george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May14.013023.18264@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> fdm@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Frank D. Malczewski) writes: >Rumor has it (actually, it was FNN) that Apple has lowered its prices >on motherboard upgrades (among other things, maybe). Anyone know the >new pricing? Check out comp.sys.mac.announce. It was just posted there. -- / George David Nincehelser \ george@swbatl.sbc.com \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) (05/14/91)
If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. What do you think?
craparotta@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes... >If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears >that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. >However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not >the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. > >What do you think? Ya, real nice of them.. Like I said before, the dealer price for a swap during repair is only about a $200. difference. I hope they do find another way... Of course you need another bottom case, but that is no big deal.. Joe Craparotta Craparotta@level.dec.com --or-- ...!decwrl!level.dec.com!craparotta --or-- craparotta%level.dec@decwrl.dec.com discalimer: The above are my Personal views and do NOT represent those of my EMPLOYER.. They don't listen to me anyway.. :-))
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/14/91)
In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes: >If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears >that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. >However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not >the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. > >What do you think? Plus side: (The plate is half full) I think Apple -is- trying to address it to some extent by lowering the prices of upgrades. There are a number of people out there who feel that their Macs don't have enough power to really take advantage of 7.0, but don't have enough money to buy a new machine. Reducing the upgrade prices helps them along the way nicely. It's a step in the right direction, especially for those needs that a ROM upgrade cannot address. Minus Side: (The plate is half empty) Reducing the cost of upgrades, along with Connectix's announcement of MODE32, is the ideal way to sidestep the ROM upgrade issue. If -I- wanted to discourage demand for a ROM upgrade, I'd do it the same way - by making other paths look more attractive (upgrade price reduction), and by enabling alternatives (MODE32, which Apple -did- help Connectix on [but then again, Apple helps all developers to some extent]). Sum Game: (Hey, there's food on the plate!) It's a step in the right direction, making the hardware upgrade to a IIci/IIfx easier to afford. Availability is still an issue (I'm told that some folks have been waiting 3 months for a SE -> SE/30 upgrade). And the SE/30 is still lacking a step-up to hardware 32-bit Cleanliness. But it is a step forward, nonetheless. Pure Conjecture: (What's for dinner tomorrow?) One wonders if a 32-bit clean hardware upgrade for the SE & SE/30 will come out of the rumored '030 Classic at year end? --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
fdm@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Frank D. Malczewski) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes:
+If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears
+that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution.
+However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not
+the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time.
+
+What do you think?
Yes, it still appears like Apple is sticking pretty firmly to their
philosophy that for a mear $2999 (- $400, now), I too can have 32-bit
clean ROMs. Although at this point in time an Apple motherboard replacement
looks like a safer alternative to the accelerators in terms of compatibility
down the road, I believe the reason I got my Mac II in the first place was
that by having a 32-bit cpu, I would be assured of having 32-bit capabilities
come what may. Apparently not. Sign me up for that class action suit. :-)
--Frank Malczewski (fdm@wlv.imsd.contel.com)philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May14.155036.26366@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: |> It's a step in the right direction, making the hardware upgrade to a |> IIci/IIfx easier to afford. Availability is still an issue (I'm told |> that some folks have been waiting 3 months for a SE -> SE/30 upgrade). |> And the SE/30 is still lacking a step-up to hardware 32-bit |> Cleanliness. But it is a step forward, nonetheless. But consider the wording in the press release: the price cuts ... are aimed at Macintosh personal computer customers who want to take full advantage of the new robust memory capabilities of System 7. No mention is made of the fact that the SE/30 upgrade does not "take full advantage of the new robust memory capabilities of System 7". -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.165009.28289@neon.Stanford.EDU>, philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes: > [in response to my comments on the new upgrade prices...] >But consider the wording in the press release: > the price cuts ... are aimed at Macintosh personal computer customers > who want to take full advantage of the new robust memory capabilities > of System 7. >No mention is made of the fact that the SE/30 upgrade does not "take full >advantage of the new robust memory capabilities of System 7". Actually, that -is- said in an implied fashion: "Installation of these upgrades will provide customers with the virtual memory capability of System 7. In addition, the IIci and IIfx upgrades will provide customers with 32-bit addressing." So, the SE/30 upgrade will give you virtual memory, but not the 32-bit Clean ROMs needed for 32-bit addressing. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
marosen@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Mark Rosen) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes: > If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears > that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. > However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not > the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. > > What do you think? Seems like "bait and switch and bait" to me. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Rosen | Internet: marosen@elbereth.rutgers.edu | CIS: 72717.2733@compuserve.com -------------------------------------------------------------
weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/15/91)
In article <1196@sousa.ltn.dec.com> craparotta@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: >Ya, real nice of them.. Like I said before, the dealer price for a swap >during repair is only about a $200. difference. I hope they do find another >way... Of course you need another bottom case, but that is no big deal.. So the answer appears to be clear...if you're still under warranty, take out the ROM, bake it at 325 for 15 minutes, then tell the authorized Apple dealer "Honest, I don't know what happened!" :) Disclamer: kids, don't try this at home... -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
dwade@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Doug Wade) (05/15/91)
