gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/16/91)
Rather than spend a lot of bandwidth orating, I'll try to get straight to the point. I'll probably fail, and end up orating, but bear with me anyway. <grin> The Macintosh IIcx, and the Macintosh SE/30, two of Apple's strongest products in the middle-high range, were created with a feature many Macintosh users thought was a wonderful idea: socketed ROMs. I quote from the Macintosh SE/30 Spec Sheet - "256k of ROM on a SIMM (Single In-line Memory Module)... The SIMM mounting makes it easy to remove and replace ROMs for more convenient servicing." These machines were also advertised as having the ability to use up to 128 megabytes of RAM (Once again from the SE/30 sheet) - "Memory - 1 or 4 megabytes of RAM, expandable to 8 megabytes (expandable to 128 megabytes when SIMMs with higher-density DRAM chips become available; also expandable through 030 Direct Slot)" [1] (see footnote) However, with the advent of 4 and 16 Mb SIMMS, 32-bit Cleanliness, and System 7.0, it was found that users of the IIcx and SE/30 (not to mention the II and IIx) couldn't access more than 16 megabytes, since the ROMs of those machines weren't 32-bit clean. This includes not only physical memory, but virtual memory and memory used for NuBus and the ROMs. The sum of the these may not exceed 16 megabytes, without 32-bit Clean ROMs. But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed ROMs. An upgrade to 32-bit Clean ROMs seemed the obvious things. Apple, however, hasn't said a single word, and has even given indication that the idea hasn't "offically" occured to them. The implications of this have been hashed back and forth on the comp.sys.mac.* newgroups on the Internet, and on the various Macintosh forums on Compuserve, especially ZMAC. All that has come of it is the second-hand (and possibly not even true, since it is second hand information) statement from Chris Espinoza of Apple that Apple will not release a ROM upgrade for the sole purpose of 32-bit Cleanliness. It's been hinted and rumored that Apple might create a ROM upgrade to support diskless booting over AppleShare, or to incorporate portions of the System 7.0 toolbox. But it's exactly that thus far, rumors. What I'm looking for, and what I think a lot of other people who have invested in these machines (either as owner or adminitrator) are looking for as well, isn't an immediate ROM upgrade to be released tomorrow for free. That'd be nice <grin>, but let's be realistic. What is reasonable is asking Apple to assure users, officially, that there _will_be_ a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade for the SE/30 and IIcx. That it will arrive within a reasonable time, say before the end of 1991. And that it will cost a reasonable amount, placing it within the reach of home users and students, as well as businesses and educational institutions. Perhaps it will include diskless booting, and portions of 7.0 in ROM, as rumored. Perhaps not. Given proper assurances, and good faith, users are willing to wait for a "good" product. Just witness System 7.0. That's not too much to ask, I would think. It's been shown in the past that Apple is often slow in taking action without a large number of users and institutions "encouraging" such action. (Remember the Quantum hard drives? The ImageWriter LQ?) That's what this is all about. I've created a mailing list. If you want tell Apple that ROM upgrades should be provided, subscribe to it. With enough people on the list, we should be able to show Apple that users really do want this upgrade to become available. This isn't an Apple-bashing list. It's purpose is to organize and bring together what I've perceived as a large amount of support for a ROM upgrade for the SE/30 and IIcx. I'll be posting this not only to USEnet, but also to CompuServe. Here's the list information: List name: newroms-l@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu List Administration: newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu To subscribe to the list, send email to the Administration address, with the body of the message consisting only of the word SUBSCRIBE. You'll be added to the list automatically. Thank you. Post Script ----------- - For Compuserve folks: This is an Internet mailing list. Send your subscription request to ">INTERNET:newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu" - For USEnet folks: I'm going to try to make this message such that you can simply reply to this message with SUBSCRIBE, but I'm not horribly good at Pnews - so it may not work (check the headers to be sure). Footnote -------- [1] Granted, it says nothing about being able to actually use that RAM with Apple System Software, but I consider it a reasonable assumption to make that one -should- be able to use it. Disclaimer ---------- I make no claim to absolute veracity. The information I've presented here is true to the best of my knowledge. This posting in no way represents the opinions of: The Ohio State University, Academic Computing, Facilities Management, OCES, or the College of Agriculture. My opinions. Mine, mine, mine! -- Jim Gaynor - Systems Analyst 1 + "Pooh hasn't much Brain, but he never Ohio State University ACS-FMS-OCES | comes to any harm. He does silly gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | things and they come out right." gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu + -Piglet, from "Winnie-The-Pooh"
