witkowsk@optilink.UUCP (Dave Witkowski) (01/04/91)
From article <1991Jan2.180849.26777@csn.org>, by kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Andy Y.A. Kuo): > > From the Feb. 1991 issue of MacUser, page 13(reprint without permission): > > "The operating system has been built in to the Classic's ROM ever since > the Classic started shipping back in October. To access it, hold down > Control-Option-X-O when you turn on your machine. Your Classic will > then boot from a ROM-based RAM disk....." > Sounds wierd to me. The number of changes that Apple makes to the Mac OS, plus the pending upgrade to system 7.0 makes having a ROM OS a waste of time and material. You *might* get six months max use out of the ROM version, then it would be obsolete. Apple may be confused at times but they don't make more work or expense for themselves than they have to. A ROM large enough to hold the OS would be much more expensive than the 256K version used on the SE. David Witkowski optilink!witkowsk@uunet.uu.net
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (01/04/91)
by witkowsk@optilink.UUCP (Dave Witkowski): | Sounds wierd to me. The number of changes that Apple makes to | the Mac OS, plus the pending upgrade to system 7.0 makes | having a ROM OS a waste of time and material. You *might* get | six months max use out of the ROM version, then it would be | obsolete. | | Apple may be confused at times but they don't make | more work or expense for themselves than they have to. A ROM | large enough to hold the OS would be much more expensive than | the 256K version used on the SE. | | David Witkowski | optilink!witkowsk@uunet.uu.net I don't think anyone would claim that the ROM drive in the Classic (it's there, I've used it) is useful by itself. It's about as stripped as a system couldbe, in fact. If you think about the very few files included on that ROM disk, you'll see what _I_ think is a clue of things to come... the AppleShare chooser panel is there and sure enough you can have it boot off the ROM disk and mount the fileserver of your choice. Now if sometime in the near (relatively) future, AppleShare supported some sort of switchlaunching or remote booting, then you COULD have a fully functional system. It is my belief that this is what Apple is planning. I suspect, but have not proven, the existence of similar ROM disk in the other new Macs. If I were trying to decide whether to buy a bunch of SE's or Classics for a generic computer lab, I think I'd choose the Classics given reasonably similar pricing. Keep your fingers crossed and Apple may again do something that everyone will appreciate rather than curse. 1/2 :-) -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm a newcomer here, but does the |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | net ever lay any argument to rest?" | U | - Ackphtth | -- dan herrick
bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu (Bill Dugan) (01/04/91)
In article <1991Jan4.055534.6124@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: (...comment about smallness of ROM drive in Classic deleted...) >... the AppleShare chooser panel is there and sure enough you >can have it boot off the ROM disk and mount the fileserver of your >choice. Now if sometime in the near (relatively) future, AppleShare >supported some sort of switchlaunching or remote booting, then you COULD >have a fully functional system. It is my belief that this is what Apple >is planning. I suspect, but have not proven, the existence of similar >ROM disk in the other new Macs. (...pricing comment deleted...) According to the latest MacWeek, the Mac LC has a boot-off-the-ROM capability already in ROM. Apparently you must first set certain parts of the PRAM appropriately and then it will look for places on the network to boot. We must assume that this will happen over Ethertalk rather than LocalTalk due to speed requirements. Also apparently (I have no LC to prove any of this), the LC has a strange switch in the middle of the motherboard that has *something* to do with this mysterious capability of the future. One can only clasp one's hands and await the future. bill (bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu)
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (01/05/91)
In article <2784581A.20126@orion.oac.uci.edu>, bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu (Bill Dugan) writes: |> In article <1991Jan4.055534.6124@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: |> (...comment about smallness of ROM drive in Classic deleted...) |> >... the AppleShare chooser panel is there and sure enough you |> >can have it boot off the ROM disk and mount the fileserver of your |> >choice. Now if sometime in the near (relatively) future, AppleShare |> >supported some sort of switchlaunching or remote booting, then you COULD |> >have a fully functional system. It is my belief that this is what Apple |> >is planning. I suspect, but have not proven, the existence of similar |> >ROM disk in the other new Macs. [...] |> According to the latest MacWeek, the Mac LC has a boot-off-the-ROM |> capability already in ROM. Apparently you must first set certain parts |> of the PRAM appropriately and then it will look for places on the network |> to boot. We must assume that this will happen over Ethertalk rather than |> LocalTalk due to speed requirements. Also apparently (I have no LC to |> prove any of this), the LC has a strange switch in the middle of the |> motherboard that has *something* to do with this mysterious capability |> of the future. Of course, you don't _need_ a complete System to boot off a networked server. All you need is a simple bootup monitor, capable of looking for a server and downloading bootstrap code. Typical unix workstations are set up like this. Presumably the almost-complete System was put in the Clasic ROM simply because there was space for it, and this is a quicker way of getting the required functionality. So: don't waste your time looking for a version of the System in the LC ROMs. There's a pretty good chance there isn't one. (I doubt very much that it would fit: remember, the LC, unlike the Classic, has colour QuickDraw.) -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
tecot@momenta (Ed Tecot) (01/05/91)
witkowsk@optilink.UUCP (Dave Witkowski) writes: >From article <1991Jan2.180849.26777@csn.org>, by kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Andy Y.A. Kuo): >> From the Feb. 1991 issue of MacUser, page 13(reprint without permission): >> >> "The operating system has been built in to the Classic's ROM ever since >> the Classic started shipping back in October. To access it, hold down >> Control-Option-X-O when you turn on your machine. Your Classic will >> then boot from a ROM-based RAM disk....." > >Sounds wierd to me. The number of changes that Apple makes to >the Mac OS, plus the pending upgrade to system 7.0 makes >having a ROM OS a waste of time and material. You *might* get >six months max use out of the ROM version, then it would be >obsolete. Makes sense to me. It's enough to bootstrap so that you can access a file server; then you can run anything you want. >Apple may be confused at times but they don't make >more work or expense for themselves than they have to. A ROM >large enough to hold the OS would be much more expensive than >the 256K version used on the SE. Not really. Using 256K parts instead of 128K parts probably only adds about a dollar or two to the cost. The major expense is in the package (which doesn't change) and the software (which already has been written). _emt
kanefsky@cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) (01/07/91)
In article <2784581A.20126@orion.oac.uci.edu> Bill Dugan <bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu> writes: > >According to the latest MacWeek, the Mac LC has a boot-off-the-ROM >capability already in ROM. Apparently you must first set certain parts >of the PRAM appropriately and then it will look for places on the network >to boot. We must assume that this will happen over Ethertalk rather than >LocalTalk due to speed requirements. Also apparently (I have no LC to >prove any of this), the LC has a strange switch in the middle of the >motherboard that has *something* to do with this mysterious capability >of the future. Nope, the switch on the motherboard simply resets the PRAM. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@cs.umn.edu