In article <2756@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) writes: %In article <1196@sousa.ltn.dec.com> craparotta@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: %>Ya, real nice of them.. Like I said before, the dealer price for a swap %>during repair is only about a $200. difference. I hope they do find another %>way... Of course you need another bottom case, but that is no big deal.. % %So the answer appears to be clear...if you're still under warranty, take out %the ROM, bake it at 325 for 15 minutes, then tell the authorized Apple dealer %"Honest, I don't know what happened!" :) Actually, this brings up an interesting point. I've got a Mac II, which Apple doesn't make anymore. Standard wisdom is that if something breaks, you get a motherboard swap. This makes sense. I wouldn't want *my* dealer trying to fix anything! In my case, I've kept the main box under AppleCare. If something dies (like my battery, even) and my dealer determines that I need a swap, what happens? Does Apple have obsolete parts stockpiled somewhere? Can they whip up a few every month easily? If a new ROM version comes out, and if they don't want to fix the stockpiled ones, do I get the older ROMs? If the parts aren't available, do I get a IIx? A IIfx? Am I forced to make up the difference in price out of my own pocket? I'm not going to try to do this to upgrade, obviously, but I've always wondered how this kind of thing is handled. I hate to ask the dealer, because I'd have to call three to see if they agree, and then I'd have to call Apple to figure out who was wrong, and it's just not worth it. But if this has already happened to somebody, I'd love to hear about it... dwade@jarthur.claremont.edu
evensen@husc10.harvard.edu (Erik Evensen) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.155036.26366@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes: >If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears >that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. >However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not >the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. > >What do you think? Plus side: (The plate is half full) [stuff deleted] Minus Side: (The plate is half empty) [stuff deleted] Sum Game: (Hey, there's food on the plate!) It's a step in the right direction, making the hardware upgrade to a IIci/IIfx easier to afford. Availability is still an issue (I'm told that some folks have been waiting 3 months for a SE -> SE/30 upgrade). And the SE/30 is still lacking a step-up to hardware 32-bit Cleanliness. But it is a step forward, nonetheless. Pure Conjecture: (What's for dinner tomorrow?) One wonders if a 32-bit clean hardware upgrade for the SE & SE/30 will come out of the rumored '030 Classic at year end? How's about maybe curing "CPU envy" or SE/30 owners, solving the dirty ROM/upgrade problem, and kicking butt in the "Personal Workstation" market and bring out an SE/040 with an upgrade path for SE and SE/30 owners? (I get chills just thinking about it...) --Erik (evensen@husc9.harvard.edu) ...just ramblin' not speaking officially for anyone...
kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) (05/15/91)
In article <12122@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dwade@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Doug Wade) writes: > In my case, I've kept the main box under AppleCare. If something >dies (like my battery, even) and my dealer determines that I need a swap, >what happens? Does Apple have obsolete parts stockpiled somewhere? Among other things, guess what happens to all those motherboards from other II -> IIx -> IIfx swaps? Just call me another II owner wishing a II -> IIfx swap didn't cost .5 of a 040 NeXT... -- | William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above | Internet: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM | are MINE alone, not those | uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | of Solbourne... | Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | "It's Night 9 With D2 Dave!"
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.155036.26366@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > In article <1991May14.035501.7812@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes: >If you read the announcement about motherboard swaps being cheaper, it appears >that Apple is proposing motherboard upgrades as the 'dirty' ROM solution. >However, I hope it's obvious to others besides me that a $1500 upgrade is not >the answer we need. It's beginning to seem like 'bait and switch' time. > >What do you think? Perhaps I'm naive (and I'm sure those of you who believe so will let me know), but for me, this is great! I need more speed, and I need more memory (give me more, More, MORE!!!!!) I have 4 MB right now. And I want it pronto. I have an SE, and would very much like an SE/30. Actually, I would like a IIfx, but unless somebody wants to give me a deal I've only seen in dreams, I can't afford one. I can also get colour with an SE/30, which I can't with an SE. And I want to be able to edit larger bit maps and, as I said before, do other, more memory intensive work. And I don't wish to wait forever as I currently do. These in and of themselves are sufficient reason for me. I doubt I could really afford much more $. Perhaps it isn't everything I would like, but it is substantial enough improvement for reasonable enough cost, that I expect I will go for it. And this is even before thinking of System 7. So hey, I'm happy with the reduced price on motherboard swaps. Now, can somebody explain why I should not be? -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) "People make me pro-nuclear." -- Margarette Smith
leburg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Pierson) (05/15/91)
In article <13043@pt.cs.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes: > >These in and of themselves are sufficient reason for me. I doubt I could really >afford much more $. Perhaps it isn't everything I would like, but it is >substantial enough improvement for reasonable enough cost, that I expect I will >go for it. And this is even before thinking of System 7. > >So hey, I'm happy with the reduced price on motherboard swaps. Now, can >somebody explain why I should not be? This is true for most of us medium powered users. I really want to upgrade to an '030 machine at home. I have a CI at work and a SE at home. Too much difference in speed. My question is how much is the upgrade for the SE->SE/30 Brian Pierson
oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) (05/15/91)
