yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) (03/29/91)
From: UTKVX::MCGUIRE "Michael A. McGuire, UTCC" 21-MAR-1991 07:55:57.43 Subj: 6.0.7 > > Everyone please be aware the Apple Computer has said that unless you have > a Mac Classic, Mac LC, or Mac IIsi YOU SHOULD NOT USE 6.0.7. It is known > to be buggy. 6.0.5 is the system of choice (we have run it on all macs > in many configs with NO problems since it came out.) ONLY USE 6.0.7 IF > YOU MUST otherwise use 6.0.5. Apple knows about the problems but > with 7.0 so close (May) they are not going to fix it. > > Michael McGuire > I got the message above from mac.digest, and was stunned! It implies that there will not be 6.0.8 to fix the bugs in 6.0.7. As a Mac LC owner I have learn to live with some of the bugs (although the bus errors are the most annoying). I bought the LC, knowing that it as a new machine it will have both hardware and software bugs and incompatibilities. BUT, I assumed that the situation would get better (i.e. the bugs will be fixed in a 6.0.8 patch release). If it is true that "Apple knows about the problems(bugs) but with 7.0 so close (May) they are not going to fix it". Is Apple trying to tell me that my only upgrade path is to trade-in my old set of bugs and incompatibilities in 6.0.7 for a new set of bugs and incompatibilities (i.e. System 7.0)? My plan has always been to move to 6.0.8, and wait for the first patch release of System 7.0 before the plunge. Please someone tell me that this rumor is totally untrue. - Or - Try to convince me that System 7.0 will have less bugs than 6.0.7, and will not use up more system resources, and will not be incompatible with more software, etc. etc. etc. =Mike p.s. I love my Mac, but hate the bugs. -- = Michael K. Yee -- yee@osf.org or uunet!osf.org!yee -- = OSF/Motif Development = "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." -- The Wizard of OZ
bskendig@beam.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (03/29/91)
In article <YEE.91Mar28122900@katana.osf.org> yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) writes: > My plan has always been to move to 6.0.8, and wait for the first > patch release of System 7.0 before the plunge. > > Please someone tell me that this rumor is totally untrue. > > - Or - > > Try to convince me that System 7.0 will have less bugs than 6.0.7, > and will not use up more system resources, and will not be > incompatible with more software, etc. etc. etc. I'll do the latter. System 7.0 is being written from the ground up. This means that it's not a collection of hacks on earlier versions of System Software to support new machines. It will not use up any more system resources than it needs. And I am SICK AND TIRED of people saying they're going to wait for some fictional 7.0.1 before they'll upgrade. Listen, folks -- System 7.0 is going through some MAJOR testing. Give Apple some credit, won't you? The first major distribution of System 7.0 was with the alpha 9 release back in the fall; since then, they've been smashing away at every bug they find. System 7.0b1 was finished except for cosmetic alterations and bug fixes; I'm now running 7.0b4, and I'm having less problems with it than I ever had with 6.0.7. If ANY release of System Software is going to ever be stable, System 7.0's the one. There are even a few old programs I have which bombed spectacularly under 6.0.7, only to run without a hitch under 7.0! This is NOT some weekend hack, peoples! This system release is being painstakingly designed and debugged. It's been in serious development for well over a year. As I've said in countless posts before which I'll be glad to forward to anyone who asks, System 7.0 is just too good to pass up while you wait for people to find bugs in it. Please, before you go criticising every little thing about System 7.0 -- and here I'm making reference to the people who made some silly fuss about the Control Panel being taken away -- TRY IT. Don't think that your judgements of what an operating system you've never seen will be like are more valid than those of a team of human interface experts who've been working on it for months on end. << Brian >> P.T.: I don't work for Apple. I don't have a single second of my life invested in this project. But it irks me to no end to see such an important advancement badmouthed so much here. | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | "It's not that I don't HAVE the work to *do* -- I don't DO the work I *have*."