price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: > The Macintosh IIcx, and the Macintosh SE/30, two of Apple's >strongest products in the middle-high range, were created with a >feature many Macintosh users thought was a wonderful idea: socketed >ROMs. I quote from the Macintosh SE/30 Spec Sheet - ... > These machines were also advertised as having the ability to >use up to 128 megabytes of RAM (Once again from the SE/30 sheet) - ... > However, with the advent of 4 and 16 Mb SIMMS, 32-bit >Cleanliness, and System 7.0, it was found that users of the IIcx and >SE/30 (not to mention the II and IIx) couldn't access more than 16 >megabytes, since the ROMs of those machines weren't 32-bit clean. ... > But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >ROMs. An upgrade to 32-bit Clean ROMs seemed the obvious things. >Apple, however, hasn't said a single word, and has even given >indication that the idea hasn't "offically" occured to them. ... > What is reasonable is asking Apple to assure users, >officially, that there _will_be_ a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade for the >SE/30 and IIcx. That it will arrive within a reasonable time, say >before the end of 1991. And that it will cost a reasonable amount, >placing it within the reach of home users and students, as well as >businesses and educational institutions. Not to put you off or anything, because they *did* advertise (at least according to your quotes) that the IIcx and the SE/30 would have these capabilities, but do you really think that there would be that much demand for this? I mean, sure, eventually programs will get so big that you'll need more than 16Mb of memory to use them, but I can't see myself needing that much for quite some time yet. I do agree that Apple should make a ROM upgrade available, but I don't see it as being nearly as urgent as you seem to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | SPAN: uclapp::price Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > > But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >ROMs. An upgrade to 32-bit Clean ROMs seemed the obvious things. >Apple, however, hasn't said a single word, and has even given >indication that the idea hasn't "offically" occured to them. The ROMS in the II and IIx are socketed (or at least the ones in mine are). -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
wnn@ornl.gov (04/18/91)
In article <0094737E.20BFEEA0@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: > ... do you really think that there would be that much >demand for this? I mean, sure, eventually programs will get so big that >you'll need more than 16Mb of memory to use them, but I can't see myself >needing that much for quite some time yet. On the Mac XL, 512ke, Plus, the limit is 4MB and that is definitely too little to run System 7.0 and only two of some of the newer programs. Many users of these older machines have purchased accelerator boards, some even '030 in the erroneous belief that they would be able to use System 7.0 with virtual memory. Wolfgang N. Naegeli University of Tennessee & Oak Ridge National Laboratory Internet: wnn@ornl.gov Bitnet: wnn@ornlstc Phone: 615-574-6143 Fax: 615-574-6141 (OrchidFax) QuickMail (QM-QM): Wolfgang Naegeli @ 615-574-4510
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > > But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >ROMs. An upgrade to 32-bit Clean ROMs seemed the obvious things. >Apple, however, hasn't said a single word, and has even given >indication that the idea hasn't "offically" occured to them. > Not true! Mac IIs and IIxs have socketed ROMs and those of us with those machines would also like to use 32-bit addressing/VM etc (I want to be able to run VERY big hardware simulations - I guess I'll have to buy a Sun :-). What Mac IIs don't have are those funny ROM sim sockets that no-one has ever used. I suspect that what Apple doesn't want to happen is to end up with a whole lot of bootleg ROMs out there being used in clones - too much paranoia. I think that the only solution might be for us all to do a public domain memory manager (32-bit clean of course) and post it to the net (with a copy-left of course) ... gee if enough of us did this with enough bits of the OS ..... (but then apple doesn't really care about us do they ?) Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P "But don't we all deserve. More than a kinder and gentler fuck" - Two Nice Girls, "For the Inauguration"
kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >ROMs. Wrong, the IIx does have the ROM SIMM. (Think of the IIcx as a sawed-off version of the IIx and you will have a pretty accurate image.) P.S. I also think Apple should release a 32-bit clean ROM, not only are we about to get a 32-bit clean OS, but even some clean apps. How our machines? -- Kent Borg internet: kent@camex.com AOL: kent borg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577 "We foolishly did not realize that he was stupid." - April Glasbie 3-20-91
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/19/91)
In article <1949@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >> But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >>ROMs. > >Wrong, the IIx does have the ROM SIMM. (Think of the IIcx as a >sawed-off version of the IIx and you will have a pretty accurate >image.) This has been noted, and corrected, in the newroms mailing list. (A few people took me to task for that, so I went and opened up a IIx. Lo and behold! ROM SIMMs) >P.S. I also think Apple should release a 32-bit clean ROM, not only >are we about to get a 32-bit clean OS, but even some clean apps. How >our machines? That's what this is all about. Why don't you join the mailing list, Kent? I don't see your name on it now... ;) -- Jim Gaynor - Systems Analyst 1 + "Pooh hasn't much Brain, but he never Ohio State University ACS-FMS-OCES | comes to any harm. He does silly gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | things and they come out right." gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu + -Piglet, from "Winnie-The-Pooh"
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr19.150252.26729@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >In article <1949@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >>In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >>> But, unlike the II and IIx, the IIcx and SE/30 have socketed >>>ROMs. >> >>Wrong, the IIx does have the ROM SIMM. (Think of the IIcx as a >>sawed-off version of the IIx and you will have a pretty accurate >>image.) > > This has been noted, and corrected, in the newroms mailing >list. (A few people took me to task for that, so I went and opened up >a IIx. Lo and behold! ROM SIMMs) > >>P.S. I also think Apple should release a 32-bit clean ROM, not only >>are we about to get a 32-bit clean OS, but even some clean apps. How >>our machines? > > That's what this is all about. Why don't you join the mailing >list, Kent? I don't see your name on it now... ;) >-- And yet this list ignores the situation of II (and IIx?) owners, seeming to say "screw them, just give *us* the upgrade!" As a II owner, I support this list, but feel that some reasonably priced option should exist for II owners to use 32-bit addressing. I don't want a free ride up to IIfx, though a cheaper upgrade wouldn't be unwelcome (come on, how much can those chips cost?). jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
tonyg@cs.uq.oz.au (Tony Gedge) (04/20/91)
In <17646@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: >And yet this list ignores the situation of II (and IIx?) owners, >seeming to say "screw them, just give *us* the upgrade!" As a II >owner, I support this list, but feel that some reasonably priced >option should exist for II owners to use 32-bit addressing. I don't >want a free ride up to IIfx, though a cheaper upgrade wouldn't be >unwelcome (come on, how much can those chips cost?). I'd like to add my voice to this. I own a MacII and if the roms are socketed, I can't see any reason why a rom upgrade can't be offered for my lowly II. Heck, when I was on high school work experience at TCG, we used to upgrade the roms in every cash register that came through (they took 4 roms usually) to the latest software revision without charge. It isn't so enormously expensive! Tony Gedge. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Computer Science Department, | tonyg@cs.uq.oz.au (Tony Gedge) | | University of Queensland, Australia.| "cc stands for Cryptic Crossword" | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr17.180351.24948@cs.utk.edu> wnn@ornl.gov writes: > >On the Mac XL, 512ke, Plus, the limit is 4MB and that is definitely too little >to run System 7.0 and only two of some of the newer programs. Many users of >these older machines have purchased accelerator boards, some even '030 in the >erroneous belief that they would be able to use System 7.0 with virtual memory. While this is true, I'm not going to go pinning this one on Apple. Before Apple released the 7.0 alphas, I noticed companies already advertising '030 boards for the Plus/SE/etc. along with guarantees that I'd work with 7.0 VM. I called a few and asked how they could guarantee such a thing when they didn't even have 7.0 alphas to test with (not that an alpha would even guarantee anything...). After much hems-and-haws, they admitted that they weren't positive since they couldn't test with it yet, but "we will be". Yeah. Right. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com Macintosh Consulting | AOL: KHancock | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/22/91)