In article <13043@pt.cs.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes, among other things: >Perhaps I'm naive (and I'm sure those of you who believe so will let me know), >but for me, this is great! I need more speed, and I need more memory (give ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >me more, More, MORE!!!!!) I have 4 MB right now. And I want it pronto. I have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >an SE, and would very much like an SE/30. Actually, I would like a IIfx, but >unless somebody wants to give me a deal I've only seen in dreams, I can't >afford one. > >I can also get colour with an SE/30, which I can't with an SE. And I want to be >able to edit larger bit maps and, as I said before, do other, more memory >intensive work. And I don't wish to wait forever as I currently do. Yes, it is nice that Apple finally dropped the price of the SE -> SE/30 upgrade, but (as far as I know) they still have yet to offer it 32-bit clean. You want more memory, and so do I, but even with the upgrade it's an 8MB limit. Once developers start taking advantage of System 7's ne features, you'll soon feel the bite of that limit. For that reason alone, I (and probably many others) refuse to purchase the upgrade until Apple makes some kind of statement (any kind of statement!!!) about 32-bit cleanness. Hell, I was willing to pay the old price if I got a 32-bit clean upgrade. --------- Doc ********************** Signature Block : Version 2.5 ********************* * | OK, one last time . . . This is * * "Was it love, or was it the idea | an egg . . . This is an egg in a * * of being in love?" -- PF | frying pan . . . Any questions? * * (BTW, which one *is* Pink?) | * * | --->oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu<--- * ****************** Copyright (c) 1991 by Doc O'Leary ********************
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/15/91)
In article <13043@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes: >So hey, I'm happy with the reduced price on motherboard swaps. Now, can >somebody explain why I should not be? First off, a note. "Cowboy" improperly attributed the earlier posting - I did NOT write the "bait and switch" commentary. However, the reason that you might not be happy about the reduced price on motherboard swaps is that the Apple policy-makers -seem- to be putting motherboard swaps forward as a solution to the "dirty" ROMs issue rather than supplying a 32-bit Clean ROM upgrade for the Macintoshes in question (II, IIx, IIcx, and SE/30). In addition, the SE/30 upgrade still doesn't include 32-Bit Clean ROMs. $1000-$1500 is a lot to pay when all you want are "Clean" ROMs... --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) (05/16/91)
In article <3929@ux.acs.umn.edu>, oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) writes: > In article <13043@pt.cs.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes, among > other things: > > [some junk I wrote] > Yes, it is nice that Apple finally dropped the price of the SE -> SE/30 > upgrade, but (as far as I know) they still have yet to offer it 32-bit > clean. You want more memory, and so do I, but even with the upgrade it's > an 8MB limit. Once developers start taking advantage of System 7's ne > features, you'll soon feel the bite of that limit. Does this have to do with the VM? I don't have anywhere close to enough room on my disk to take advantage of that right now. Or are you saying that the limitation on RAM that can be plugged in is not because there is no room, but because more RAM is just not addressable due to the dirty ROMS? If it is because of VM problems, that is not relevant to me right now because I'd have to buy a much larger disk anyway. VM alos tends to be pretty slow. Please excuse my ignorance on System 7... I haven't had time look really look into it yet. By the way, the academic price hasn't come down on these upgrades! the price at CMU is *WAY* above the new commercial price announced. What's the story here? Oh yeah... I forgot who said it, but he noted I misattributed a quote to him. Sorry about that. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) "People make me pro-nuclear." -- Margarette Smith
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) (05/16/91)
>Perhaps I'm naive (and I'm sure those of you who believe so will let me know), >but for me, this is great! I need more speed, and I need more memory (give >me more, More, MORE!!!!!) I have 4 MB right now. And I want it pronto. I have >an SE, and would very much like an SE/30. Actually, I would like a IIfx, but >unless somebody wants to give me a deal I've only seen in dreams, I can't >afford one. [reasons to upgrade...] >These in and of themselves are sufficient reason for me. I doubt I could realy >afford much more $. Perhaps it isn't everything I would like, but it is >substantial enough improvement for reasonable enough cost, that I expect I wil >go for it. And this is even before thinking of System 7. The reduced upgrade prices ARE good things. I agree. And if upgrading my cx to a ci is the only way to go, well, at least I have a path, and a good one to boot. However, all the reasons why we need a ROM swap for the presently existing machines still exist. And one other point - these machines are going to be worth less on resale without 32 bit addressing ability, particularly as applications migrate towards requiring that mode. >So hey, I'm happy with the reduced price on motherboard swaps. Now, can >somebody explain why I should not be? >-- > > -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) >"People make me pro-nuclear." -- Margarette Smith No reason why you shouldn't be happy. Be happier with clean ROM's 'tho. - Gary Goldberg Census Bureau/DIR/SIRS AOL:OgGreeb cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu
steph@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Stephen Sakamoto) (05/16/91)
In article <13061@pt.cs.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes: > >By the way, the academic price hasn't come down on these upgrades! the price >at CMU is *WAY* above the new commercial price announced. What's the story here? > > Maybe they haven't set new prices yet? The prices at UCLA dropped $200, $300, and $400 respectively for the SE30, IIci, and IIfx upgade. > -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) >"People make me pro-nuclear." -- Margarette Smith -- Stephen Sakamoto UCLA Computer Science Department steph@cs.ucla.edu
macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.153159.29966@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >In article <13043@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes: > >However, the reason that you might not be happy about the reduced >price on motherboard swaps is that the Apple policy-makers -seem- to >be putting motherboard swaps forward as a solution to the "dirty" ROMs >issue rather than supplying a 32-bit Clean ROM upgrade for the >Macintoshes in question (II, IIx, IIcx, and SE/30). In addition, the >SE/30 upgrade still doesn't include 32-Bit Clean ROMs. > >$1000-$1500 is a lot to pay when all you want are "Clean" ROMs... > I really think the only people who are really "missong out" on anything is the people who bought SE/30's as "power users" because it was cheaper than a higher-level machine. The SE->SE/30 upgrade still doubles the available memory in the machine (from 4 to 8 meg), and still gives it a real "kick" speed-wise. This is what the upgrade was designed to do. I think that the reason the SE/30 is not being upgraded to clean ROMs is that it *is* the oldest machine in the fleet, and will probably be discontinued in the next round or two of introductions. And as for applications which need huge amounts of memory, I think that a rethink of things is in order. There really should be two ways to go about it: 1) ANy 32-bit color program, which uses a lot of memory to support such color, should be "downgradable". My thought would be to make a "prefs" file (or some such) which would let you choose a no-color option. This would then make it runable on (hopefully) even a 4-meg machine. 2) The only other option I can see is to label the programs so people buying them can clearly see that the program *requires*, say, 12 meg of addressable memory. At least it's my opinion.... Dennis Lippert - macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/16/91)
