curfmanm@cas.orst.edu (Matthew Curfmanm) (05/13/91)
To those who share the opinion that there is a conspiracy because Apple hasn't
formally recognized the need for an upgrade for non-32 bit clean machines,
may I suggest that perhaps Apple has their mind on other things, like
actualy getting System 7 out the door. and shipping.
Perhaps after 7 has been released, Apple will address the other housekeeping
tasks, such as a ROM upgrade.
I for one don't understand what all the fuss is about at this point in the
game :)
24-bit happy with 7.0fc2
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt Curfman Oregon State University
curfmanm@cas.orst.edu Extension Computing Technology Unit
Standard Disclaimer Appliesawessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.220920.18749@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> curfmanm@cas.orst.edu (Matthew Curfmanm) writes: >To those who share the opinion that there is a conspiracy because Apple hasn't >formally recognized the need for an upgrade for non-32 bit clean machines, >may I suggest that perhaps Apple has their mind on other things, like >actualy getting System 7 out the door. and shipping. Apple already has 32-bit clean ROMs. It shouldn't take that much development time to produce an actual product. The effort to get 7.0 out and a hypothetical upgrade shouldn't have to compete much for the same resources. >Perhaps after 7 has been released, Apple will address the other housekeeping >tasks, such as a ROM upgrade. Until that time, I'll feel free to gripe. It is loose ends like the 32-bit clean question that makes Apple management look unfocused. If I've got a bunch of Mac II-class machines lined up for 7.0 installation, I'm going to be rather annoyed that some of them don't seem to have accessto the memory that 7.0 was going to open up. >I for one don't understand what all the fuss is about at this point in the >game :) > >24-bit happy with 7.0fc2 Good for you...
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.220920.18749@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> curfmanm@cas.orst.edu (Matthew Curfmanm) writes: >To those who share the opinion that there is a conspiracy because Apple hasn't >formally recognized the need for an upgrade for non-32 bit clean machines, >may I suggest that perhaps Apple has their mind on other things, like >actualy getting System 7 out the door. and shipping. I don't feel that there is a conspiracy -- I just feel it is irresponsible for the company not to answer the question to their (loyal) customer's satisfaction. Additionally, in a corporation with (I believe) hundreds to thousands of employees, not all are overwhelmed with details of System 7. In fact, wouldn't this be considered a hardware issue, and thus coming from an entirely different group? >Perhaps after 7 has been released, Apple will address the other housekeeping >tasks, such as a ROM upgrade. Again, they certainly have different teams handling different projects, and it isn't inconceivable for Apple to release two or more product announcements at the same time. If they can release three new machines, kill three others, release new printers and plug in boards, all at the same time, they can work on System 7 and new ROM SIMMs at the same time. >I for one don't understand what all the fuss is about at this point in the >game :) 1. I looked forward to this upgrade for a long time, and I want it at the least to provide everything Apple promised in the promotionals. It's like buying a car that advertised free cassette and four speakers and getting AM radio and one speaker, middle mounted. You complain and they say, 'too bad'. 2. The time to fix something that's wrong is before you need it. - Gary Goldberg Census Bureau/DIR/SIRS AOL:OgGreeb cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (05/18/91)
cs421317 writes in a message to All C> 1. I looked forward to this upgrade for a long time, and I want C> it at the least to provide everything Apple promised in the promotionals. C> It's like buying a car that advertised free cassette and four C> speakers and getting AM radio and one speaker, middle mounted. C> You complain and they say, 'too bad'. C> 2. The time to fix something that's wrong is before you need C> it. What did they promise you that they haven't delivered? Please go back and look at the promotional material before you answer this. I don't ever recalling Apple saying that the II would ever be able to use more than 8 megs under the System. Nor is something "broken." Everything works just like it was advertised. I too hope Apple makes ROM upgrades available but lets stop the empty claims that Apple told you you could address 4 gigabytes of RAM. From the ads and other literture I've looked at, they never made any promise to upgrade ROMs or that the existing ROMs would permit you to go beyond 8 megs on a II and 16 on some of the later machines. * Origin: White Mailer Test Point (1.0d6) (1:282/22.510)
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (05/21/91)
