >>and never worry about this problem again? > >This is the 128 megabyte question, isn't it? > >Several months ago I posted into one of the first "dirty-ROMS" threads >with the suggestion that a ROM-patching init would probably solve the >problem without new ROMS. That suggestion was batted down and generally >flamed by several net.experts who offered various technical explanations >as to why an init-fix wouldn't work. I believe that some of those people >were Apple hardware guys, and some of the explanations were convincing. > >I would imagine that there are quite a few people at Apple who are now >working overtime trying to figure out just exactly HOW Connectix tricked >the System into 32-bit-cleanliness. First of all Connectix has had the know how to patch the OS and then reboot the system since Virtual was released. Next why do you think that a patch of the ROM that works for 7.0 will break under 7.0.1 or anything else. Are your ROM routines going to change? This in fact should be one of the most stable inits ever released because the object that is acts on is cast in silicon. Probably the most difficult part is making sure the init is run in front of a lot of others. >MODE32 will not be a software-only fix. Connectix plans to bundle it >with PMMUs for Mac II owners, and probably bundle it with overpriced >memory upgrades for the impatient and/or gullible. Actualy I am waiting for the bundle. I only have 8 Meg right now and 32-Bit mode does little for me until I buy 4 Mb SIMMs. I figure by Boston MacWorld several of the SIMM vendors from the back of MacWeek will have these SIMM & MODE32 bundles however historicly these have been far from overpriced. Pete Hoch -- Pete Hoch | ..somewhere..!kodak!ssd!bashow!ph ..or.. Color Systems ISPD. 3/65/RL | ph@ekcolorlink.ssd.kodak.com ..or.. Eastman Kodak Co. | ph@bashow.ssd.kodak.com Rochester, NY 14650-1805 | 716-722-3285
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun3.171100.684@ssd.kodak.com> ph@ssd.kodak.com (Pete Hoch) writes: >First of all Connectix has had the know how to patch the OS and then reboot >the system since Virtual was released. Next why do you think that a patch >of the ROM that works for 7.0 will break under 7.0.1 or anything else. Are >your ROM routines going to change? This in fact should be one of the most >stable inits ever released because the object that is acts on is cast in >silicon. Probably the most difficult part is making sure the init is run >in front of a lot of others. Well, Gee, what OTHER piece of software that you know of patches the ROMs? Hmm, could it be.....the System software? What happens if the MODE32 patches are sitting where Apple decides it wants a patch? There are lots of stable inits out there that have had problems with System upgrades. Having MODE32 as a part of your operating system gives you another ball to juggle. Nobody is saying that MODE32 isn't a solution for some people, and maybe it will work for many. I do know that it really isn't the solution I would like.