In article <17646@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: >> [following discussion about the "newroms" mailing list]... >And yet this list ignores the situation of II (and IIx?) owners, >seeming to say "screw them, just give *us* the upgrade!" As a II >owner, I support this list, but feel that some reasonably priced >option should exist for II owners to use 32-bit addressing. I don't >want a free ride up to IIfx, though a cheaper upgrade wouldn't be >unwelcome (come on, how much can those chips cost?). <growl> That's right, Jeff. You're absolutely right. This mailing list that I've been doing is just a plot to greedily get -myself- an upgrade, and to hell with everyone else, -especially- owners of Mac II's and IIx's. <sheesh> <insert lotsa frustrated smileys> Listen, I've already dumped a lot of time into this bloody thing. Fielding mail from people who send their request to me, or to the list itself, or who want to orate in their subscription request (which makes the processor barf). Then there's the people with the weird mailing addresses, and the fact that I'm running this on a VMS machine with a freeware SMTP mailer that currently seems to be barfing because the list is so fragging big. Not to mention time spent on Compuserve, and on the phone. (Do -you- want to make a long-distance call from Ohio to California?) And in the meantime, I'm trying to work a full-time job, and spend enough time with my fiance so that she doesn't forget I exist. I picked the Macs with ROM SIMMs because, out of all the Macs, they were the -most likely- ones that Apple would offer an upgrade for. Why? Because they advertised that the ROMs were easy to upgrade. Did they say that about the II? About the 512ke? No. So, if we can shame Apple into living up to expections with -these- machines, then we have a foothold, and can maybe get upgrades for other machines. But you don't try to grab everything at once. It won't happen, and if it's tried that way, Apple will just get annoyed, and not offer -any- upgrade. Sure, shouting and yelling at them might make you feel better, but is it going to get anyone in Apple on our side? No, it won't. And it doesn't work with me, either. Looks like this degenerated into a bit of a flame. Sorry about that, folks... -- Jim Gaynor - Systems Analyst 1 + "Pooh hasn't much Brain, but he never Ohio State University ACS-FMS-OCES | comes to any harm. He does silly gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | things and they come out right." gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu + -Piglet, from "Winnie-The-Pooh"
hagan@ecs.umass.edu (04/22/91)
someone mentioned about the mac II's being let out in the ROM list idea, for an upgrade. If an upgrade comes about, the people with straght II's will be left in the dust. Although it is very much less reasonably priced, a person with a mac II can upgrade to a IIx or IIfx. which would give you access to the new roms, or at least the rom upgrade. (wish i could say something similar about the plus, but i cant, so i wont) just my $9.95 + 5% tax for residents of Taxachussetts -- craig hagan hagan@alpha.ecs.umass.edu
phil@cutmcvax.cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Phil Wild) (04/23/91)
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >In article <1949@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >>In article <1991Apr16.155525.2416@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: [ Stuff deleted...] >>P.S. I also think Apple should release a 32-bit clean ROM, not only >>are we about to get a 32-bit clean OS, but even some clean apps. How >>our machines? > That's what this is all about. Why don't you join the mailing >list, Kent? I don't see your name on it now... ;) >-- > Jim Gaynor - Systems Analyst 1 + "Pooh hasn't much Brain, but he never > Ohio State University ACS-FMS-OCES | comes to any harm. He does silly > gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | things and they come out right." > gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu + -Piglet, from "Winnie-The-Pooh" I missed the start of this convo - I have an SE/30 and would definately like my name on the list! Where do I mail! Philip Computer Science Curtin University Perth, Western Australia. phil@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (04/23/91)
In article <822@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes: |I suspect that what Apple doesn't want to happen is to end up with a whole |lot of bootleg ROMs out there being used in clones - too much paranoia. If they run it like they run their repair and other upgrade programs, this wouldn't be a problem. They require the same number of old ROMs back from each dealer as they send out new ones, and then Apple themselves destroy the ROMs. Thus there are no extra ROMs left floating around. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) (04/23/91)
Actually, traffic on the mailing list has been very civil. Several people, including me, enquired about the other machines, and an investigation was made by some persons by opening them up and verifying that indeed the ROMs were removable, etc. We must remember that human communication is not just the words, but the non-verbal cues we give. With text communications, we can sometimes take things wrong because we can't see the other person. That's why flames are so common on the net. So before you flame, sit back, take a deep breath, reread the message, try out different tones of voice in reading the message, and if you still feel like flaming, take a nice relaxing bath. *then* come back and write a nice reasoned argument as to why you disagree. "He who lives by the flame shall die by the flame." - Jesus didn't say this, but that's only because they didn't have computers back then... -- Ian Chai | "God loves you just the way you are, but Internet: chai@cs.ukans.edu | He loves you too much to let you stay that Bitnet: 2fntnougat@ukanvax | way." - Harry Poindexter
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (04/23/91)
In article <13341.2812ef32@ecs.umass.edu> hagan@ecs.umass.edu writes: >someone mentioned about the mac II's being let out in >the ROM list idea, for an upgrade. If an upgrade comes about, >the people with straght II's will be left in the dust. >Although it is very much less reasonably priced, >a person with a mac II can upgrade to a IIx or IIfx. >which would give you access to the new roms, or at least the >rom upgrade. > >(wish i could say something similar about the plus, but i cant, so >i wont) > > >just my $9.95 + 5% tax for residents of Taxachussetts > >-- craig hagan hagan@alpha.ecs.umass.edu Sure... and all of the current Mac owners could just upgrade their macs to the newest 32-bit clean vbersion and get their "upgrade" that way as well. That's a non-solution. jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (04/23/91)
In article <13341.2812ef32@ecs.umass.edu>, hagan@ecs.umass.edu writes: |> someone mentioned about the mac II's being let out in |> the ROM list idea, for an upgrade. If an upgrade comes about, |> the people with straght II's will be left in the dust. |> Although it is very much less reasonably priced, |> a person with a mac II can upgrade to a IIx or IIfx. |> which would give you access to the new roms, or at least the |> rom upgrade. Just spotted on the Stanford price list: M6051/A Mac II FDHD and ROM upgrade Kit $337 i.e., you can get new ROMs without upgrading to a IIx. However, the IIx ROMs _are not_ 32-bit clean, which is the point of this thread. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
jmunkki@hila.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (05/02/91)
In article <98@eclectic.COM> kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <1991Apr17.180351.24948@cs.utk.edu> wnn@ornl.gov writes: >>these older machines have purchased accelerator boards, some even '030 in the >>erroneous belief that they would be able to use System 7.0 with virtual memory > >While this is true, I'm not going to go pinning this one on Apple. >Before Apple released the 7.0 alphas, I noticed companies already >advertising '030 boards for the Plus/SE/etc. along with guarantees >that I'd work with 7.0 VM. > >After much hems-and-haws, they admitted that they weren't positive since >they couldn't test with it yet, but "we will be". Yeah. Right. Of course, System 7.0 virtual memory will probably not be the only way to get virtual memory. I'm pretty sure that Connectix will find the upgrade market large enough to go to the trouble of writing a version of Virtual for these machines. This will allow up to 15MB of virtual RAM on these older machines. If Connectix will not do it, someone else will. ____________________________________________________________________________ / Juri Munkki / Helsinki University of Technology / Wind / Project / / jmunkki@hut.fi / Computing Center Macintosh Support / Surf / STORM / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~