bc@apple.com (bill coderre) (06/13/91)
It is not without considerable trepidation that I post this message, but I have been assured that it is AOK to do so. Please bear in mind that this address is meant for resolving issues that dealers cannot resolve: issues about 32 bit roms, or complaints about dealers, stuff like that. PLEASE do not burden these people with questions about System 7 (call the answer line) or programming (contact Developer Tech Support) or third-party software (unless the manufacturer is totally unwilling to help). That aside, if you would like to let Apple know where you stand on a major issue -- ie. 32 bit-clean roms -- or if you have an appropriate complaint (your dealer will not resolve a problem to your liking), please write to this address: Apple Customer Assistance Center 20525 Mariani Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Please be very specific and detailed about your problem. If you are wanting 32-bit clean ROMs, for example, explain WHY you need them, and how much you would pay to have them installed. If you hate your dealer, please provide a specific list of the steps you have taken to try to resolve the problem (talked to the manager, etc.) These people cannot work magic, but will try to find a satisfactory solution to your problems. bill coderre who was authorized by the ACAC to post this ps. The current stand on ROMs is that they are "monitoring" the situation, to see how many people want new ROMs, why they need them, and how important they are to the users. Remember that a ROM upgrade cannot be free, and might cause compatibility or configuration hassles for people that manage networks of Macs. Your input will be noted and listened to.
icapon@registry.adelaide.edu.au (Nick Capon) (06/13/91)
In article <53924@apple.Apple.COM> bc@apple.com (bill coderre) writes: > Remember that a ROM upgrade > ....... might cause compatibility or configuration hassles > for people that manage networks of Macs. Comparable, say, to upgrading to System 7 in the absence of Apple peripheral drivers :-) Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle??
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/13/91)
In article <53924@apple.Apple.COM>, bc@apple.com (bill coderre) writes: >ps. The current stand on ROMs is that they are "monitoring" the >situation, to see how many people want new ROMs, why they need them, >and how important they are to the users. Remember that a ROM upgrade >cannot be free, and might cause compatibility or configuration hassles >for people that manage networks of Macs. Your input will be noted and >listened to. Hey! An improvement! (I'm serious!) Rather than Apple (the "official PR" Apple, not the guys here on Usenet) simply stating, "Go buy an upgrade," we are actually hearing that careful consideration of the ROM issue is being made. Wonderful! Write to the address, folks, if you want to see a ROM upgrade. Be rational, be professional. But write. Even if you were on the NewROMs letter (lots of individual letters can make an impact). --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/13/91)
In article <3634@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, icapon@registry.adelaide.edu.au (Nick Capon) writes: >In article <53924@apple.Apple.COM> bc@apple.com (bill coderre) writes: >> Remember that a ROM upgrade >> ....... might cause compatibility or configuration hassles >> for people that manage networks of Macs. > >Comparable, say, to upgrading to System 7 in the absence of Apple >peripheral drivers :-) > >Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle?? More memory won't be a hassle. But 32-bit Cleanliness, when many major programs still aren't 32-bit Clean, can cause headaches. Think of the guy who manages a network of Macs in an office... If a ROM upgrade is available, he's got to worry about costs, the logistics of getting the upgrade, and then he has to make sure that all the apps/extensions/cdevs/etc. are 32-bit Clean. If they aren't, he has to go pester the manufacturer. Buy software upgrades. Install them. And if it's a shareware/freeware tool? Gotta find the author. Get an upgrade. What if there isn't an upgrade available? And what about all the folks who like to bring in things from home or off an online service? Any problems they have, they're going to come straight to their support guy - whether the software is "supported" by the organization or not. Reality. And, -right now-, the advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are a bit nebulous. Really, how many people in your office/environment use more than 8 MB? Would you want to try to convince the purchasing department to shell out a few thousand dollars to upgrade the ROMS of 20-30 Macs on the strength of "Well, it'll let everyone use more memory"? The advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are long-term. The people who control purchases and budgets very frequently see only the short-term - or, even when they see the long-term, they are forced to respond only to short-term needs. Now, if the potential ROM upgrade includes things like System 7 services and remote booting... In this current 24->32 transition stage, 32-Bit Cleanliness can be difficult to support in even the most tightly managed environment. But it will get easier as more software complies, and worth the trouble in the future. Hey, I'm all for 32-Bit Clean ROM upgrades, it's something that I believe Apple should do, but someone has to play Devil's Advocate. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.142124.465@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: |> In article <3634@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, icapon@registry.adelaide.edu.au (Nick Capon) writes: |> >In article <53924@apple.Apple.COM> bc@apple.com (bill coderre) writes: |> >> Remember that a ROM upgrade |> >> ....... might cause compatibility or configuration hassles |> >> for people that manage networks of Macs. |> > |> >Comparable, say, to upgrading to System 7 in the absence of Apple |> >peripheral drivers :-) |> > |> >Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle?? |> |> More memory won't be a hassle. But 32-bit Cleanliness, when many |> major programs still aren't 32-bit Clean, can cause headaches. Think |> of the guy who manages a network of Macs in an office... [Lots of reasons 32-bit cleanliness might break things] Don't forget, the 32-bit clean machines also support 24-bit mode (this is a switch in the Memory Control Panel on machines that support 32-bit mode). There should be no compatibility problem strictly related to 32-bitness if SE/30, IIx, IIcx machines were given ROMs essentially equivalent to the latest models. Of course there may be other compatibility problems, but surely no worse than adding an si or LC to the network... Maybe I should include this in my letter to Apple. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (06/18/91)
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: |>Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle?? | |More memory won't be a hassle. But 32-bit Cleanliness, when many |major programs still aren't 32-bit Clean, can cause headaches. Think |of the guy who manages a network of Macs in an office... | |And, -right now-, the advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are a bit |nebulous. Really, how many people in your office/environment use more |than 8 MB? Would you want to try to convince the purchasing |department to shell out a few thousand dollars to upgrade the ROMS of |20-30 Macs on the strength of "Well, it'll let everyone use more |memory"? The advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are long-term. The |people who control purchases and budgets very frequently see only the |short-term - or, even when they see the long-term, they are forced to |respond only to short-term needs. I just wanted to thank Jim Gaynor for a well-reasoned article explaining some of the problems caused by an upgrade process. There are people who will be hit hard by an upgrade -- especially mac site managers -- by the expense, complexity, and compatibility problems. I know that many still feel that an upgrade should be made available, and they should write to Apple (see my other message for the address) to voice their concerns. I believe that the jury's still out, so vote now. bill coderre
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) (06/20/91)
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: > gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > |>Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle?? > | > |More memory won't be a hassle. But 32-bit Cleanliness, when many > |major programs still aren't 32-bit Clean, can cause headaches. Think > |of the guy who manages a network of Macs in an office... > | > |And, -right now-, the advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are a bit > |nebulous. Really, how many people in your office/environment use more > |than 8 MB? Would you want to try to convince the purchasing > |department to shell out a few thousand dollars to upgrade the ROMS of > |20-30 Macs on the strength of "Well, it'll let everyone use more > |memory"? The advantages of 32-Bit Cleanliness are long-term. The > |people who control purchases and budgets very frequently see only the > |short-term - or, even when they see the long-term, they are forced to > |respond only to short-term needs. > > I just wanted to thank Jim Gaynor for a well-reasoned article > explaining some of the problems caused by an upgrade process. There > are people who will be hit hard by an upgrade -- especially mac > site managers -- by the expense, complexity, and compatibility > problems. The well-reasoned article suffers a bit by acting as if a ROM upgrade is somehow different than any other upgrade. All the problems mention above do indeed exist, but they exist just as much if the company goes out and buys brand new machines (or Apple upgrades for old machines). If you can't convince your purchasing department to upgrade the ROM's for 20-30 machines, then you will have no trouble at all if Apple supplied a ROM upgrade. You won't own the new ROM's, so they can't very well introduce new problems for you. What the well-reasoned article is really saying on that point is that some