luigi@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (John L Luigi Giasi) (03/29/91)
In article <7673@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@beam.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >And I am SICK AND TIRED of people saying they're going to wait for >some fictional 7.0.1 before they'll upgrade. Listen, folks -- System >7.0 is going through some MAJOR testing. Give Apple some credit, >won't you? The first major distribution of System 7.0 was with the >alpha 9 release back in the fall; Try even earlier than that (like April 1990) > since then, they've been smashing >away at every bug they find. System 7.0b1 was finished except for > >This is NOT some weekend hack, peoples! This system release is being >painstakingly designed and debugged. It's been in serious development >for well over a year. As I've said in countless posts before which >I'll be glad to forward to anyone who asks, System 7.0 is just too OK OK Brian, I agree with you that most people have been "Well I'll wait for a few patches to come out before it is stable." in thier attitude. But lets realize that the whole industry operates that way with every product (system software, applications, peripherals, cards, and machines)!!! It is hard to change people's minds when the entire computer industry has been "Well our NEXT version will take care of that!" for soo long. Then again, users of macs have a right to be upset, we have been waiting a long time... At this rate Apple will be making the Mac II GTzx(extended), the Cortland Plus, and the Granny Smith SE before System 7 gets out of beta! The whole vaporware hype mentality owns the industry and even when (and I applaud Apple for making sure 7.0 works efficiently and bugfree) I have been properly warned that 7.0 will be a long time coming, it has been frustrating. (Sorry, I know that it is completely unoriginal, but I just couldn't hold back the apple variety pun, it just overcame my keyboarding.) Luigi Giasi Luigi@rpi.edu PS Hell, I was pretty content with b1!!
francis@wolfman.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (03/29/91)
In article <-78fb5k@rpi.edu> luigi@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (John L Luigi Giasi) writes:
Then again, users of macs have a right to be upset, we have been waiting
a long time... At this rate Apple will be making the Mac II GTzx(extended),
the Cortland Plus, and the Granny Smith SE before System 7 gets out of beta!
The whole vaporware hype mentality owns the industry and even when (and I
applaud Apple for making sure 7.0 works efficiently and bugfree) I have been
properly warned that 7.0 will be a long time coming, it has been frustrating
Imagine Apple's frustration; admittedly, it's been long enough since
they first started talking about 7.0 that many have forgotten by now,
but back in May of 89, when 7.0 was first mentioned, Apple told people
about it because the Mac community at large was tired of getting no
information on what was coming from Apple themselves. Now, by
responding to the request for information, they've set themselves up
for this "So, where the hell is it! We've been waiting forever!"
stuff.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
--
R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edujeremym@chopin.udel.edu (Jeremy A Moskowitz) (03/29/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar28163947@wolfman.cis.ohio-state.edu> francis@wolfman.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) writes: >Imagine Apple's frustration; admittedly, it's been long enough since >they first started talking about 7.0 that many have forgotten by now, >but back in May of 89, when 7.0 was first mentioned, Apple told people >about it because the Mac community at large was tired of getting no >information on what was coming from Apple themselves. Now, by >responding to the request for information, they've set themselves up >for this "So, where the hell is it! We've been waiting forever!" >stuff. > >Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Exactly the same situation for us Amiga people... We've been hearing ":Sure... 2.0 in a couppla weeks... " that couppla weeks has turned into a Virtual (tm)1 lifetime... Yeesh... Some (like me) have the 2.0 on disk, then load it into RAM and send in our bug finds.. But I can surely simpathize for you maccies... I mean, if syste,m 7 supports all they say it will like virtual memory, and a command line interface - then it might very well be worth the wait. We all know our respective companies are trying to get our roms (or in your case the system file) as bug free as possible, hang tough guys... Footnotes: 1: Virtural is a really neeto product for the macintosh if I may say so.. :-) -jerm -- E Pluribus // Contacts: jeremym@brahms.udel.edu or jeremym@chopin.udel.edu or Unix // jeremym@freezer.acs.udel.edu -amiga clasic 2000- \\ // --->Monitor of comp.sys.amiga.emulations<--- \X/ 2001 Dalmations - My stars, its full of dogs...
james@netcom.COM (James L. Paul) (03/29/91)
I must be living in a cave!!!
This is the first I've heard about major bugs in 6.0.7! I certainly haven't
heard anything from Apple that states this, and haven't heard Apple
recommend 6.0.5 for the Classic, LC, and SI. (Of course, being an Apple
Partner, they don't tell me much, but that's another story. ;-)
It was my understanding (and last communication with Apple) that 6.0.7
_is_ recommended for the new machines, and even necessary. I'm not aware
of any major bugs, and have been using 6.0.7 on my own machine without
any problems. (IIci)
I don't want to imply that I know more than others on this topic, but
literally the reverse. What are the problems with 6.0.7? Who at Apple
said not to use it? This is simply the first I've heard of it, and would
like to know the facts.