In article <128923@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) writes: >I think that the reason the SE/30 is not being upgraded to clean ROMs is that >it *is* the oldest machine in the fleet, and will probably be discontinued in >the next round or two of introductions. > >At least it's my opinion.... >Dennis Lippert - macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu True, the SE/30 will probably be discontinued/replaced by 1st quarter 1992. The IIcx already has been. But there's a problem. You see, Apple told me, in the form of product literature and documentation, that my SE/30 (and others' IIcx's, IIx's, and II's) could use a certain amount of memory. Apple also built in and touted a form of expansion - the ROM SIMM slot. My Mac isn't capable of doing what Apple said it could do. Period. And Apple has ignored the avenue that they provided themselves for addressing this. Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of). --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Wayne Pollock) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.042422.5448@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes: >Just call me another II owner wishing a II -> IIfx swap didn't cost .5 of a >040 NeXT... Did you know that the educational price of a NeXT is $3000? And a Sun SparcStation is also priced in that range? So after all this time Apple has lowered the price of a Mac II upgrade to $2600. I'm not impressed. For $400 more, I'll take either a Sun or a NexT! Someone mentioned starting a class action suit to force Apple to lower the price on these upgrades, say to under $1000. Its soooo tempting! Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) Internet: pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu
rkmossm@PacBell.COM (Richard Mossman) (05/17/91)
Just out of curiosity (and ignorance), why can't you put a SE/30 upgrade into a Plus? Just to make it easy, I'll make some gross assumptions for you to shoot down: 1) The cases are relatively the same (some small differences, but nothing a little plastic and glue couldn't fix. 2) The drives, tube, keyboard, SCSI devices, and (maybe) the power supply is the same. For that matter, the case itself is immaterial. One could always simply install the guts into any old shoe box and then add an external monitor (although that would make the cost higher). Inquiring (and broke/cheap) minds want to know.
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (05/17/91)
In article <1395@screamer.csee.usf.edu> pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Wayne Pollock) writes: >In article <1991May15.042422.5448@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes: >>Just call me another II owner wishing a II -> IIfx swap didn't cost .5 of a >>040 NeXT... > >Did you know that the educational price of a NeXT is $3000? And a Sun >SparcStation is also priced in that range? So after all this time Apple >has lowered the price of a Mac II upgrade to $2600. I'm not impressed. > >For $400 more, I'll take either a Sun or a NexT! > >Someone mentioned starting a class action suit to force Apple to lower >the price on these upgrades, say to under $1000. Its soooo tempting! > >Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) >Internet: pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu How exactly would you go about suing a company to lower prices? Or maybe I'm not following you? jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/17/91)
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes:
--> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a
--> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is
--> officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I
--> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of).
What would be the source of this obligation? I really doubt that this
is the case.
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)tecot@momenta.com (Ed Tecot) (05/18/91)
rkmossm@PacBell.COM (Richard Mossman) writes: >Just out of curiosity (and ignorance), why can't you put a SE/30 upgrade >into a Plus? >Just to make it easy, I'll make some gross assumptions for you to shoot down: Glad to. >1) The cases are relatively the same (some small differences, but nothing a >little plastic and glue couldn't fix. You'd need to cut some holes for the fan and the new port locations (which add ADB). Also, the metal chassis is different. >2) The drives, tube, keyboard, SCSI devices, and (maybe) the power supply is >the same. SE/30s have SuperDrives, the Plus doesn't. The video circutry is completely different. The keyboard is ADB, not direct. The power supply is new. >For that matter, the case itself is immaterial. One could always simply >install the guts into any old shoe box and then add an external monitor >(although that would make the cost higher). True, but you'd need to get a power supply and analog board as well. Not to mention a display tube from an SE (the signals won't drive a generic monitor). Also, you'll have to find an SE logic board to send back since the upgrade cost includes the rebate for returning the old board. _emt
m_herodotus@csc32.enet.dec.com (Mario Herodotus) (05/18/91)
--In article <1991May16.150517.3562@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >True, the SE/30 will probably be discontinued/replaced by 1st quarter 1992. >The IIcx already has been. But there's a problem. You see, Apple told me, in >the form of product literature and documentation, that my SE/30 (and others' >IIcx's, IIx's, and II's) could use a certain amount of memory. Apple also >built in and touted a form of expansion - the ROM SIMM slot. Jim is right, Apple made a promise. I remember a while back an Apple employee compared our wanting future upgrade paths on CPUs to Covette owners (he owned one) asking GM for an upgrade path. I'd like to know what his reaction would be if GM told him his corvette had an 8 cylinder engine, but it only had a 6. Then they offered him an upgrade to the newer vette for only half the price of the original, but he had to keep all the old parts, just the motor is swapped. This is NOT an upgrade path for user's wanting clean ROMs that they were promised. This is an upgrade path for users who need more speed/newer CPUs/FDHD disks etc. I only want the clean ROMs and the ability to use larger amounts of memory. I have no current need for a IIci (I own a cx). I want to know what Apple will do for me. Earlier someone mentioned a class action suit, is there one in progress now? Any lawyers want to make yourselves noticed real quick? I can't see how you could lose this one? Mario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K3 ] | m_herodotus@coors.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | Customer Support Center | - or - m_herodotus%coors.dec@decwrl.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd. | Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | - or - ...!decwrl!coors.dec.com!m_herodotus | (800) 525-6570 Ext 25520 | - or - CSC32::M_HERODOTUS [direct line (719) 592-5520] | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
m_herodotus@csc32.enet.dec.com (Mario Herodotus) (05/18/91)