people don't need the new ROM's, which is certainly true. That's not the question however. The question is: For those people who *DO* need (or at least think they need) 32-bit addressing, what options is Apple giving them? Right now the option is to buy a new Mac, or an Apple upgrade that changes your old Mac to a newer Mac. This is particularly annoying for people who bought a Mac based on an Apple claim that those Macs *would* support the extra memory once the operating system could handle it. The operating system can now handle it, but the claim made by Apple (on the machines with "32-bit dirty" ROMs) turns out to be meaningless. What I'd like to see is a well-reasoned article explaining how buying a ROM upgrade (should one exist) is different than the same person going out and buying a new Mac in order to get the clean 32-bit addressing. I'm assuming a person will not get a ROM upgrade (should one exist) unless they feel they need 32-bit addressing. Another assumption I'm making (which may be flawed) is that any ROM upgrade would just provide the same ROM's that are in a Mac IIci (or any of the 32-bit machines). I don't expect Apple to come out with a brand new ROM which would be different than all the ROM's that currently exist. As such, the ROM's should not introduce any compatability problems other than those which would occur when a person buys a Mac IIci. - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@rpi.edu or gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton) (06/20/91)
In article <wz+l9v#@rpi.edu>, gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) writes: > Another assumption I'm making (which may be flawed) is that any ROM upgrade > would just provide the same ROM's that are in a Mac IIci (or any of the 32-bit > machines). I don't expect Apple to come out with a brand new ROM which would > be different than all the ROM's that currently exist. As such, the ROM's > should not introduce any compatability problems other than those which would > occur when a person buys a Mac IIci. > Definitely a flawed assumption. Each Mac has its own hardware peculularities which must be accomodated in its specific version of ROM. F'rinstance, the IIci has a weird memory map not found in a IIcx or SE30. It has built-in video, while these machines don't. I'm sure that at least a few of these differences manifest themselves as ROM code that would gag a non-IIci machine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Shotton Internet: cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu UUCP: ...!buster!brain!chuck "Your silly quote here." AppleLink: D1683 MacNet: shotton
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (06/21/91)
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) writes: > The question is: For those people who *DO* need (or at least think they need) > 32-bit addressing, what options is Apple giving them? Right now the option is > to buy a new Mac, or an Apple upgrade that changes your old Mac to a newer Mac. Let's not forget MODE-32. There's no reason to be so sniffy about refusing to consider 3rd-party products that do precisely what you wanted Apple to do. Remember also that the cost of a s/w-only patch is probably much, much less than that of cutting new ROMs. If you aren't willing to spend $99 on MODE-32, how likely are you to purchase a (more expensive) ROM upgrade? * Origin: (1:109/421.4218)
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (06/25/91)
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) writes:
The question is: For those people who *DO* need (or at least think
they need) 32-bit addressing, what options is Apple giving them?
Apple has not offered any options yet. They are soliciting input,
however, and your input is welcome.
What I'd like to see is a well-reasoned article explaining how buying
a ROM upgrade (should one exist) is different than the same person
going out and buying a new Mac in order to get the clean 32-bit
addressing. I'm assuming a person will not get a ROM upgrade (should
one exist) unless they feel they need 32-bit addressing.
This is not entirely true. It would be damn hard to make sure that a
IIcx with ROM "B" is no different than that machine with ROM "A".
Indeed, the definitions get fuzzy, because 32-bit mode is inherently
more buggy with application software that doesn't support it.
And many users would like NOT to have another "option" of difference
in the machine configuration. That much more complexity to debug.
Therefore, at major installed sites, there would be violent opposition
to upgrading, since it's a logistical problem, and if there were an
upgrade, it would have to be to all of the machines at once, so that
all the machines are "the same."
Another assumption I'm making (which may be flawed) is that any ROM
upgrade would just provide the same ROM's that are in a Mac IIci (or
any of the 32-bit machines). I don't expect Apple to come out with a
brand new ROM which would be different than all the ROM's that
currently exist.
This is a big flaw. Each machine has custom ROMs that make it "the
same" to the Toolbox. Thus, a IIcx absolutely cannot use IIci ROMs.