(I could call Apple, but I'd rather wait until I know where this info
came from.)
--
James L. Paul
Internet: netcom!james@apple.com | AppleLink: D1231 | CompuServe: 72767,3436
UUCP: {apple,amdahl}!netcom!james | GEnie: J.PAUL | Voice: 415 377-1981
Packet: N6SIW@N6EEG.CA.USA.NA | Delphi: JLPaul | Home Fax: 415 377-0381wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (03/29/91)
In article <7673@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@beam.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >System 7.0b1 was finished except for >cosmetic alterations and bug fixes; I'm now running 7.0b4, and I'm >having less problems with it than I ever had with 6.0.7. If ANY >release of System Software is going to ever be stable, System 7.0's >the one. There are even a few old programs I have which bombed >spectacularly under 6.0.7, only to run without a hitch under 7.0! A member of Apple's Blue Meanies team, whose name I'd rather not give out because he wasn't speaking on behalf of the company and so on, told me that he thought 7.0b4 was more stable than 6.0.5 or 6.0.7. I'm running b4 right now and I tend to agree. I've had problems with one product, Farallon's SoundEdit 2.0.3, because it uses a customized Save dialog box. I've been assured that a new version will be available by 7.0's release, though. Go ahead and upgrade! If you keep using your Mac, you'll upgrade eventually anyway. -- 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 ******
gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (03/29/91)
To answer the original question, yes, the bugs in 6.0.7 will be fixed. But not in 6.0.8. The version that will be (backspace backspace) *IS* fixing the bugs of 6.0.7 is 7.0. Seriously, here again I agree, the 7.0b4 is less buggy than 6.0.7. I had no incompatibility problems with any of the application I use, and in fact less crash. The only problem I have is with VM and 32-bit adressing (but I can turn it off, and anyway there's nothing like that under 6.0). So upgrade to System Seven as soon as possible if you have a Mac with at least 2Mb of RAM (because MultiFinder is always turned on) and a Hard Disk (because running anything from a diskette is a pain). The system will work better and you will be able to do new things with it. Don't forget that System Seven is the first system software made by Apple that have been extensively tested by hundreds of developpers. The other releases were just poorly tested hacks. Arnaud. -- /======================//==========================================/ / Arnaud Gourdol. // On the Netland: Gourdol@imag.fr / / // Via AppleLink: Gourdol@imag.fr@INTERNET# / /======================//==========================================/
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar29.014842.12722@netcom.COM> james@netcom.COM (James L. Paul) writes: >I must be living in a cave!!! > >This is the first I've heard about major bugs in 6.0.7! I certainly haven't >heard anything from Apple that states this, and haven't heard Apple >recommend 6.0.5 for the Classic, LC, and SI. (Of course, being an Apple >Partner, they don't tell me much, but that's another story. ;-) > >It was my understanding (and last communication with Apple) that 6.0.7 >_is_ recommended for the new machines, and even necessary. I'm not aware >of any major bugs, and have been using 6.0.7 on my own machine without >any problems. (IIci) > >I don't want to imply that I know more than others on this topic, but >literally the reverse. What are the problems with 6.0.7? Who at Apple >said not to use it? This is simply the first I've heard of it, and would >like to know the facts. > >(I could call Apple, but I'd rather wait until I know where this info >came from.) Well, the only problem I noticed is that I had been getting a lot of bus errors and "trace mode errors" whatever that means. I switched back to 6.0.3 (I couldn't find a copy of 6.0.5 lying around) and all seems back to normal. Also, 6.0.7 seemed to break a few programs that used sound, like Tetris <grin>. BTW, that was on a Mac IIcx, not a new machine. Cheers, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |Show me the way to the cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |next whiskey bar... Send flames to /dev/null |-The Doors-
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/30/91)
In article <YEE.91Mar28122900@katana.osf.org> yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) writes: > >From: UTKVX::MCGUIRE "Michael A. McGuire, UTCC" 21-MAR-1991 07:55:57.43 >Subj: 6.0.7 >> >> Everyone please be aware the Apple Computer has said that unless you have >> a Mac Classic, Mac LC, or Mac IIsi YOU SHOULD NOT USE 6.0.7. It is known > > I got the message above from mac.digest, and was stunned! It > implies that there will not be 6.0.8 to fix the bugs in 6.0.7. As a That advice is totally wrong. The *ONLY* system version that Apple recommends for the LC, IIsi, and Classic is 6.0.7. This is from chart dated March 1991, which I just got. The reason is very simple. Each system has ROM-specific patches to fix ROM bugs. 6.0.7 is the only system that contains the patches for those 3 machines. Using 6.0.5 on a Classic, LC, or IIsi guarantees that you are operating with known bugs. 6.0.7 also contains the patches for all the other machines, so it can be used on any machine (Plus on up). In general, each incremental system release contains support for all machines. I don't know what the plans for 6.x are, but it's hard to imagine users all upgrading to System 7 immediately, so it seems to me that Apple will continue to support System 6 for the immediate future. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 3-PK Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