--In article <674452930.0@blkcat.FidoNet>, Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: >gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > >--> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a >--> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is >--> officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I >--> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of). > > What would be the source of this obligation? I really doubt that this >is the case. > > > * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218) > I know that we at Digital Equipment Corp are required to provide parts and service on all our VAXes for 10 years. This is a federal regulation. I'm not sure of the particulars and if desktop systems are included. It may be becuase we do government contracts, but so does Apple. Mario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K3 ] | m_herodotus@coors.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | Customer Support Center | - or - m_herodotus%coors.dec@decwrl.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd. | Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | - or - ...!decwrl!coors.dec.com!m_herodotus | (800) 525-6570 Ext 25520 | - or - CSC32::M_HERODOTUS [direct line (719) 592-5520] | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/19/91)
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes to cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy): JG> However, the reason that you might not be happy about the reduced JG> price on motherboard swaps is that the Apple policy-makers -seem- JG> to be putting motherboard swaps forward as a solution to the JG> "dirty" ROMs issue rather than supplying a 32-bit Clean ROM upgrade JG> for the Macintoshes in question (II, IIx, IIcx, and SE/30). In JG> addition, the SE/30 upgrade still doesn't include 32-Bit Clean JG> ROMs. JG> $1000-$1500 is a lot to pay when all you want are "Clean" ROMs... Well, he wasn't asking why _you_ aren't happy; he's asking why HE shouldn't be happy. He can now get an SE-->SE/30 upgrade for less money, and it's an extremely attractive proposition for him. He will expand his capabilities greatly, and will be very happy. For an SE owner, dirty ROMs are a small concern in the scheme of things. Because a group of people who see the upgrade price drop issue as Apple's sneaky way of getting around issuing a patch to their dirty ROMs, doesn't mean that someone with an SE (or a IIcx, but the argument works best with an SE owner) shouldn't be happy that Apple dropped their upgrade prices. And for the record, I think the whole issue about a ROM swap is a non-issue. Yes, there's a ROM SIMM in some machines. Yes, Apple has yet to make use of it. Yes, Apple made some statements about using it when the machines were introduced. But just like Connectix, Apple can make the appropriate patches entirely in software and can please a whole bunch of people--and can make future patches even better. And that's what I think will happen. System 7.1, or 7.0.1, or 7.0.2, or whatever, will contain a pat ch for the machines with 32-bit dirty ROMs. And it will be part of the System file. If you doubt this, consider that probably most of my Plus ROM routines--"capability-dirty," if you will--will be replaced by something new in System 7. And that's the whole purpose of the System file--to provide enhancements to the ROM. The IIfx ROMs don't need much enhancing, and so I'll bet that not much of the System file needs to load into RAM on that machine compared to on my Plus. It's my considered opinion that: 1) Apple doesn't want ROM SIMMs floating around; 2) Apple knows damn well that, with the advent of new System software, its users won't be satisfied with machines that can be made capable of taking full advantage of every feature and yet are somehow crippled, crippled in a way that can be fixed in software; and 3) Apple found themselves immensely busy getting System 7 together, and didn't have any time whatsoever to include a patch to clean up the dirty ROMs. The features in Sys7 were frozen before the community made an issue of the 32-bit dirty machines, and I'll bet there are many managers at Apple fighting to let Apple come out with a patch in their own good time. Apple was not, under any circumstances, going to undertake anything like a patch for 32-bit cleanliness that would push back the release of System 7 any great length of time. Someone should keep track of the amount of time between May 13 and the release of the System update which will patch the dirty ROMs. That will be how long System 7 would have to have been pushed back in order to satisfy what amounts to a small number of users (hey, Apple's sold millions of Macs; how many people are clamoring for this fix **right now?** A few thousand, tops?) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) (05/19/91)
I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path ? Or does it simply say that there is a *possibility* of an upgrade. Makes a big difference as to Apple's legal obligations. I don't have a Mac with a ROM slot, so I don't know what those manuals say but I don't think I've seen in any review or ad that Apple guarantees replacement of the current ROMs with the latest and greatest chipset. And before you flame me for picking nits, I would really like to know if such a guarantee exists. Norman
weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path? I believe the issue is rather that Apple said that the amount of accessible memory would be the amount which you can get with 32-bit clean ROMs. In other words, they said that the machines could do things that machines with 32-bit clean ROMs could do, but that THESE machines could NOT do (without the upgrade). Am I making it clear, or am I confusing you still further? -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
m_herodotus@csc32.enet.dec.com (Mario Herodotus) (05/19/91)
--In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path ? Or does it simply say that >there is a *possibility* of an upgrade. Makes a big difference as to Apple's >legal obligations. I don't have a Mac with a ROM slot, so I don't know >what those manuals say but I don't think I've seen in any review or ad that >Apple guarantees replacement of the current ROMs with the latest > and greatest chipset. And before you flame me for picking nits, I would really >like to know if such a guarantee exists. > >Norman Norman, the point was never that Apple promised a ROM upgrade. The point is that the manuals for these CPUs say that they can address more then the 16M of memory that they adress. We are just saying that since these machines are ROM upgradable we would like the upgrade to get what our manuals and Apples advertising claim for these machines. Mario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K3 ] | m_herodotus@coors.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | Customer Support Center | - or - m_herodotus%coors.dec@decwrl.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd. | Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | - or - ...!decwrl!coors.dec.com!m_herodotus | (800) 525-6570 Ext 25520 | - or - CSC32::M_HERODOTUS [direct line (719) 592-5520] | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) (05/19/91)