In article <674629203.7@macgate.fidonet> Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: >What did they promise you that they haven't delivered? Please go back and look at the promotional material before you answer this. I don't ever recalling Apple saying that the II would ever be able to use more than 8 megs under the System. Nor is something "broken." Everything works just like it was advertised. > >I too hope Apple makes ROM upgrades available but lets stop the empty claims that Apple told you you could address 4 gigabytes of RAM. From the ads and other literture I've looked at, they never made any promise to upgrade ROMs or that the existing ROMs would permit you to go beyond 8 megs on a II and 16 on some of the later machines. [sorry, I don't feel like sticking returns at the end of all of the lines; all of the above text is quoted] This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A: Technical Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page 88): Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs with higher density DRAM chips become available; additional expandability through NuBus slots. I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac II manuals. Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature. Lawrence Miller
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May20.235050.9248@midway.uchicago.edu> lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes: >This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A: Technical >Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page 88): > >Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs with higher > density DRAM chips become available; additional expandability through > NuBus slots. > >I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac II manuals. > >Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature. > >Lawrence Miller Does it say "Under the MacOS Known as the Finder"? The fact that you can access this much memory under A/UX would seem to satisfy this claim. Loophole, but there. jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/22/91)
In article <17981@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: >In article <1991May20.235050.9248@midway.uchicago.edu> lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes: >>This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A: Technical >>Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page 88): >> >>Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs with higher >> density DRAM chips become available; additional expandability through >> NuBus slots. >> >>I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac II manuals. > >Does it say "Under the MacOS Known as the Finder"? The fact that you >can access this much memory under A/UX would seem to satisfy this >claim. > >Loophole, but there. It's a very far-fetched loop-hole. A/UX is NOT the native operating system of the machine. One can safely assume that a computer's manual will describe the native operating system unless explicitly stated otherwise. The manual from which the above memory quote is taken does indeed describe the Macintosh operating system, not A/UX. Supposedly, Macintosh programs running on 32-bit-dirty machines have the same RAM restrictions under A/UX as they do under the Macintosh OS, so the loophole is invalid anyway. This whole thing is most likely a case of the documentation team not being told the whole story by the engineers, and of circumstances changing over time like they always do. I think we should all just wait and see what Apple does in the coming months, instead of droning on and on and on and on and on about what Apple promised or didn't promise and what it should or shouldn't do. And another thing: the Finder is a SHELL. Repeat: the Finder is a SHELL. The Finder is not an operating system, any more than 'csh' is an operating system. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ w c+ g+ k s(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (05/23/91)
In article <17981@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: >Does it say "Under the MacOS Known as the Finder"? I should hope not. The Macintosh operating system is *not* the Finder. The Finder is simply an application running under the operating system that allows you to launch other programs, move and copy files, etc. (Of course, Apple contributed to this confusion when it introduced Multifinder, which is an operating system. Fortunately, the name "Multifinder" is no longer used for the multitasking operating system in System 7.)
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/23/91)
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes:
LRM> This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A:
LRM> Technical Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page
LRM> 88):
LRM> Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs
LRM> with higher density DRAM chips become available; additional
LRM> expandability through NuBus slots.
LRM> I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac
LRM> II manuals.
LRM> Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature.
Au contraire. Mr. Spencer knows _exactly_ of what he speaks; he _has_ read the manuals. He read exactly what you read: that the machine, the hardware, your SE/30 sitting on a table, can physically accept 128MB of RAM. What Mr. Spencer sees is what I see, and what you are overlooking completely: that Apple never made any statements of any kind concerning the conditions under which that lump of plastic and metal and chips can actually use the 128MB of RAM. Go back and read your manual, sir. Better yet
, read what I've quoted you as repeating from your manual. Apple makes no warrantees concerning how you can use that memory. Go forth and get A/UX. Use it all. But Apple never, ever made any claims that its Macintosh operating system would ever take advantage of it all in your SE/30.
So, read it first, consider it for awhile, _then_ post. Don't post, then read. Wastes bandwidth.