hamilton@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu (Jon Hamilton) (03/30/91)
james@netcom.COM (James L. Paul) writes: >I must be living in a cave!!! >This is the first I've heard about major bugs in 6.0.7! I certainly haven't >heard anything from Apple that states this, and haven't heard Apple >recommend 6.0.5 for the Classic, LC, and SI. (Of course, being an Apple >Partner, they don't tell me much, but that's another story. ;-) >It was my understanding (and last communication with Apple) that 6.0.7 >_is_ recommended for the new machines, and even necessary. I'm not aware >of any major bugs, and have been using 6.0.7 on my own machine without >any problems. (IIci) People around here have a tendency to like to jump up and down and scream a lot. I've been using 6.0.7 on my SE/30 since 6.0.7 became available, and have yet to have a single problem. Of course, I avoid Microsoft products like the plague, so I'm sure that helps :) >I don't want to imply that I know more than others on this topic, but >literally the reverse. What are the problems with 6.0.7? Who at Apple >said not to use it? This is simply the first I've heard of it, and would >like to know the facts. I suspect that most of the problems people have reported are not bugs in system software, but bugs in applications which didn't show themselves in previous system releases for one reason or another. Just because it used to work and it doesn't any more, you can't leap to the conclusion that the system software is broken. >(I could call Apple, but I'd rather wait until I know where this info >came from.) >-- >James L. Paul >Internet: netcom!james@apple.com | AppleLink: D1231 | CompuServe: 72767,3436 >UUCP: {apple,amdahl}!netcom!james | GEnie: J.PAUL | Voice: 415 377-1981 >Packet: N6SIW@N6EEG.CA.USA.NA | Delphi: JLPaul | Home Fax: 415 377-0381 -- Jon Hamilton hamilton@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu " I feel a lot more like I do now that I did before I got here " - can't remember who
jacobson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (R J Jacobson) (03/30/91)
I have a question about the "bugs" in 6.07. I have a IIsi at work that I am trying to install the Copernicus Point software on. I have installed the software fine from the same disk at home on my SE/30, but wanted to use the point at work when I them there instead. It installs with no error messages but the sotware will not connect correctly with my BBS (the boss for the point) it connects at "300" baud or at least that is what copernicus tells me although the modem still has the high speed light on. My question is about the 6.07. Could it be the problem I am encountering, just what are the bugs? And how might they relate to my point software not connecting or is there no obvious relationship. Just trying to check out all possibilities. I am checking with the developer also but have not talked to him yet. Please send me email if you can. Thanks BITNET jacobson@uiucux1 ARPANET jacobson%uiucux1@a.cs.uiuc.edu CSNET jacobson%uiucux1@uiuc.csnet USENET [ihnp4,pur-ee,convex]uiucdcs!uiucuxc!uiucux1!jacobson Russ Jacobson Illinois Geological Survey Champaign, IL 61820 217-244-2425
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) (03/31/91)
In article <YEE.91Mar28122900@katana.osf.org> yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) writes: >> Everyone please be aware the Apple Computer has said that unless you have >> a Mac Classic, Mac LC, or Mac IIsi YOU SHOULD NOT USE 6.0.7. It is known >> to be buggy. 6.0.5 is the system of choice (we have run it on all macs >> in many configs with NO problems since it came out.) ONLY USE 6.0.7 IF >> YOU MUST otherwise use 6.0.5. Apple knows about the problems but >> with 7.0 so close (May) they are not going to fix it. So, "Apple Computer Said" 6.0.7 is known to be buggy. Who at Apple Computer? I mean, this is real close to the nebulous "They Said" that we hear so much. Name names, or at least positions. Not "Highly Placed Sources." Not "Well Informed Individuals." Not "Persons In Authority." Otherwise, it's just another urban legend. >> Michael McGuire > I got the message above from mac.digest, and was stunned! It > implies that there will not be 6.0.8 to fix the bugs in 6.0.7. As a > Mac LC owner I have learn to live with some of the bugs (although > the bus errors are the most annoying). I bought the LC, knowing > that it as a new machine it will have both hardware and software > bugs and incompatibilities. BUT, I assumed that the situation would Better break this down into two categories, (1) bugs, and (2) incompatibilities. There's only one bug in 6.0.7 that I've seen (the occasional loss of mouse-up) and that exists in 6.0.5 as well. I've been running 6.0.7 on my Mac II since the day it was placed on apple.com. Needless to say, my wife has been running it on her IIsi since the day it arrived. We've been running it on all of the IIx's, SE's, and SE/30's here for the last 2 months. We have yet to find ANY incompatibilities with the commercial software we use. (If anyone's interested: MacWrite II, MacDraw II, Canvas, MS Word, Excel, Pagemaker 3.1 and 4.0, Think C, Cricket Graph, Cricket Draw, DeltaGraph, and more which I can't remember right off hand.) The only problem we've seen so far is with some games and INIT's, and involves the new Sound Manager. Specifically, if another program attempts to make a sound while one of these is running, the system hangs or crashes in some wild and wonderful way. (Two offenders that come to mind are SoundMaster and Armor Alley, although there are probably many others.) And, of course, there are the problems that are blamed on Apple, and their software in particular, by other companies. Like the brain-dead programmers who assumed 68020/30->coprocessor, instead of checking SysEnvirons, then blamed Apple for the problem. > get better (i.e. the bugs will be fixed in a 6.0.8 patch release). > If it is true that "Apple knows about the problems(bugs) but with > 7.0 so close (May) they are not going to fix it". Is Apple trying > to tell me that my only upgrade path is to trade-in my old set of > bugs and incompatibilities in 6.0.7 for a new set of bugs and > incompatibilities (i.e. System 7.0)? Say, I've got a Mac 128 that won't run some of the latest software. Is Apple telling me that my only choice is an upgrade? Certainly they are. Personally I don't want to see Apple getting into the business of maintaining multiple operating systems for the same set of machines. Anyway, chances are that most of your incompatibilties would remain in any patch release that didn't drop the new freatures in 6.0.7. After all, for the most part it's not Apple's problem. Which software are you having trouble with? Why don't you talk to the people who wrote it? If nothing else, post a list to the net, and we can see if whether the same problem exists on other configurations. > My plan has always been to move to 6.0.8, and wait for the first > patch release of System 7.0 before the plunge. My plan is to put System 7 on my machine immediately, then discover if it breaks anything I can't live without. If so, I drop back to the release I was using. If not, everything's fine. Same procedure I've followed with every release since I bought my Mac 128. It's worked fine so far, and I've seen very little software break (with the exceptions of games, particularly copy protected games, and stuff that used features my old machine didn't have, like RAM :-) .) And all of it could be replaced or upgraded almost immediately. > Please someone tell me that this rumor is totally untrue. If System 7 IS coming out mid-May, I certainly hope it IS true. > - Or - > > Try to convince me that System 7.0 will have less bugs than 6.0.7, > and will not use up more system resources, and will not be Probably depends on how big you want to make it. Much like the current system. Can't say, since I haven't seen it. > incompatible with more software, etc. etc. etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This you can bet on. Just like every release in the last 7 years. But I've got software that dates back to 1984 that works just fine on my wife's IIsi. Software can be written correctly. It's just easier not to. > =Mike Robert -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob
bskendig@bonnet.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.172229.193@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) writes: >In article <YEE.91Mar28122900@katana.osf.org> yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) writes: >So, "Apple Computer Said" 6.0.7 is known to be buggy. Who at Apple Computer? >I mean, this is real close to the nebulous "They Said" that we hear so much. >Name names, or at least positions. Not "Highly Placed Sources." >Not "Well Informed Individuals." Not "Persons In Authority." Otherwise, it's >just another urban legend. An `urban legend' backed up by dozens upon dozens of people here on UseNet. >There's only one bug in 6.0.7 that I've seen (the occasional loss of mouse-up) >and that exists in 6.0.5 as well. That seems to be a problem with the hardware, since it's only been reported (to my knowledge) with the IIsi and the LC. >I've been running 6.0.7 on my Mac II since the day it was placed on apple.com. >Needless to say, my wife has been running it on her IIsi since the day it >arrived. We've been running it on all of the IIx's, SE's, and SE/30's here >for the last 2 months. We have yet to find ANY incompatibilities with the >commercial software we use. Running vanilla 6.0.7 on my SE with no INITs other than what was put on my hard drive with the Installer, I had all sorts of spurious crashes with MacWrite II, Microsoft Word, SuperPaint, and a slew of other programs that had behaved fine under 6.0.5. I'm not sure why this was happening, but when I moved up to 7.0b1, the spurious crashes ended. >And, of course, there are the problems that are blamed on Apple, and their >software in particular, by other companies. Like the brain-dead programmers >who assumed 68020/30->coprocessor, instead of checking SysEnvirons, then >blamed Apple for the problem. Apple once told developers that they could safely assume any 020- or 030-based Macintosh would have a math coprocessor in it. Apparently they warned people about their change in policy while they were designing the LC and IIsi, but by then people were already using applications which assumed the coprocessor. >If System 7 IS coming out mid-May, I certainly hope it IS true. May 13, according to MacLeak. But, of course, if they find it needs more work, this date will be pushed back. Apple's not making any promises right now -- but wouldn't you prefer to have a bug-free System? >> incompatible with more software, etc. etc. etc. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This you can bet on. Just like every release in the last 7 years. >But I've got software that dates back to 1984 that works just fine >on my wife's IIsi. Software can be written correctly. It's just easier >not to. As I keep saying: there are many programs which died for me miserably under 6.0.7, and even a few that didn't work under 6.0.5, that work with varying degrees of success under 7.0. They're doing a good job with it. << Brian >> | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | "It's not that I don't HAVE the work to *do* -- I don't DO the work I *have*."
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) (03/31/91)
In article <7720@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@bonnet.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >In article <1991Mar30.172229.193@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) writes: >>In article <YEE.91Mar28122900@katana.osf.org> yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) writes: >>There's only one bug in 6.0.7 that I've seen (the occasional loss of mouse-up) >>and that exists in 6.0.5 as well. >That seems to be a problem with the hardware, since it's only been >reported (to my knowledge) with the IIsi and the LC. No, we've seen it here on our machines running 6.0.7 OR 6.0.5. It happens a great deal more often when running 6.0.7. The machines we've seen it on are II, IIx, and SE/30. No reports of it on the SE's so far. It seems to be especially prevalent on the IIx's, least so on the Mac II's. It hasn't been a big enough annoyance for me to start swapping mice, reloading systems, etc, so I can't narrow it down more than that. >Brian S. Kendig Robert -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (04/02/91)
In article <7720@idunno.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@bonnet.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: ...(lots of reasonable stuff that I'm skipping over)... >Apple once told developers that they could safely assume any 020- or >030-based Macintosh would have a math coprocessor in it. Apparently >they warned people about their change in policy while they were >designing the LC and IIsi, but by then people were already using >applications which assumed the coprocessor. I'm not too sympathetic with this particular example. Whatever *Apple* said about *Apple* products, there were third-party folks that were selling accelerator boards for years before the LC and the IIsi showed up. On those accelerator boards you *can* have a 68020 with no floating point coprocessor. I bought one such board in 1989, and that was because the company was closing out the line (ie, it wasn't some new and novel thing when I bought it). Certainly the larger companies must have had some customers who had such machines, in which case they would have had plenty of time to write software which wouldn't crash on a coprocessor-less 68020 machine. It particularly bugs me when Microsoft tries resort to this excuse. They don't seem to mind ignoring Apple's guidelines whenever the mood strikes them. But on this one they want to pretend they were somehow forced into the problem because of something Apple said. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu
andersm@prism.cs.orst.edu (Mark Anderson) (04/02/91)
I am wondering if anyone out there who has the new Communications Toolbox init
from Apple could binhex it and e-mail me a copy. I am trying to connect to
an IBM 4381 computer in order to complete programming assignments for a FORTRAN
class that I am taking here at Oregon State University. I have finally found
a communications program called 'CTerm' that has the needed terminal emulation
but it requires the Communications Toolbox init. If anyone can help me out, it
would be appreciated greatly... Thanks
Mark Anderson
andersm@prism.cs.orst.edu