C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) (12/12/90)
hi all.
My folks have a Rom01 GS ("woz") and i was planning on getting some of
this cool stuff from tybalt.caltech.edu and playing with it over break.
I was wondering what the differences between rom01 and rom03 are. I
took home "miniprix" over xgiving and couldn't get that to work, so i
assume that some of the stuff will only run on one or the other (?).
thankx
greg hodgdon c489030@umcvmb.missouri.edunrunyon%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (The Third Bard) (12/12/90)
In article <9012120502.AA02196@apple.com> C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) writes: >hi all. >My folks have a Rom01 GS ("woz") and i was planning on getting some of >this cool stuff from tybalt.caltech.edu and playing with it over break. >I was wondering what the differences between rom01 and rom03 are. I >took home "miniprix" over xgiving and couldn't get that to work, so i >assume that some of the stuff will only run on one or the other (?). > thankx > > greg hodgdon c489030@umcvmb.missouri.edu Organization: University of Utah CS Dept In article <9012120502.AA02196@apple.com> C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) writes: >hi all. >My folks have a Rom01 GS ("woz") and i was planning on getting some of >this cool stuff from tybalt.caltech.edu and playing with it over break. >I was wondering what the differences between rom01 and rom03 are. I >took home "miniprix" over xgiving and couldn't get that to work, so i >assume that some of the stuff will only run on one or the other (?). > thankx > > greg hodgdon c489030@umcvmb.missouri.edu Well, usually the incompatible is in the ROM 3 machines. Actually though, I have a ROM 1 'Woz' Machine, and mini-Prix works on it...not that mini-Prix is worth it. Personally I think it is the worst thing put out by FTA. Back to differences though...ROM 3 was a standard 1 Meg machine and had some minor hardware differences. The major difference was that it was quite incompatible with software that had already been put out. Neil - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil M. Runyon |Apple IIgs WOZ edition University of Utah - CS Dept | Go Orioles! 4 months until Spring Training... nrunyon@peruvian.utah.edu | How 'bout a game of Xtrek???
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/12/90)
C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) writes: >I was wondering what the differences between rom01 and rom03 are. I >took home "miniprix" over xgiving and couldn't get that to work, so i >assume that some of the stuff will only run on one or the other (?). Miniprix is a half-baked demo that barely works. Don't bother. Everything on Tybalt works with the ROM 1. Everything but photonix works with the ROM 3. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/12/90)
nrunyon%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (The Third Bard) writes: > Back to differences though...ROM 3 was a standard 1 Meg machine and >had some minor hardware differences. The major difference was that it was >quite incompatible with software that had already been put out. Wrong point of view -- the software that was out was incompatible with the ROM 3 because they didn't follow Apple's guidelines (which were originally hard to obtain and still are for the FTA -- the manuals make how much sense in english, guess how much sense they make to native Frenchmen). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/13/90)
In article <9012120502.AA02196@apple.com> C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) writes: >I was wondering what the differences between rom01 and rom03 are. I >took home "miniprix" over xgiving and couldn't get that to work, so i >assume that some of the stuff will only run on one or the other (?). For the most part, applications that follow Apple's programming guidelines will work on either ROM 01 or ROM 03 equally well. The main functional differences are that ROM 03 has a more flexible slot assignment scheme (of no interest to typical applications), ROM 03 has more ToolKits wired into ROM (versus loaded from the System Disk), and ROM 03 machines come with more on-board RAM (1.125MB total vs. 256KB for ROM 01). Most GS- specific applications require more than 256KB of RAM; 1.125MB is enough for most (but not all). More significant differences lie in the various releases of the System Disk (GS/OS). Version 5.0.3 is the latest release, with 5.0.4 rumored to be imminent. Newer versions offer features that older versions didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail if you try to execute it using an old System Disk.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/13/90)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <9012120502.AA02196@apple.com> C489030@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Greg Hodgdon) writes: >Disk (GS/OS). Version 5.0.3 is the latest release, with 5.0.4 rumored >to be imminent. Apple's PR Release for Hypercard GS sez that HCGS will REQUIRE 5.0.4. 5.0.3 has some really obscure low-memory-condition bugs that Apple intends to fix pronto. > Newer versions offer features that older versions >didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail >if you try to execute it using an old System Disk. Not if you check first by calling GetVersion ($202A). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec13.090059.21608@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >> Newer versions offer features that older versions >>didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail >>if you try to execute it using an old System Disk. >Not if you check first by calling GetVersion ($202A). Why, does calling GetVersion somehow magically make missing "future features" appear? Wow, what an operating system!
meekins@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (timothy lee meekins) (12/14/90)
In article <14731@smoke.brl.mil> you write: >In article <1990Dec13.090059.21608@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>> Newer versions offer features that older versions >>>didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail >>>if you try to execute it using an old System Disk. >>Not if you check first by calling GetVersion ($202A). > >Why, does calling GetVersion somehow magically make missing "future >features" appear? Wow, what an operating system! What Todd is trying to say is that if a program knows it needs a more recent version of the O/S (or Tools) it should call GetVersion and safely exit if the version is too old. The reason he says this is because too many program require recent O/S yet, crash if not available w/o telling the user why it is crashing. Everyone ends up thinking it doesn't work on ROM 3 or theyt don't have enough memory...
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (12/14/90)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Dec13.090059.21608@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>> Newer versions offer features that older versions >>>didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail >>>if you try to execute it using an old System Disk. >>Not if you check first by calling GetVersion ($202A). >Why, does calling GetVersion somehow magically make missing "future >features" appear? Wow, what an operating system! Very funny. I was referring to the fact that GetVersion allows the application to put up a nice box saying "yuck! you're still using System 3.0! Go Get 5.0.4 or something even more recent! (OK)" instead of just barfing. This is what GetVersion is FOR -- Apple doesn't put that kind of call in just so you can write cute little DA's that tell the system version. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec14.061231.1470@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: -gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: ->In article <1990Dec13.090059.21608@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: ->>> Newer versions offer features that older versions ->>>didn't, so if an application depends on such new features it will fail ->>>if you try to execute it using an old System Disk. ->>Not if you check first by calling GetVersion ($202A). ->Why, does calling GetVersion somehow magically make missing "future ->features" appear? Wow, what an operating system! -Very funny. I was referring to the fact that GetVersion allows the application -to put up a nice box saying "yuck! you're still using System 3.0! Go Get 5.0.4 -or something even more recent! (OK)" instead of just barfing. I think most of us would consider that such behavior constitutes failure of the application under that version of the system disk. Remember what the original question was.