Currently, assuming that MODE-32 works well (I have NO info), it is a
great solution, since it's:
1) Cheaper than a ROM upgrade would be
2) User installable, without hardware downtime
3) Easily de-installed in case of compatibility problems
If you want to write Apple, go right ahead. They'll listen.
bill coderre
survived the layoffs, thank goodnessgaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/27/91)
In article <54285@apple.Apple.COM>, bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: > [in reference to the "Dirty" ROM debate...] > >And many users would like NOT to have another "option" of difference >in the machine configuration. That much more complexity to debug. >Therefore, at major installed sites, there would be violent opposition >to upgrading, since it's a logistical problem, and if there were an >upgrade, it would have to be to all of the machines at once, so that >all the machines are "the same." I do not agree with this logic, Bill. (Or, since you're playing Devil's Advocate, I would not agree with any person forwarding this logic as an argument). Why? 1) This is the "never-change" argument. Anyone who supports this logic would also,by extension of the logic, have to hold that typewriters or computers should never have been introduced into the office environment - because these new implements were "different" than currently installed base, and created new support challenges. 2) I defy you to show me a single "major installed site" in which the computer environment is completely homogenous. Where everyone is using the same model of computer, with the same RAM and HD and software. Where nobody is using a IIci, IIfx, or IIsi. 32-bit Clean ROMs are an investment in the useful lifespan of the CPU in question. Any organization that insists that internal computing never change will, eventually, go out of business. 3) Finally, why must the change be instantaneous? The change could be gradual, with new ROMs being installed in site machines over time, and the users running in 24-bit mode until the site was certain that all applications were 32-bit clean. When the time came that all apps and CPUs were 32-bit clean, all users could begin to run in 32-bit mode. >Currently, assuming that MODE-32 works well (I have NO info), it is a >great solution, since it's: > > 1) Cheaper than a ROM upgrade would be > 2) User installable, without hardware downtime > 3) Easily de-installed in case of compatibility problems Point 1) is uncertain. Points 2) and 3) are valid, and could be applied to an Apple-blessed-and-supported software solution. But there is a single, huge, disadvantage. MODE32 is 3rd Party software. There is no guarantee that it will work with System 7.1. There is no guarantee that it does not make some subtle change that will crash a totally Inside-Mac compliant application. It is the "right solution" but the wrong company. Hardware or software. It doesn't matter. The IIci/fx/si prove that 32-bit Cleanliness is possible in hardware. MODE32 and A/UX prove it can be done in software. But, either way, it is something that should be done by Apple Computer Inc. Users should not be forced to go scrambling to a 3rd party vendor to make use of the advertised and documented abilities of a piece of Apple hardware. >If you want to write Apple, go right ahead. They'll listen. I did. I will again. But I'm not a "major installed site." I'm not a Director of Computing at a Major University. I'm just "some guy" with an SE/30 who wants to know why I have to go to a Connectix to get full functionality out of my investment. >bill coderre >survived the layoffs, thank goodness Congratulations. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
tecot@momenta.com (Ed Tecot) (06/28/91)
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: > Another assumption I'm making (which may be flawed) is that any ROM > upgrade would just provide the same ROM's that are in a Mac IIci (or > any of the 32-bit machines). I don't expect Apple to come out with a > brand new ROM which would be different than all the ROM's that > currently exist. >This is a big flaw. Each machine has custom ROMs that make it "the >same" to the Toolbox. Thus, a IIcx absolutely cannot use IIci ROMs. That's not true. The newer ROMs, such as found in the IIfx can be used in less capable 68030 machines. ROM upgrades are simply a marketing decision, the technical problems were solved a long time ago. _emt
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (07/01/91)
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >In article <54285@apple.Apple.COM>, bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes: >> [in reference to the "Dirty" ROM debate...] >>Therefore, at major installed sites, there would be violent opposition >>to upgrading, since it's a logistical problem, and if there were an >>upgrade, it would have to be to all of the machines at once, so that >>all the machines are "the same." >2) I defy you to show me a single "major installed site" in which the >computer environment is completely homogenous. Where everyone is >using the same model of computer, with the same RAM and HD and >software. Where nobody is using a IIci, IIfx, or IIsi. 32-bit Clean Jeez yes. We have Plus's, SE's, an SE/30, II's, IIci's, and one of these days, something else. All sorts of different things going on here, different monitors, harddrives, cards... And all of this just in the CSci Department. Other Departments and Labs are the same way. -- Brian Aslakson <-= upsetting Pax Heinous since 1990. brian@cs.umn.edu (mail) aslakson@cs.umn.edu (talk) mac-admin@cs.umn.edu (Me!!)