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGjas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.172523.16015@convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <17981@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes: > >>Does it say "Under the MacOS Known as the Finder"? > >I should hope not. The Macintosh operating system is *not* the Finder. >The Finder is simply an application running under the operating system >that allows you to launch other programs, move and copy files, etc. >(Of course, Apple contributed to this confusion when it introduced >Multifinder, which is an operating system. Fortunately, the name >"Multifinder" is no longer used for the multitasking operating >system in System 7.) > Great. Your nitpicking has resulted in pointing out that I used the more familiar term. would "under the operating system known as the System" been more appropriate? Probably. Less understandable. Probably. Have you responded to the substance of the post? No. Does A/UX use the ROMs? If so, then it's just as "native" as MacOS. Maybe not the first, but it's an OS available from Apple that runs on the Mac and delivers all of the promises. That you can't run "Mac applications" is a follish assertion. What is a Mac application? A program running on the Mac, yes? If you limit it to programs *only* running on the mac, then Word, Excel, ATM, etc. are not Mac applications. Please respond to the spirit of the post, if you can, and not try to nitpick because it takes little effort. jas -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
Jim.Spencer@macgate.saylor.mn.org (Jim Spencer) (05/24/91)
To: lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu
Lawrence Reed Miller writes in a message to All
LRM> This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A:
LRM> Technical Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page
LRM> 88):
LRM> Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs
LRM> with higher density DRAM chips become available; additional
LRM> expandability through NuBus slots.
LRM> I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac
LRM> II manuals.
LRM> Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature.
The same quote is in my old Mac II Owners Guide. It is in the tech-
nical specifications section and is correct. If you run AUX, you can
address 128 MB. At least in my manual (which I concede may not be
the same as yours), see nothing which says that my machine will be
able to use that much RAM with the Mac OS and in fact pg. 82 which
is where RAM configurations are really discussed there is no indica-
tion whatsoever that more than 8 megs is possible.
Look, don't get me wrong. I truly hope that Apple makes 32 bit clean
SIMMs available. My objection is to the tone a lot of people are taking
here that somehow they have been lied to by Apple. Can you really say
that you bought your cx having read the statement you quote and that
you believed when you bought the machine, based on some objective
statement by Apple that you saw before you bought the machine, that
you would be able to run more than 16 megs under the Mac OS? If so
then you have a legitimate beef but I suspect that most of the screaming
is post-hoc rationalizing.
>> From a different message
Lawrence Reed Miller writes in a message to All
LRM> My usage of the word defective is consistent with this definition.
LRM> If you want to argue semantics, email me; don't bore the rest
LRM> of the net with silly flames.
LRM> If the machine was designed in a manner consistent with the product
LRM> specification, I wouldn't be complaining. However, it lacks an
LRM> essential element of the specification, and is therefore defective.
LRM>
LRM> I don't know how NeXT or Sun would treat me if they sold me a
LRM> defective machine. Do you?
LRM> Lawrence Miller (rather annoyed)
LRM> Handy way of dealing with people like this: ^k ji/Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1-
.fidonet.org/h:j<Return><Esc>ZZ
I'm pretty annoyed too. First regarding the semantics, the original
design of the Mac ROM was for 24 bit addressing. It does this correctly.
I suppose you can argue that a PC is defective because it doesn't do
what a Cray can too, but that doesn't make you right.
More importantly, I did nothing but disagree with you. I didn't
"flame" anyone, I didn't use foul language, I didn't lower myself to
ad hominim attacks. All I did was say things that you don't like.
I've had to listen to months of beefing first because the rumors were
that Apple was going to make everyone pay for System 7, now that the
free distribution isn't fast enough and that Apple hasn't make it
possible for everyone to upgrade their machines to the latest specs.
When I finally respond, you have to get personally abusive. Now, that's
annoying.
* Origin: White Mailer Test Point (1.0d6) (1:282/22.510)dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) (05/24/91)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: 32 bit roms Summary: Expires: References: <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: University of Chicago, Academic and Public Computing Keywords: In article <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > >lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes: > >LRM> This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A: >LRM> Technical Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page >LRM> 88): >LRM> Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs > LRM> with higher density DRAM chips become available; additional >LRM> expandability through NuBus slots. >LRM> I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac >LRM> II manuals. >LRM> Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature. > >Au contraire. Mr. Spencer knows _exactly_ of what he speaks; he _has_ read the manuals. He read exactly what you read: that the machine, the hardware, your SE/30 sitting on a table, can physically accept 128MB of RAM. What Mr. Spencer sees is what I see, and what you are overlooking completely: that Apple never made any statements of any kind concerning the conditions under which that lump of plastic and metal and chips can actually use the 128MB of RAM. Go back and read your manual, sir. Better ye t > Oh, please. If Apple meant that 128 MB could only be addressed under A/UX, they should have said so. If they write on a spec sheet that the Macintosh II can handle 128MB of memory, it's sort of silly to come back and say, "but that doesn't mean you can USE it, of course; it's only for decorative purposes (unless you pay $600 for a completely different operating system, but we're not going to mention that in the product literature)." I really don't think that Apple meant to do that at the time. I find it a little silly that people are seriously saying it. Come on, folks. Apple customers are supposed to be the rest of us, right? What do you think the rest of us are going to think when we see a quote like "expandable to 128MB" on a product spec sheet? "Hey, Bob, look at my new whiz-bang CD player! It can hold a changer that takes 128 disks!" "Oh, yeah? So you can, like, just sit back and listen to all 128 in a row?" "Er...no, it can't actually DO anything with them. But it's still pretty neat to look at, don't you think?" If you want to be as anal-retentive about details as Apple's lawyers, fine. Apple never did promise that their machines could address 128MB of memory under the OS that came in the box. But if they were really thinking about that distinction at the time, they should have made it much clearer to the customer (BEFORE the machine was purchased). Personally, I don't think that's what happened; I suspect that some folks are just getting carried away with interpreting what Apple did say. My guess is that the problem was just oversight. But it's an oversight that's being borne by Apple's customers, and I think it's reasonable to expect Apple to take care of it. >Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH -- David Walton Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago { Any opinions found herein are mine, not } Computing Organizations { those of my employers (or anybody else). }
rroberts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ross Allan Roberts) (05/24/91)
>Au contraire. Mr. Spencer knows _exactly_ of what he speaks; he _has_ read the manuals. He read exactly what you read: that the machine, the hardware, your SE/30 sitting on a table, can physically accept 128MB of RAM. What Mr. Spencer sees is what I see, and what you are overlooking completely: that Apple never made any statements of any kind concerning the conditions under which that lump of plastic and metal and chips can actually use the 128MB of RAM. Go back and read your manual, sir. Better ye t >, read what I've quoted you as repeating from your manual. Apple makes no warrantees concerning how you can use that memory. Go forth and get A/UX. Use it all. But Apple never, ever made any claims that its Macintosh operating system would ever take advantage of it all in your SE/30. >Adam Frix Sorry Adam, I could not pass this up... The SE/30 manual says 'Because applications written for earlier models of Macintosh computers expect only a 24-bit address bus, and because newer software for the Macintosh SE/30 uses the full 32-bit addressing, the Macintosh SE/30 functions in either a 24-bit or 32-bit mode." Which is a bold face LIE, as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all of us who have been following this KNOW the SE/30 DOES NOT OPERATE IN A 32- BIT MODE. (pg. 26, Mac SE/30 Owners Guide.) I will note there is no mention of upgrading ROM, but on the IIcx literature it does say '>Socket for ROMs on SIMM (Single Inline Memory Module)... Makes it easy to install SIMM-mounted ROM when upgrading or servicing.' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Again, it does not say upgrades _will_ be forthcoming, but the option is there. But I'd like to ask... how many have had the ROM fail itself? Not because of someother cause, the ROM just "died..." c'mon, that's kinda lame. There is also no mention of 'upgrade' on the IIx or /30 sheets either, for the record. No bashing intended, Adam... I'm just starting to get tired of what appears to be a rather apparent false promise from Apple. Do I need full 32bit addressing now? Probablly not. But remember... two years ago, 2 meg was a Christly huge amount of memory... and I feel I've been a bit screwed... __________________________________________________________________________ |Ross Roberts | KEYSTONE DRAFT LIGHT DRY!!! | |rroberts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu|The Great Light Beer In a Can | |DoD#0340 |That Tastes Like Beer In A Bottle | |Vai, Rush, Apple, Pioneer, Honda |That Tastes Like Beer In A Keg | |and about $50,000 are all I need! |With No Beer Taste, and No Aftertaste| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (05/25/91)
In article <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: [quote from me deleted to save space; go back & read it if you want] >Au contraire. Mr. Spencer knows _exactly_ of what he speaks; he _has_ read the manuals. He read exactly what you read: that the machine, the hardware, your SE/30 sitting on a table, can physically accept 128MB of RAM. What Mr. Spencer sees is what I see, and what you are overlooking completely: that Apple never made any statements of any kind concerning the conditions under which that lump of plastic and metal and chips can actually use the 128MB of RAM. Go back and read your manual, sir. Better ye t > > >, read what I've quoted you as repeating from your manual. Apple makes no warrantees concerning how you can use that memory. Go forth and get A/UX. Use it all. But Apple never, ever made any claims that its Macintosh operating system would ever take advantage of it all in your SE/30. [Above text is all quoted; Adam.Frix doesn't seem to use returns in his postings, though] Nowhere in my manual does it say that the Specifications section refers only to the hardware. When I bought my Mac, I purchased a liscense to run the Mac system software. The system software I recieved with my machine, and subsequent updates to it fail to meet the Specifications laied out in the Owner's Guide. Period. I am perfectly aware of the fact that Apple doesn't warrant the machine to do anything, and is sold "as is." I didn't say that they _had_ warrented the machine to meet it's specifications. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll withhold from commenting on whether or not I think that Apple has a legal commitment to fix the defects. However, I find their failure to meet published specifications in both hardware and software, and their apparent refusal to fix the problem most unimpressive in any event. >So, read it first, consider it for awhile, _then_ post. Don't post, then read. Wastes bandwidth. Do you really think I typed in the quote without reading it or thinking about it? If you want to insult me, please to it by email. I would prefer to keep discussions on the Net civil. However, I will note that I made no mention of the SE/30 you seem to think I own in my post. The quote was from a IIcx manual. Please read carefully yourself! Lawrence Miller
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) (05/25/91)
In article <675045984.0@macgate.saylor.mn> Jim.Spencer@macgate.saylor.mn.org (Jim Spencer) writes: [skipping along] > Look, don't get me wrong. I truly hope that Apple makes 32 bit clean > SIMMs available. My objection is to the tone a lot of people are taking > here that somehow they have been lied to by Apple. Can you really say > that you bought your cx having read the statement you quote and that > you believed when you bought the machine, based on some objective > statement by Apple that you saw before you bought the machine, that > you would be able to run more than 16 megs under the Mac OS? If so > then you have a legitimate beef but I suspect that most of the screaming > is post-hoc rationalizing. Given the comments made by Apple when they released the machines, I think it is reasonable for anyone to assume that (1) They put a capability to upgrade ROMs, and that this was a "Good Thing(TM)" (otherwise known as a selling point). It is quite reasonable to assume that if they did it and if they presented it as a selling point then someday they might actually use the capability. (2) That the Mac OS on the machines in question would access more memory once 32-bit addressing was supported in the Mac OS. Reaonable people may differ on these points. Offhand I expect we've beaten to death by now, but I'm sure we'll continue to argue over it for a few hundred more articles. The end result will probably be just as pointless as my typing up this article. All of us already have our opinions decided upon, and neither group is going to convince the other group to change their minds. I would note, however, that my opinion of this was formed back when Apple first discussed the machines. It is not post-hoc rationalizing. I don't even own any of the machines being discussed, so I have no vested interest in the final outcome of the great ROM upgrade debate. - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@rpi.edu or gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (05/26/91)
In article <675045984.0@macgate.saylor.mn> Jim.Spencer@macgate.saylor.mn.org (Jim Spencer) writes: >Look, don't get me wrong. I truly hope that Apple makes 32 bit clean >SIMMs available. My objection is to the tone a lot of people are taking >here that somehow they have been lied to by Apple. Can you really say >that you bought your cx having read the statement you quote and that >you believed when you bought the machine, based on some objective >statement by Apple that you saw before you bought the machine, that >you would be able to run more than 16 megs under the Mac OS? If so >then you have a legitimate beef but I suspect that most of the screaming >is post-hoc rationalizing. When I bought me SE with 1 meg a few years back, Apple came out with multifinder relatively soon after. That made my 1meg look pitifully meager. I added more ram. I noticed that some of the programs I run (like FullWrite) like lots of ram. So, when I decided I needed a faster machine, I considered the amount of ram the machine could take as one of the criteria. One of the factors that led me to upgrade to an SE/30 was the Apple statement that SE/30s would be able to use higher density SIMMs. So, you see, there are those of us who took Apple's word and have been disappointed. Jim, the ROM upgrade is just one way to get the machine to address all of the ram. I think most people, myself included, would be happy if Apple integrated a software-based fix into the OS. The fact that Apple does this with AUX and that MODE32 can do it under the MacOS shows that Apple has simply neglected to implement the fix for the MacOS. Since the technology is apparently already at Apple, their negligence shows that they do not feel compelled to live up to their word at this time. This does not make me feel very good about Apple. Did Apple lie? I don't know. However, they did tell a falsehood and have yet to make good on their word. In the long run, it doesn't matter whether or not it was intentional. They are hurting themselves by failing to address this problem. -- Stephen Kurtzman | "love is a minor chord; love is a mental ward;" kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | love is a drawn sword; love is its own reward." | -- