pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) (10/16/90)
Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. In like fashion, I wonder if the ColorQD in the new ROMs is more recent than that in the IIci? Did they put version 1.2 in there, or will we still need to use the latest INIT? An interesting comment today from one of the Apple reps; I queried if the IIsi he was messing with was running System 6.0.6. "No, it's 6.0.7...606 never made it." Truth or consequences? .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {rosevax, crash, orator}!orbit!pnet51!pj | Working with idiots keeps | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!pj@nosc.mil | my life interesting... | | INET: pj@pnet51.cts.com | | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) (10/16/90)
In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. I asked about that a couple of weeks ago and I didn't get any real answer, well not from an Apple representative anyway. I think it's time for Apple to offer us that upgrade or else a lot of people including me will feel cheated. 8 megs isn't always enough. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lars Sundstrom, Lund University, Department of Applied Electronics, | | Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46-46121598 Fax:+46-46129948 | | Internet: sund@tde.lth.se | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct16.120133.15666@lth.se> sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) writes: >In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: > Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future > with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will > finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. > >I asked about that a couple of weeks ago and I didn't get any >real answer, well not from an Apple representative anyway. >I think it's time for Apple to offer us that upgrade or >else a lot of people including me will feel cheated. 8 megs >isn't always enough. > (These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? "Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" Yea, right! -- -Owen- rubin@apple.com or RUBIN1@AppleLink.apple.com *---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The above are my ideas, my feelings, & my writings (unless noted) and this * is my disclaimer. Also, spelling errors don't count in vi. right? :-) *----------------------------------------------------------------------------
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (10/18/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? This analogy keeps coming up, and it is completely non-sequitor. If those auto companies offered upgrades on some cars and not others, I could understand why the analogy holds. In this case, computers have been very commonly designed as upgradable. It them becomes annoying when new features are released that can't easily be retrofited to older machines. Sometimes this is due to architecture, but sometimes it is just manufacturer- designed obsolescence.
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (10/18/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: [in reference to people requesting a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade for the SE/30] >(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) > >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > >"Gee,I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" > >Yea, right! *FLAME ON* Nice attitude, jerk. They're asking for a ROM upgrade to take advantage of hardware that Apple said would do "this this and this." They aren't asking for a 68040 upgrade. They aren't asking to have their SE/30 retrofitted for the new Apple Microphone. They aren't asking for IIfx-style DMA. All they're asking for is 32-bit clean ROMs. It's a bloody ROM upgrade, something Apple used to offer commonly with the pre-Plus Macs, and obviously intends to support with all the new SIMM-slotted ROMs. I can see taking that attitude with the people who whine that their Plus can't do 32-bit color, or that their Mac IIx doesn't have built-in video or DMA, but we're talking about a ROM upgrade. Get real. *Flame Off* -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl; because it hurts like hell..." _|
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (10/18/90)
rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >>[stuff deleted about possible 32-bit clean ROM upgrades] >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? Pray tell, then, why Apple bothered to put a ROM SIMM socket in there in the first place? Surely if they're never going to offer an upgrade, it was just a waste of componentry (and we could all have saved $0.10c [make that $10.00 when you add on Apple's markup :-| ] on our machines if they had eliminated it). I don't mind paying something reasonable for those ROMs... (say like $200), but I don't think that's going to happen. Why? Apple's too afraid of letting those ROMs into the wrong hands... Remember the debacle of the 10,000 128K ROMs? >-- >-Owen- >rubin@apple.com or RUBIN1@AppleLink.apple.com >*---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >* The above are my ideas, my feelings, & my writings (unless noted) and this >* is my disclaimer. Also, spelling errors don't count in vi. right? :-) >*---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "The All Blacks? Who are they? - some plebian
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (10/18/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >In article <1990Oct16.120133.15666@lth.se> sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) writes: >>In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: >> Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future >> with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will >> finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. >> >>I think it's time for Apple to offer us that upgrade or >>else a lot of people including me will feel cheated. 8 megs >>isn't always enough. > >(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) > >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > >"Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" > > >Yea, right! Get real! That would be more equivelent to 'Apple! Give me a 68040 upgrade to my Mac SE!!' An ABS braking system would require major changes to the car. A simple ROM upgrade only requires a few chips <or a SIMM> and 5 minutes of someone's time. Total cost to Apple: ~$25. If Apple doesn't do the upgrade, for atleast a REASONABLE cost <$50?> you are going to have a LOT of very unhappy Macintosh users who can't do some major things just because the code in their ROMs is screwed up. Besides, shouldn't Apple of had the the foresight to make the ROMs 32bit clean in the first place?
lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) (10/18/90)
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: }In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: }>>In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: }>> Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future }>> with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will }>> finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. }> }>(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) }> }>As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to }>BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? }> }>Yea, right! } }Get real! ... } }If Apple doesn't do the upgrade, for atleast a REASONABLE cost <$50?> you }are going to have a LOT of very unhappy Macintosh users who can't do some }major things just because the code in their ROMs is screwed up. }Besides, shouldn't Apple of had the the foresight to make the ROMs 32bit clean }in the first place? [Geez, it's getting kinda warm in here with all these flames... :-) ] Well, actually, they _DID_ have the foresight to add the ROM SIMM socket, didn't they? Every machine since the IIx has that (alas, my poor Mac II doesn't, but hey, they didn't think of it until the IIx). The idea was (from what I recall) that they didn't yet have 32-bit clean ROMs (nor did they need them at the time) but they would some day, and that's why the ROM SIMM socket is there. I think before it becomes necessary to have real 32-bit clean ROMs, you'll see a ROM SIMM available for those who "really need it"... (at least this is my guess - it certainly isn't based on any secret information that anyone has shared with me). -- ----- Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose ----- ----- Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!) -----
carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) (10/18/90)
In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: >An interesting comment today from one of the Apple reps; I queried if the IIsi >he was messing with was running System 6.0.6. "No, it's 6.0.7...606 never >made it." Truth or consequences? There are a couple of bugs concerning AppleTalk and something else in 6.0.6. The recommended system software for the 3 new models is now 6.0.7. There is a quick fix in the form of an INIT about 10K in size as an interim solution for those who got their machines too early :) Subsequent shippments have 6.0.7 in the box. **My employers don't understand me, so I guess I'm on my own when I speak out** Norton Chia | I *think* my address is Micro Support | carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU *******************************************************************************
silverio@cass (Brian Silverio) (10/18/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) > >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > >"Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" > > >Yea, right! > Even if you don't speak for Apple, it looks like it is time for you to read "In Search of Excellence". Anyone who feels as you do about their customers is in the wrong business. And by the way, upgrade kits are available for your 84 Corvette. Like Apple, Chevrolet has no interest in making them. However, Chevrolet doesn't sue the people who do. If you are going to make comparisons, include all the facts. -- I dont speak for my employer either. But, my employer thinks the customer is right.
sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) (10/18/90)
In article <1356@radius.com> lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) writes: [Geez, it's getting kinda warm in here with all these flames... :-) ] I think before it becomes necessary to have real 32-bit clean ROMs, you'll see a ROM SIMM available for those who "really need it"... (at least this is my guess - it certainly isn't based on any secret information that anyone has shared with me). Well, I and a some of my collegues need it now and we don't want to buy new machines just to get 32 bit clean. Currently Apple is offering Mac II(x) to Mac IIfx upgrades which is great, so I can't understand why they can't offer us a simple ROM upgrade. Is it really that hard for Apple to give us a decent answer? I can understand if they are waiting for a solid System 7.0 so some of the features could be included in the new ROMs but what other reasons could there be? -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lars Sundstrom, Lund University, Department of Applied Electronics, | | Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46-46121598 Fax:+46-46129948 | | Internet: sund@tde.lth.se | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
dhoyt@vw.acs.umn.edu (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct17.225547.7386@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes... >A simple ROM upgrade only requires a few chips <or a SIMM> and 5 minutes >of someone's time. Total cost to Apple: ~$25. $25 is the materials cost. The R&D costs are much larger and must be billed accordingly. Apple also provides upgrades to the OS free of charge. Apple adds this cost and other costs of business to all the products they sell, including ROMs. david | dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu | dhoyt@umnacvx.bitnet
brindle (Jack Brindle) (10/18/90)
In article <5795@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: > >[in reference to people requesting a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade for the SE/30] >>"Gee,I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >>will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" >> >>Yea, right! > >*FLAME ON* > Nice attitude, jerk. They're asking for a ROM upgrade to take >advantage of hardware that Apple said would do "this this and this." >They aren't asking for a 68040 upgrade. They aren't asking to have >their SE/30 retrofitted for the new Apple Microphone. They aren't >asking for IIfx-style DMA. All they're asking for is 32-bit clean ROMs. > > Get real. > >*Flame Off* Come now. Perhaps this is not necessarily a wrong attitude. I paid a lot more for my 82 Mustang than I did for my Mac IIci. It has featured, since day 1, a faulty carbureution system, faulty brakes, and a few other problems. Ford has refused to do anything about the problems since day 1. Their dealers/repair shops are useless, they keep the care for a day and do nothing. Their comments? The brakes are "Ford brakes." They are supposed to be mushy. And the pollution control keeps the carbureuter from acting properly. These are quite common problems that many others have experienced. So how does this relate? I won't buy another Ford. period. On the other hand, I am not overly pleased with Apple dealers/repair shops either, but whenever I have had a problem, they have gotten the job done. As far as upgrades? My 128K Mac runs great in its current 512KE configuration. My IIci runs great. No, it doesn't have a microphone from Apple. But it gets the job done. Do I expect Apple to hand me the latest and greatest whenever they produce a new product? No. The expense would eventually put them out of business. Has any other computer manufacturer provided the level of free service you desire? I doubt it. Perhaps it is you that needs to get real. - Jack B.
wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli) (10/19/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: > As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to > BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? I bought a Volvo 245 in 1978. In 1985 I moved to the South. I upgraded to the more expensive model by having my Volvo dealer install an air conditioner. Last year my 3-speed fan burned out. I upgraded to the newer model of the fan that has greater throughput and 4 speeds. I also had the old voltage regulator replaced with the newer solid-state model when I needed more power to charge a trailer battery. It wasn't broken, but I needed better performance. My 512ke ROMs are not broken, but they limit me to 4 MB of RAM. I am tempted to get a Gemini II accelerator but such an investment would make much more sense if I could use 4MB SIMMS for a total of 16 MB. Apple has been pushing developers very very hard to make their software 32-bit clean. Why shouldn't we expect Apple to clean up their old ROMs ??? Wolfgang N. Naegeli President, MacClique--East Tennessee Macintosh Users Group Internet: wnn@ornl.gov Bitnet: wnn@ornlstc Phone: 615-574-6143 Fax: 615-574-6141 QuickMail (QM-QM): Wolfgang Naegeli @ 615-574-4510 Snail: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6206
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (10/19/90)
In article <2494@ux.acs.umn.edu> dhoyt@vw.acs.umn.edu writes: > $25 is the materials cost. The R&D costs are much larger and must be billed >accordingly. Apple also provides upgrades to the OS free of charge. Apple >adds this cost and other costs of business to all the products they sell, >including ROMs. Maybe $25 was a little conservative, but I did say I thought $50 was fair. After all, in a Mac II you have 4 ROMS, those ROMS shouldn't cost Apple more than $4/each, especially in the quantities they would be buying. I don't know how much R&D is involved, but probably not a heckuva lot! remember, you've already PAID for the R&D that you have now, I'm sure it didn't, comparatively anyways, cost Apple that much more to fix them up to be 32 bit clean <what all would be involved there, anyone?>. Then you ammoratise <sp?> that over several thousand systems and it isn't all that much. I think upgrades for Amiga and ST ROMS are only around $50. Charles
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/19/90)
In article <1356@radius.com> lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) writes: >Well, actually, they _DID_ have the foresight to add the ROM SIMM socket, >didn't they? Every machine since the IIx has that (alas, my poor Mac II >doesn't, but hey, they didn't think of it until the IIx). The idea was >(from what I recall) that they didn't yet have 32-bit clean ROMs (nor did >they need them at the time) but they would some day, and that's why the >ROM SIMM socket is there. I think before it becomes necessary to have >real 32-bit clean ROMs, you'll see a ROM SIMM available for those who >"really need it"... (at least this is my guess - it certainly isn't based >on any secret information that anyone has shared with me). Actually, if you look at old drafts of the Hardware Reference Manual, they describe the ROM SIMM slot in the Mac II-- it just got eliminated. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (10/19/90)
-> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: -> Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future -> with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will -> finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. ->> sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) adds: ->> I asked about that a couple of weeks ago and I didn't get any ->> real answer, well not from an Apple representative anyway. ->> I think it's time for Apple to offer us that upgrade or ->> else a lot of people including me will feel cheated. 8 megs ->> isn't always enough. rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) suggests: >> (These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) >> >> As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >> BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? >> >> "Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when >> Chevrolet will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!! Its not fair!!!" >> Yea, right! >> -Owen- I (Pete Hoch) also have a comment: Owen you stupid dolt! :-) Actualy I would agree with you on this if it were not the the original idea about upgrading ROMs came from Apple and not us. When the SE/30 and IIcx were intorduced Apple made a big deal about the ROMs being upgradeable and not stuck in place. In fact if you go read the info sheets on the new IIsi you will notice that those ROMs are upgradeable too and the sheets make a point of this. So even though Apple never actualy promised that they would make ROM upgrades available, they specificly made plans so that they (*could*) upgrade ROMs. Besides, the upgrade we all want isn't that big a deal. We just want 32-Bit clean ROMs so that we can run our applications in 32-Bit mode when system 7.0 comes out. Again making 32-Bit addressing a big deal was Apples not ours. Any comments from someone at Apple who realy knows something about this issue? Pete Hoch
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct17.225547.7386@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >Get real! That would be more equivelent to 'Apple! Give me a 68040 upgrade >to my Mac SE!!' An ABS braking system would require major changes to the car. >A simple ROM upgrade only requires a few chips <or a SIMM> and 5 minutes >of someone's time. Total cost to Apple: ~$25. >If Apple doesn't do the upgrade, for atleast a REASONABLE cost <$50?> you >are going to have a LOT of very unhappy Macintosh users who can't do some >major things just because the code in their ROMs is screwed up. >Besides, shouldn't Apple of had the the foresight to make the ROMs 32bit clean >in the first place? 20/20 hindsight makes for wonderful discussions of what Apple should have done when they were perhaps not thinking about 32 bit clean and then as newer Mac's came out they realized the importance thereof. Apple also needs to control where its roms go. Allowing dealer upgrades of ROM's could be a real tricky problem. As old roms would or should perhaps be destroyed to prevent technology theft and people selling them to emulator makers for profits undeserved. Its not so much the cost as it is other issues in doing such upgrades.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct18.115946.20462@lth.se> sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) writes: >Well, I and a some of my collegues need it now and we don't want >to buy new machines just to get 32 bit clean. Why could you possibly need it now? System 6 does not support 32-bit mode under ANY condition, and if you're an Apple Partner (or the European equivalent) and working with System 7, then you probably have the resources to get at least one more machine for compatibility testing or whatever. So perhaps what you're asking for isn't a ROM update but a system software update. Sorry, my friend, but that's what everyone's asking for these days. :-) -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
weverka@boulder.colorado.edu (Robert T. Weverka) (10/19/90)
rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >>[stuff deleted about possible 32-bit clean ROM upgrades] >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes >Apple's too afraid of letting those ROMs into the wrong hands... > Remember the debacle of the 10,000 128K ROMs? I just upgraded my Honda's battery and starter motor. Installed them myself. The shop made me pay a deposit for the new motor, it seems they want the old one back. Rebuilding them is their livelyhood, and they need the core from my old starter motor. torrie@Neon>I don't mind paying something reasonable for those ROMs... torrie@Neon> (say like $200) May I add that I don't mind paying a reasonable deposit insuring the return of the old ROMs. How about it Apple?
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct18.164331.2487@mdivax1.uucp> mdivax1!fh06c!brindle (Jack Brindle) writes: >Come now. Perhaps this is not necessarily a wrong attitude. >...My 128K Mac runs great in its current 512KE configuration. My >IIci runs great. No, it doesn't have a microphone from Apple. But it gets >the job done. Do I expect Apple to hand me the latest and greatest >whenever they produce a new product? No. The expense would eventually >put them out of business. Has any other computer manufacturer provided >the level of free service you desire? I doubt it. I don't think anyone is looking for a free lunch. I certainly am not. All I want is the _opportunity_ to upgrade my machine to current standards. I will pay a reasonable amount of money to do so. I don't expect Apple to take my SE/30 up to IIfx performance for free. One of the "exciting new features" of the SE/30 was that ROM SIMM, which was added in order to make ROM upgrades easier, according to both media reporting and Apple's own documentation. All I am asking is for Apple to deliver on that implicit promise. chaz -- Jury Acquit Notorious Axe Murderer From Outer Space. clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (10/19/90)
In article <2892@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > 20/20 hindsight makes for wonderful discussions of what Apple should > have done when they were perhaps not thinking about 32 bit clean and > then as newer Mac's came out they realized the importance thereof. But, Norm, wasn't this the whole point behind installing the ROM as a SIMM? Future expansion, changes in ROM contents, etc. can be accomplished without a lot of trouble, and without having thought of the future expansion options when the system was built. > Apple also needs to control where its roms go. Allowing dealer > upgrades of ROM's could be a real tricky problem. As old roms > would or should perhaps be destroyed to prevent technology theft > and people selling them to emulator makers for profits undeserved. So how about draconian measures against ROM theft? Perhaps continued shipment of Apple hardware could be dependent on return of appropriate numbers of old ROMs. Such a scheme would certainly make me, were I a dealer, think twice about selling off those replaced ROMs. chaz -- Jury Acquit Notorious Axe Murderer From Outer Space. clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
neg@NRC.COM (Neal Goldsmith) (10/20/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) > >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > >"Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" > > >Yea, right! > [SET FLAME = SIMMER] Yea, but the SE/30 was sold as a 32-Bit machine, and my manual clearly states that I can install up to 32MB of memory when 4MB simms become available. (I know they are available now, but the manual was written a few years ago) Apple owes me at least the option to pay for a new set of ROMS! ROMS are not the same as putting ABS brakes on a car. It is just a set of chips, more then likely the same set that is in all of the machines since the IIci. Of all of things Apple has done to make customers mad, this may be the only one that may put Apple at risk for legal action. If a set of 32-Bit clean ROMS isn't available on the day that System 7.0 ships, I for one will file suit in Small Claims court. [SET FLAME = OFF] -- Neal E. Goldsmith Network Research Corp Internet: neg@nrc.com 1620 Federal Ave #2 America Online: NEG1 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213)479-6436
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (10/20/90)
In article <2892@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > Apple also needs to control where its roms go. Allowing dealer > upgrades of ROM's could be a real tricky problem. As old roms > would or should perhaps be destroyed to prevent technology theft > and people selling them to emulator makers for profits undeserved. Oh, puhleaze, give me a break. Upgrading ROMs should be LESS trouble than upgrading logic boards. My dealer still offers 512k-512ke, and 512ke to Plus upgrades. All that is necessary is that for each upgrade the dealer does the dealer is required to return a ROM set of the next lower step, i.e. no 64k for 512k ROM swaps. Apple DESIGNED my machine to accept new ROMs and it is still a supported model. I don't see what the problem is unless Apple doesn't want to take the trouble. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. ROMs should be that expensive to maintain in inventory and Apple handles much cheaper items for sale. It is clear that Apple recognizes that it needs to attend to user feedback. All we need do now is let 'em know.
m_herodotus@coors.dec.com (Mario Herodotus - Digital Customer Support Center (800) 525-6570) (10/20/90)
In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM>, rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes... > >(These are my comments and I do not speak for Apple:) > >As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > >"Gee, I have an 84 Vette that does not have ABS breaks. I wonder when Chevrolet >will offer me an upgrade kit for my Vette!!!!!! Its not fair!!!!!!!!" > > >Yea, right! > >-- >-Owen- >rubin@apple.com or RUBIN1@AppleLink.apple.com >*---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >* The above are my ideas, my feelings, & my writings (unless noted) and this >* is my disclaimer. Also, spelling errors don't count in vi. right? :-) >*---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice try Owen but at least I can take my 84 Vette in to the dealer and get a pretty good price for as trade in value. Until Apple starts offering trades I wouldn't use that one anymore. Take your Vette to a dealer some day and I bet they will sell you anything that you want to buy, as long as it is replaceable (heck they'll sell you the ABS system even if it won't fit your 84 Vette)! By the way ABS is a bit different than asking for a ROM upgrade. I'm sure that if you took your Vette in for new tires they'd do that. We're not asking Apple for a new CPU in our machines or a new bus structure, but some of us bought these machines because they had slotted ROMs and they were expandable. I always figured Apple put the ROMs on SIMMs so that they could upgrade them later. Now I haven't heard anything official either, and I keep hoping that as system 7 gets closer Apple will offer a ROM upgrade. I know that Apple doesn't want its ROMs getting into the wrong hands, but if they implement the exchange properly this shouldn't happen - you MUST trade an old ROM SIMM for a new one, and all dealers MUST return as many ROMs as they buy or send back the new unused ROMs. Mario -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K4 ] | 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 | [direct line (719) 592-5520] | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (10/21/90)
Just a question - some people are claiming that as a result of its 32-bit dirty (?) ROMs, the SE/30 won't be able to take advantage of virtual memory in System 7. Even the "dirty" addressing scheme allows 24 bits for addressing (which for various reasons probably amounts to allowing 14M of clear address space). How many people need more than this in the short term? How many people are going to have more than 10M to spare as swap space on their hard disk anyway? Of course it's a problem, and Apple should be pressurized to fix it, but it's not the amazingly urgent issue some seem to think it is. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct18.175118.5227@cs.utk.edu> wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli) writes: >In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >> As I read these comments I often wonder if you people also complain to >> BMW and Chevrolet and Ford (etc) about upgrades to your cars? > OK, OK!!!!!!!! I guess I was a bit botherd when I wrote that!!!!!! I got the message people, it was a bad analogy at best. I guess I hear that same scream so many times during the day I just got fed up with it. Thanks to thoes of you who wrote me in an reasonable manner to complain that I was way off base. I stand corrected. But please recall that I did say that I agreed that ROM upgrades should be available as well. It was the crying that I didn't like. As for crying, SMU, you still there. You did the best crying if all!!!!!!! Again, as some people seem to have missed (hello, SMU, can you hear me, is this thing on?????), I do not speak for Apple. I wrote my own opinions. I said what I felt, not what Apple asks me to say. They do NOT tell me what to say or think. If you do not understand this, I'm sorry for you. Several of you said that Apple must be this and that because of what I wrote. I'd like to think I have that much influence on Apple, but I only work here!!!!! But how to solve the problem. Since I cannot release the ROM's obviously, and since you all don't set Apple's policy, you are stuck right now! But what I will do is this: Since I DO work for Apple, perhaps I can get the ball rolling from inside. But this is what it will take: I have NOT saved all the posting as to why there should be a ROM upgrade made available to the general public. Apple actually did this once from the 64k ROMS to the 128K ROMS and created some additional problems (ask any Atari ST user who had a "Magic Sac" cartridge and a set of 64k ROMS!!!!!!) And I do not plan to sift through 2000 articles to find them. BUT, I will take the swamp of mail if you are all willing to send it! I need you to explain in a mail message why you need the ROM upgrade and why the System upgrades on the new system disks do not give you what you need. Be as brief as possible please. Tell your friends to mail message too. I'll collect them and present them to the "powers that be" and suggest that a ROM upgrade possibly be made available. I cannot say that anything will ever becomne of it, but I will give it a shot. Interested? Its the best I can offer from inside Apple. And again, I do this as myself, NOT as an Apple employee. My opinions and my actions are mine and I do not speak for Apple. (I repeat this again for SMU, because one of their staff missed all the disclaimers last time). -- -Owen- rubin@apple.com or RUBIN1@AppleLink.apple.com *---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The above are my ideas, my feelings, & my writings (unless noted) and this * is my disclaimer. Also, spelling errors don't count in vi. right? :-) *----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (10/23/90)
Neal Goldsmith writes: > [SET FLAME = SIMMER] > Of all of things Apple has done to make customers mad, this may be the only > one that may put Apple at risk for legal action. If a set of 32-Bit clean ROMS > isn't available on the day that System 7.0 ships, I for one will file suit > in Small Claims court. > [SET FLAME = OFF] Why settle for Small Claims Court? I would guess that we could get enough people interested just from the folks on the net here to start a class action suit against Apple for failure to do something. Pete
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/23/90)
In article <2505@ux.acs.umn.edu> clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >But, Norm, wasn't this the whole point behind installing the ROM as a SIMM? >Future expansion, changes in ROM contents, etc. can be accomplished without >a lot of trouble, and without having thought of the future expansion options >when the system was built. > >So how about draconian measures against ROM theft? Perhaps continued shipment >of Apple hardware could be dependent on return of appropriate numbers of old >ROMs. Such a scheme would certainly make me, were I a dealer, think twice >about selling off those replaced ROMs. > If I recall the ROM simm was to allow for permanently installed software, not necessarily to replace outdated Apple Firmware. Your suggestion of better dealer control of rom distribution has merit, though it could really be dependant on whether the structure to control it could be efficiently done. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/23/90)
In article <623@nrcvax.NRC.COM> neg@nrcvax.UUCP (Neal Goldsmith) writes: > >Of all of things Apple has done to make customers mad, this may be the only >one that may put Apple at risk for legal action. If a set of 32-Bit clean ROMS >isn't available on the day that System 7.0 ships, I for one will file suit >in Small Claims court. >[SET FLAME = OFF] > Neal E. Goldsmith Network Research Corp I suspect that your action would not go very far, you don't have to many legal legs to stand on. Apple never promised you 32-bit compatability. However I suspect that 7.0 will probably contain patches to create a 32 bit clean environment. Someone indicated this to me in a recent reply and that makes much more sense than some massive hardware upgrade program. Unless there is someone that can say for proof positive that Apple cannot patch their own firmware in the system software to create a 32-bit clean environment..... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
FERDINAND.TOMAS@f43.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (FERDINAND TOMAS) (10/23/90)
Come now. Perhaps this is not necessarily a wrong attitude. >...My 128K Mac runs great in its current 512KE configuration. My >IIci runs great. No, it doesn't have a microphone from Apple. But it gets >the job done. Do I expect Apple to hand me the latest and greatest >whenever they produce a new product? No. The expense would eventually >put them out of business. Has any other computer manufacturer provided >the level of free service you desire? I doubt it. I don't think anyone is looking for a free lunch. I certainly am not. All I want is the _opportunity_ to upgrade my machine to current standards. I will pay a reasonable amount of money to do so. I don't expect Apple to take my SE/30 up to IIfx performance for free. One of the "exciting new features" of the SE/30 was that ROM SIMM, which was added in order to make ROM upgrades easier, according to both media reporting and Apple's own documentation. All I am asking is for Apple to deliver on that implicit promise. Has Apple given up on the Rom Simm. they soldered the rom in the Ci, si, Lc and I think the FX also. -- FERDINAND TOMAS via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!343!43!FERDINAND.TOMAS INET: FERDINAND.TOMAS@f43.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/23/90)
In article <2896@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > > However I suspect that 7.0 will probably contain patches to > create a 32 bit clean environment. Someone indicated this to > me in a recent reply and that makes much more sense than some > massive hardware upgrade program. Unless there is someone that > can say for proof positive that Apple cannot patch their own > firmware in the system software to create a 32-bit clean > environment..... Right. A/UX does not exist :-) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct23.032953.16860@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <2896@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >> >> However I suspect that 7.0 will probably contain patches to >> create a 32 bit clean environment. Someone indicated this to >> me in a recent reply and that makes much more sense than some >> massive hardware upgrade program. Unless there is someone that >> can say for proof positive that Apple cannot patch their own >> firmware in the system software to create a 32-bit clean >> environment..... > >Right. A/UX does not exist :-) >-- Touche'... The others can now put their flame throwers away and stop worrying about "32-bit clean ROM's." --- -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (10/24/90)
In article <10851@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >But what I will do is this: Since I DO work for Apple, perhaps I can get >the ball rolling from inside. But this is what it will take: > >And I do not plan to sift through 2000 articles to find them. BUT, I will >take the swamp of mail if you are all willing to send it! I need you to explain >in a mail message why you need the ROM upgrade and why the System upgrades >on the new system disks do not give you what you need. Be as brief >as possible please. Tell your friends to mail message too. I'll collect >them and present them to the "powers that be" and suggest that a ROM upgrade >possibly be made available. > This is a good idea. But I think there are a lot of people, including myself, who don't have a full idea of what 32 bit clean ROMs will do for us. I know of a few things, which is enough to make me want them, but I'm sure there are many more reasons. Is there some nice person who is really in the know that would be willing to write something up about the full advantages of 32 bit clean ROMs then those of us who need those features can put them into our own words and reasons and mail them to Owen. Charles
neg@NRC.COM (Neal Goldsmith) (10/25/90)
In article <2899@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >In article <1990Oct23.032953.16860@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >>In article <2896@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >>> >>> However I suspect that 7.0 will probably contain patches to >>> create a 32 bit clean environment. Someone indicated this to >>> me in a recent reply and that makes much more sense than some >>> massive hardware upgrade program. Unless there is someone that >>> can say for proof positive that Apple cannot patch their own >>> firmware in the system software to create a 32-bit clean >>> environment..... >> >>Right. A/UX does not exist :-) >>-- > > Touche'... The others can now put their flame throwers away and > stop worrying about "32-bit clean ROM's." It is my understanding (as told by an Apple Engineer at MacWorld) that the Macintosh OS Memory manager MUST load from the ROM. This is why there is both a 24-Bit and a 32-Bit memory manager in the ci and newer ROMS. A/UX has some other way of handling a 32-Bit memory manager for the multifinder session. I don't know why this is, just repeating what I was told by Apple. This is why I want a new set of ROMS. I would be happy with software however if it is possible. -- Neal E. Goldsmith Network Research Corp Internet: neg@nrc.com 1620 Federal Ave #2 America Online: NEG1 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213)479-6436
siegel@endor.uucp (Rich Siegel) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct20.234914.13545@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >Just a question - some people are claiming that as a result of its >32-bit dirty (?) ROMs, the SE/30 won't be able to take advantage of >virtual memory in System 7. Even the "dirty" addressing scheme allows >24 bits for addressing (which for various reasons probably amounts to >allowing 14M of clear address space). How many people need more than >this in the short term? How many people are going to have more than >10M to spare as swap space on their hard disk anyway? > Indeed. In fact, you can run Virtual on an SE/30 RIGHT NOW, and have up to 14 MB. If you have money to burn, you can fill the beast up with 4MB SIMMs, and use Maxima to have up to 14MB as user RAM, and the rest as a RAM disk which will survive anything short of a power-down. Above that, 32-bit mode is only useful to people who have huge amounts of fast disk space to swap, or have more money than they know what to with, in which case they buy large amounts of RAM. R. Rich Siegel Software Engineer Symantec Languages Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel If you have telekinetic powers, raise my hand.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/26/90)
In article <625@nrcvax.NRC.COM> neg@nrcvax.UUCP (Neal Goldsmith) writes: >In article <2899@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >>In article <1990Oct23.032953.16860@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > >It is my understanding (as told by an Apple Engineer at MacWorld) that the >Macintosh OS Memory manager MUST load from the ROM. > >This is why there is both a 24-Bit and a 32-Bit memory manager in the ci and >newer ROMS. A/UX has some other way of handling a 32-Bit memory manager for >the multifinder session. > >I don't know why this is, just repeating what I was told by Apple. This is why >I want a new set of ROMS. I would be happy with software however if it is >possible. Patching the memory manager 'on the fly' would be impossible-- you would end up invalidating the structures in the system heap. In order to install a 32-bit memory manager, Apple would probably have to put the new routines into high memory (above BufPtr, and therefore outside of the memory manager's control). The patch routine would then have to essentially restart the system (reloading the system heap and all). It would be very difficult, but if Apple doesn't want to do it, they ought to release new ROMS (and require return of the old ones, just as is done with logic board replacements, FDHD and IIfx upgrades, SE upgrades, etc) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct25.183759.10653@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... >Patching the memory manager 'on the fly' would be impossible-- you would end up >invalidating the structures in the system heap. I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that Virtual from Connectix accomplishes something very near this. If they can make MacOS think that there is 14 MB of memory when in fact there are only 5, it doesn't seem unlikely that Apple could patch the memory manager to be 32 bit clean. david | dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/26/90)
In article <2562@ux.acs.umn.edu> dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu writes: >In article <1990Oct25.183759.10653@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... >>Patching the memory manager 'on the fly' would be impossible-- you would end up >>invalidating the structures in the system heap. > I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that Virtual from Connectix >accomplishes something very near this. If they can make MacOS think that there >is 14 MB of memory when in fact there are only 5, it doesn't seem unlikely that >Apple could patch the memory manager to be 32 bit clean. Virtual 'merely' remaps some of the nubus memory to be continuous with the main memory, and changes system structures to let the system know how big memory now is. (it also implements virtual memory-- in fact, that's the MAIN reason for it). Neither of these actions in any way invalidates EXISTING handles to the system and application heap. Switching to a 32 bit memory manger on the fly would be many, many, orders of magnitude more difficult, as this would require Apple to somehow preserve the validity of the unclean master pointers in the system heap while also making them clean-- not an enviable task. Doing it by doing a near full restart would be easier, but still not an enviable task. (this is how A/UX does it-- it entirely destroys the mac environment and creates a new one from scratch) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (10/26/90)
In article <623@nrcvax.NRC.COM> neg@nrcvax.UUCP (Neal Goldsmith) writes: >In article <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> rubin@Apple.COM (Owen R. Rubin) writes: >[SET FLAME = SIMMER] > >Yea, but the SE/30 was sold as a 32-Bit machine, and my manual clearly states >that I can install up to 32MB of memory when 4MB simms become available. >(I know they are available now, but the manual was written a few years ago) > >Apple owes me at least the option to pay for a new set of ROMS! ROMS are not >the same as putting ABS brakes on a car. It is just a set of chips, more then >likely the same set that is in all of the machines since the IIci. It seems that the majority of net.world has forgotten about a little thing called SYSTEM SOFTWARE. Did you know that part of the function of SYSTEM SOFTWARE is to patch ROM routines that have been updated? Neat idea, huh? I'd love to know who said that your SE/030 wouldn't be able to run in 32 bit mode only if you got a ROM upgrade. Come on, folks. Let's not go crying over a bottle of spilled milk when it hasn't even been spilled yet. If Apple's System 7.0 doesn't let you run in 32bit mode because of your ROMs and they don't provide you a way of doing this, then you have a legitmate complaint (IMHO). But if it does let you run in 32bit mode, as is, then you get 32 bit compatability for FREE. (Yes, I know everyone hates that word... ) As of now, it seems this discussion is just a waste of bandwidth. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
north@Apple.COM (Don North) (11/03/90)
In article <89671.273049C8@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> FERDINAND.TOMAS@f43.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (FERDINAND TOMAS) writes: > >All I want is the _opportunity_ to upgrade my machine to current standards. I >will pay a reasonable amount of money to do so. I don't expect Apple to >take my SE/30 up to IIfx performance for free. > >One of the "exciting new features" of the SE/30 was that ROM SIMM, which was >added in order to make ROM upgrades easier, according to both media reporting >and Apple's own documentation. All I am asking is for Apple to deliver on >that implicit promise. Wait a minute, and stop and think for a bit. It is publically known that System 7.0 has gone beta to developers, and Apple has said that sometime early next year 7.0 will be available to the general user community. Now think again. What would you do in this situation... ? [Of course, I only speak for myself] -- Don North ----- Apple Computer, Inc. ----- Advanced Technology Group UUCP: ...!{voder,nsc,decwrl,sun}!apple!north CSNET: north@Apple.COM {{ Facts are facts, but any opinions expressed are my own, and *do not* }} {{ represent any viewpoint, official or otherwise, of Apple Computer, Inc.}}
emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Oct16.120133.15666@lth.se> sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m) writes: >In article <3325@orbit.cts.com> pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) writes: > Now that we have the new Macs here touting 32 bit addressing (in the future > with our new 32 bit clean ROMs), I begin to wonder if there will > finally be an upgrade for this ROM SIMM thingie that sits in my SE/30. > >I asked about that a couple of weeks ago and I didn't get any >real answer, well not from an Apple representative anyway. >I think it's time for Apple to offer us that upgrade or >else a lot of people including me will feel cheated. 8 megs >isn't always enough. >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Lars Sundstrom, Lund University, Department of Applied Electronics, | >| Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46-46121598 Fax:+46-46129948 | >| Internet: sund@tde.lth.se | >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Being the brave soul I am, I sent an AppleLink message to Randy Battat, who's the VP at Apple in charge of this. He had someone reply to me, and the reply was to the effect that "gee, we didn't know there was anyone who wanted it; we're a bit busy now, but we WILL look into it and let everybody know." I'm not going to quote the entire link message (bandwidth), but be assured that Apple is aware of our wants and has promised to at least research it. -- ------------ Mark Hartman uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!emmayche Internet:emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com CompuServe: >internet:emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com Applelink: N1083