In article <2803@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) writes: >In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >>I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >>about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >>that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path? > >I believe the issue is rather that Apple said that the amount of accessible >memory would be the amount which you can get with 32-bit clean ROMs. In >other words, they said that the machines could do things that machines with >32-bit clean ROMs could do, but that THESE machines could NOT do (without >the upgrade). Am I making it clear, or am I confusing you still further? >-- A previously posted article stated that Apple literature made the statement that Macs could address up to x amount of memory. More specifically, in my SE/30 hardware manual, the promise is explicitly made. The statement is made to the effect, that the SE/30 will address up to 128 megabytes of memory when denser memory becomes available. I call that an explicit promise. I believe that Apple is therefore obligated to provide any upgrade or product enhancement that is necessary to make it so. Not being a lawyer, I will still go out on a limb and say that this case requires more than the normal implied merchantibilty protection that is usually provided under law. Loosely translated, implied merchantibilty is an implied promise that a product will do the job that it is designed to do. This being a loose translation, allow for slack and send any flames to /dev/null. Also don't forget that the upper memory limit is an explicit promise not an implicit one. Larry Autry autry@sgi.com -- Larry Autry autry@sgi.com
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path ? Or does it simply say that >there is a *possibility* of an upgrade. Makes a big difference as to Apple's >legal obligations. I don't have a Mac with a ROM slot, so I don't know >what those manuals say but I don't think I've seen in any review or ad that >Apple guarantees replacement of the current ROMs with the latest > and greatest chipset. And before you flame me for picking nits, I would really >like to know if such a guarantee exists. > >Norman Apple stated in the advertisements and the manuals that these machines were capable of utilizing 128Mb of RAM. This would imply 32-bit clean. Jess Holle
tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) (05/20/91)
Interestingly, Apple UK are *not* offering any discount on motherboard upgrades... T -- Regards
roncalli@aurs01.UUCP (Guido Roncalli) (05/20/91)
In article <674452930.0@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: >gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > >--> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a >--> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is >--> officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I >--> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of). > > What would be the source of this obligation? I really doubt that this >is the case. The source of this obligation is a STATE LAW. In Italy (where I come from) this law exists and it works, even if in some cases manufacturers are allowed to escape this obligation. I don't know if this law exists in the U.S.A. too. D D also in the USA. * Guido RoncallI, RD&E -*- Internet Domain: <roncalli%aurgate@mcnc.org> * * Alcatel Network Systems -*- USENET Pathalias: <roncalli%aurs01.UUCP> * * 2912 Wake Forest Road -*- USENET !-Style: <...!mcnc!aurgate!roncalli> * * Raleigh, NC 27609 -*- Work Phone: +1 919 850-5375 *
ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) (05/21/91)
In article <3177@shodha.enet.dec.com> m_herodotus@csc32.enet.dec.com (Mario Herodotus) writes: >--In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: > >>I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >>about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >>that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path ? Or does it simply say that >>there is a *possibility* of an upgrade. Makes a big difference as to Apple's >>legal obligations. I don't have a Mac with a ROM slot, so I don't know >>what those manuals say but I don't think I've seen in any review or ad that >>Apple guarantees replacement of the current ROMs with the latest >> and greatest chipset. And before you flame me for picking nits, I would really >>like to know if such a guarantee exists. >> >>Norman > > Norman, the point was never that Apple promised a ROM upgrade. The >point is that the manuals for these CPUs say that they can address more then >the 16M of memory that they adress. We are just saying that since these >machines are ROM upgradable we would like the upgrade to get what our manuals >and Apples advertising claim for these machines. > >Mario > This fuss over the ROMs is really amazing. My recollection of Apple's promise was that more than 16M would be available under AUX. Does anything say that the memory would be available under Mac OS? Are you sure that AUX doesn't satisfy Apple's advertising claims? Apple has been willing to do a ROM upgrade in the past to provide significant capability, ie., the 512K to 512Ke upgrade. They've unofficially said that 32-bit clean is not sufficiently significant. In my opinion this is a waste of energy unless you get 10s of thousands of dissatisfied people or the press to say it's a problem. Mike Ching
hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (05/21/91)
>This fuss over the ROMs is really amazing. My recollection of Apple's >promise was that more than 16M would be available under AUX. Does >anything say that the memory would be available under Mac OS? Are you >sure that AUX doesn't satisfy Apple's advertising claims? Apple has >been willing to do a ROM upgrade in the past to provide significant >capability, ie., the 512K to 512Ke upgrade. They've unofficially said >that 32-bit clean is not sufficiently significant. In my opinion this >is a waste of energy unless you get 10s of thousands of dissatisfied >people or the press to say it's a problem. > >Mike Ching I am still waiting for Apple to ship me a free A/UX ;-) If Apple promised me 128MB adressable, then it is in the product as is. Apple has never claimed that the ROM would cost anything, just that I could get an upgrade when they had removed the faulty code, and I want an upgrade under guarantee. How about all macintosh users under warranty/AppleCare start to request a repair of their ROM ? There will be no problem supplying them, they can use the IIsi ROMs. An alternative solution would be, that Apple bought a few thousand copies of MODE 32 and shipped it to all the people who complains. -- ******************************************************* Povl H. Pedersen hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu HP48sx archive maintainer
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.182229.18553@wuarchive.wustl.edu> hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: [quote from previous article suggesting that Apple had only promised 32 bit addressing for A/UX deleted] >I am still waiting for Apple to ship me a free A/UX ;-) well, actually A/UX currently only allows for 16MB of memory for programs running under the Mac OS, so A/UX won't completely solve the problem, either. It is true that UNIX programs can run with > 16MB under A/UX, though. Lawrence Miller
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/21/91)
autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
LA> A previously posted article stated that Apple literature made the statement
LA> that Macs could address up to x amount of memory. More specifically, in my
LA> SE/30 hardware manual, the promise is explicitly made. The statement is
LA> made to the effect, that the SE/30 will address up to 128 megabytes of
LA> memory when denser memory becomes available. I call that an explicit
LA> promise.
Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available
SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four
SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your
SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode.
Apple won't be put to the test until the next generation of SIMMs (16Mb?)
becaome available in a year or two. (There's even reports that 64Mbit chips
will be out by 1995.)
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/21/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet>, Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available >SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four >SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your >SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. The SE/30 has eight SIMM slots. 2 banks of 4 slots each. With 4 MB SIMMs, you can thus install up to 32 MB. Too bad you can't access it... --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/21/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: >SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four >SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your >SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. The SE/30 is essentially a Mac IIcx in an SE case. It has 8 SIMM sockets. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
philip@CS.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.164434.18197@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: |> The SE/30 has eight SIMM slots. 2 banks of 4 slots each. With 4 MB SIMMs, you |> can thus install up to 32 MB. Too bad you can't access it... I tried a new tactic today. After getting some answers to unrelated questions from the System 7 Upgrade Answerline, I asked them how I could get 32-bit addressing on my cx. I told them I knew about Connectix's MODE32, but I wanted to know what Apple was doing about it. I was told about the price drop in the ci upgrade, and explained that I thought this was a very expensive way of upgrading just one feature. All my points were noted, and will be passed on (somewhere useful, I hope). While I absolutely do not advocate flooding this service with complaints about Apple policy (it is pretty useful), I think the point just might get across if many people who call with a System 7 question end up with, "Oh, by the way, what is Apple doing to allow me 32-bit addressing on my <name your model>?" This strikes me as a better starting point than a lawsuit. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/22/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available Yes. >SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four You are. The SE/30 has 8 SIMM slots. To help keep it straight in your mind, think of the SE/30 as a Mac II in a compact case rather than an SE with an 030. >SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your >SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. The ROMs take up 1 meg of that space. I think the limit is 14 meg for the SE/30. I dunno where the other meg went. > Apple won't be put to the test until the next generation of SIMMs (16Mb?) >becaome available in a year or two. (There's even reports that 64Mbit chips >will be out by 1995.) One company has already got 16 meg chips that will fit. I won't gripe if 64 meggers don't work. Apple made no claims about those, and besides, I don't expect more than 5 years out of my SE/30.
weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/22/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available >SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four >SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your >SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. As it turns out, you are mistaken on two counts. First, the SE/30 has two banks of four slots (8 total) giving you a grand total with 4MB SIMMs of... (*chunk-CHING*) 32MB. Secondly, the largest commercially available SIMMs (for a few weeks now) are 16MB SIMMs, bringing the current grand total for the SE/30 up to...(*chunk-CHING*) 128MB. (granted, 16MB SIMMs aren't cheap yet, but that's what they said about 1MB SIMMs not that many years ago). -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/22/91)
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes:
C> However, all the reasons why we need a ROM swap for the presently
C> existing machines still exist.
Somebody, please! Tell me:
why do you need a **ROM SWAP?** You need to change some code concerning how the System runs, correct? You need new ROMs to do this??????
The answer, of course, is a big fat NO. Apple designed the System file as a way to patch and enhance the ROMs (among other things). So, all Apple has to do is patch the dirty ROMs in a System update, via the System file.
I repeat, as loud as necessary for the whole world to hear: YOU DON'T NEED ROM SWAPS TO GAIN THE FUNCTIONALITY YOU'RE ALL CRAVING.
This whole issue of ROM swaps, and how it should be done, what the deposit (core charge?) should be on old ROMs, why Apple doesn't want ROM SIMMs floating around, how many man-years it would take Apple to develop new ROMs, etc., etc. is a smoke screen. You're all missing the forest for the trees.
As long as Apple's patch code can all fit into the first 8 MB of physical RAM that the ROMs can handle, then the patch can take over and you can use as much RAM as your machine is designed to handle.
This completely-software patch, of course, has the added advantage of being <gasp!> **EASILY UPGRADEABLE** when need be. Suppose Apple provides you all with new ROM SIMMs for, say, $250. Six months later, a new feature comes out in a new System update, and this feature requires something in the ROMs that isn't there. Everyone that's been bitching so far would *then* bitch that Apple gave them a ROM SIMM upgrade, and is continuing to do so, at $250 a pop.
With a firmware solution, Apple can't and won't win. The physical ROM chip contains computer code. You all need different computer code. Must it reside on the physical chip? NO. So keep screaming for a new ROM, and miss the entire issue at hand.
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGAdam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/22/91)
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
JMH> Apple stated in the advertisements and the manuals that these
JMH> machines were capable of utilizing 128Mb of RAM. This would imply
JMH> 32-bit clean.
Perhaps you're reading something that's not there. The machine is physically capable of holding, and utilizing, 128MB of RAM. Did Apple make any specific promise about the operating system that could address all of it?
No, they did not. Go forth and get A/UX. Address all the RAM that Apple promised the box could hold.
