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"
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/16/91)
Apologies for wasted bandwidth... To "spam@merit.edu": Mail (including the list verfication message) does not reach you at spam@merit.edu. Please re-subscribe to the list using a known "good" email address. -- 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"
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/17/91)
I'm impressed. I announced this list about two and a half hours ago, and already have 30 people on it. That shows me two things: - people are interested. - News propogates -fast-! <grin> -- 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.
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (04/17/91)
In article <0094737E.20BFEEA0@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: 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 Can you say "class action suit," boys and girls? -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
markj.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Mark Rosen) (04/17/91)
Though it's not an emergency or anything, I feel cheated when Apple's advertisements praised the eventual ability of using more than 16 Megs of RAM, and also praised the socketed ROMs. Also, remember that it was only a few years ago that 128K seemed like a boatful of RAM. How quickly we forget. Those of us with IIcx's don't want to be left by the wayside. Come on Apple, get us some reasonably priced ROM upgrades. I mean, what's the big deal? Mark mrosen@ruccas.rutgers.edu
gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) (04/17/91)
In article <sN2i13w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu>, markj.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Mark Rosen) writes: > [...] Come on > Apple, get us some reasonably priced ROM upgrades. I mean, what's the > big deal? They might be afraid of creating a lot of trouble for themselves w.r.t. clones, if they start selling (the latest and best) ROMs... Just a thought. - Gerhard -- -> Gerhard Mehldau Dept. of Computer Science internet: gerhard@cs.arizona.edu University of Arizona uucp: {cmcl2,noao,uunet}!arizona!gerhard Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. voice: +1 (602) 621-4632
gaynor@hpuxa.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/17/91)
In article <0094737E.20BFEEA0@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: > 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 don't either, John. In fact, I've only got 2 Mb on my SE/30, and live quite well with that. But there are people who -do- use that much memory (though it's difficult for me to see -how- <grin>), and right now they have to buy a whole new machine. That's not right, considering that a big selling point of the SE/30 and IIcx were their easily-replacable ROM SIMMs. > 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. If not now, when? <grin> It's not urgent. Now. But a two years down the line, when the latest and greatest requires 32-bit Clean ROMs, do you think Apple is going to take the idea of producing an upgrade seriously? Who knows where DOS users would be if they complained en masse about the 640k limit 4 or 5 years ago? (bad comparison, I know) If we get this thing underway -now-, and get enough support, we may have an actual product in a year. So we start now, while the SE/30 is still part of Apple's lineup, the IIcx is still widely used, and the topic of ROMs is high on everyone's mind. Oh, and as for the class-action suit idea, I don't really think it would work. The 16 meg limit is for the Finder. The memory above is accessible, and specialized software could be written to turn it into a RAMdisk or whatever, but it can't be Finder memory. So, technically, the memory is usable. And law is full of technicalities. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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..." _|
gaynor@hpuxa.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (04/17/91)
In article <2025@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) writes: > >They might be afraid of creating a lot of trouble for themselves w.r.t. >clones, if they start selling (the latest and best) ROMs... Well, we're talking an upgrade here, so I would think that they'd be available only with the trade-in of your old ROMs, and that they'd have to be installed by an Authorized Apple Service Being. -- 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"
jgs@merit.edu (John Scudder) (04/17/91)
Come to think of it, I think that there is at least one precedent for ROM upgrades. This had to do with a bug in the original Mac II ROMs, which Apple would swap for you gratis if you asked. Unfortunately, I can't for the life of me recall the nature of the bug except that for most people it was rather obscure (maybe it only showed up under A/UX?). Does anyone recall the details of this? Note also that the Mac II ROMs are socketed, not SIMMs, but were swapped nonetheless. It's quite easy to swap a socketed chip, really. Does any Mac have soldered-on ROMs, or are they all either socketed or SIMMs and therefore at least theoretically upgradeable? --John -- ** John Scudder ** Merit/NSFNET ** jgs@merit.edu ** no amusing quote ** ** Disclaimer: I speak for myself, not Merit. **
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (04/17/91)
In an article gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) rambles: >> Apple, get us some reasonably priced ROM upgrades. I mean, what's the >> big deal? >They might be afraid of creating a lot of trouble for themselves w.r.t. >clones, if they start selling (the latest and best) ROMs... That's probably not a big issue. Apple can simply offer a trade in offer for the ROMs to ensure they get them back. Like, charge $1100 for the new ROMs, and if you buy them, you get $1000 back on your original ROMs. (I just made these numbers up, but you get the idea...) - Chris =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: TfChris WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop)
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"
dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (04/18/91)
In article <2025@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) writes: >In article <sN2i13w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu>, markj.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Mark Rosen) writes: > >> [...] Come on >> Apple, get us some reasonably priced ROM upgrades. I mean, what's the >> big deal? > >They might be afraid of creating a lot of trouble for themselves w.r.t. >clones, if they start selling (the latest and best) ROMs... > >Just a thought. > Yes, it's a thought. However, they could control that very easily by allowing only 1 ROM upgrade per serial number (if they upgraded the upgrade, they could require a tradein, if your serial number already was listed as having purchased a ROM upgrade). Don't write telling me that this would need work, etc. Yes, that's true but it's the least they can do for loyal (read: we've spent many $$$$) customers. Of course, they might not be required to do this, but it would be a gesture of good will to the users of the Macs that are affected. Besides, I'm sure that most of us who got (perhaps even purchased) a ROM upgrade would not be interested in selling the ROM, losing our functionality for such a small amount of money. And yes, I know all about copies. Please. I'm sure it's already possible to illegally copy a Mac ROM. I don't think that Apple would be contributing to this by upgrading their paying customers. Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. internet: dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar -- Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. internet: dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (04/18/91)
What was that address for the list again. It looked like a good internet address, but my mailer choked on it, host unknown. al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
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 <1991Apr18.144244.19981@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > >What was that address for the list again. It looked like a good internet >address, but my mailer choked on it, host unknown. Subscription requests: newroms-l-request@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu The Mailing List: newroms-l@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu And I know it's a good address... after all, I run the site! As a bit of trivia, over 180 people have subscribed to the list thus far, and we're working with MacWorld and MacWEEK on getting something printed about the whole thing... -- 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"
davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr17.125051.27864@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, jgs@merit.edu (John Scudder) writes: > Come to think of it, I think that there is at least one precedent for ROM > upgrades. This had to do with a bug in the original Mac II ROMs, which > Apple would swap for you gratis if you asked. Unfortunately, I can't for > the life of me recall the nature of the bug except that for most people > it was rather obscure (maybe it only showed up under A/UX?). Does anyone > recall the details of this? > The early Mac II ROMs couldn't switch into 32-bit mode to access the EPROMS of NuBus boards that actually have 16 Mbyte address spaces. This means that the Slot Manager would not see the board and all the calls would return an error. --Russell
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" | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
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