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGdrg@mdaali.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David Gutierrez) (05/22/91)
References:<1991May14.013023.18264@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <3929@ux.acs.umn.edu> <13061@pt.cs.cmu.edu> In article <13061@pt.cs.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy) writes: > By the way, the academic price hasn't come down on these upgrades! the price > at CMU is *WAY* above the new commercial price announced. What's the story here? The price on these upgrades has just come down as of May 13. Upgrade prices at our institution (based on return of old motherboard) are: SE -> SE/30 $649 IIcx -> IIci $974 II, IIx -> IIfx $1689 The previous price on the fx upgrade was $1840 - not much of a decrease - and you still have to buy new RAM. The SE/30 still isn't 32-bit clean. Not good enough, Apple. *We want 32-bit clean ROM upgrades.* David Gutierrez drg@mdaali.mda.uth.tmc.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (05/23/91)
> Someone mentioned starting a class action suit to force Apple to lower > the price on these upgrades, say to under $1000. Its soooo tempting! > > Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) > Internet: pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu This is one of the most assinine things I have heard in a looong time. class action suit... one what basis??? I can't stop laughing... HA HA HA -- Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (05/23/91)
In article <674452930.0@blkcat.FidoNet>, Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > > --> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a > --> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is > --> officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I > --> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of). > > What would be the source of this obligation? I really doubt that this > is the case. > > > * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218) Where's the call for class-action suits against IBM over the PCjr??? Or maybe Apple is the only one obligated to _serve_ their customers! Apple is a good company when it comes to availability of parts for discontinued machines. You can still get parts for the original Apple II+, the ImageWriter I, and even the Lisa. (granted they are not cheap, but to some people this service is more valuable than buying a new system and switching their entire software system over.) You mention "Something I thought of..." did you think this requirement up? or did you read it somewhere? (Is it merely wishful thinking?) -- Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (05/23/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet>, > Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available > SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four > SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your > SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. [stuff deleted] > * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218) Sorry, the SE/30 has 8 SIMM slots. :-) -- Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) (05/23/91)
>--In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >>I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >>about this "Apple promised us" stuff. ` What Apple did promise us can be seen in Apple current product literature for the Mac IIcx. "When denser chips become available the Macintosh IIcx can be upgraded to 32 megabytes of RAM." The exact quote is also in the literature for the Mac IIx. Therefore, Apple's specifications state that the computer that they sold us can access more the 8 megs and their product will not fulfill this guarentee unless they upgrade their ROMs. -- = Enjoy! = = John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Group = = e-mail: motcid!derosaj@uunet.uu.net, n1111@applelink.apple.com = =I do not hold by employer responsible for any information in this message =
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/23/91)
roncalli@aurs01.UUCP (Guido Roncalli) writes: > In article <674452930.0@blkcat.FidoNet> > Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > >gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > > > >--> Something I thought of... isn't a manufacturer required to support a > >--> product, at least in parts and service, for 10 years after the product is > >--> officially discontinued? Or are there particular caveats to that? (I > >--> confess ignorance here, this is something I have recently heard of). > > > > What would be the source of this obligation? I really doubt that this > >is the case. > > The source of this obligation is a STATE LAW. ...I don't know if this law > exists in the U.S.A. too. It doesn't. Generally speaking, there is no legal obligation to provide after-sales support, unless specifically provided for by contract. There was some speculation that standard contract terms provided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations might include an after-sales support clause. However, any such FAR provisions would only benefit the federal government, and not unrelated third parties. (Note that the federal government often pays higher prices for goods and services because it requires suppliers to conform to these FARs.) * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.194317.1042@eng.umd.edu>, tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) writes: >You mention "Something I thought of..." did you think this requirement up? >or did you read it somewhere? (Is it merely wishful thinking?) No. It is a real requirement in many commercial areas. For example, Digitial Electronics Corporation "officially" discontinued active support for the DECSYSTEM-20 line of mainframe computers in 1983. However, they are still required, by law, to provide parts and service until 1993. (How do I know this? I used to work at OSU's DEC-20 site - we decommissioned it on December 20th of 1990.) However, I was (and still am) fuzzy on how (or if) these regulations apply to companies such as Apple, and their consumer-driven products. So far, it seems that the manufacturer is obligated to provide parts and service for 10 years. Thus, if it breaks down, they have to be able to fix it or replace it. Nothing about it being free, though. Thank you for the intelligent and well-thought-out tone of your posting. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
agh20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Alan G Humpherys) (05/23/91)
In article <674822484.1@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: >autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes: > >LA> A previously posted article stated that Apple literature made the statement >LA> that Macs could address up to x amount of memory. More specifically, in my >LA> SE/30 hardware manual, the promise is explicitly made. The statement is >LA> made to the effect, that the SE/30 will address up to 128 megabytes of >LA> memory when denser memory becomes available. I call that an explicit >LA> promise. > > Yes, but has that time come? Assume that the largest commercially available >SIMMs are 4Mb. Unless I'm mistaken, the SE/30 (like the SE) only has four ------------------- >SIMM slots. Since there are no NuBus video cards or other complications, your >SE/30 should be able to address all 16Mb of physical RAM in 24-bit mode. > > Apple won't be put to the test until the next generation of SIMMs (16Mb?) >becaome available in a year or two. (There's even reports that 64Mbit chips >will be out by 1995.) > > > * Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218) You are mistaken... The SE/30 has 8 SIMM slots and that means that using 4MB SIMMs allows 32MB of physical memory! Just for your info, that is more than 24-bit mode will handle! ;-) -- ====================================================================== | Alan Humpherys agh20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com | | Murphy's Golden Rule - 'Whoever has the gold makes the rules' | ======================================================================"
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/25/91)
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) writes to: > Someone mentioned starting a class action suit to force Apple to lower > the price on these upgrades, say to under $1000. Its soooo tempting! > > Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) > Internet: pollock@screamer.csee.usf.edu JG> This is one of the most assinine things I have heard in a looong JG> time. class action suit... one what basis??? I can't stop laughing... JG> HA HA HA better watch that...or else pretty soon you'll be getting some mail calling you a, what was that? Ah, yes, "butt-kissing apologist for Apple." Yeah, these people that want something for nothing are really a scream. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG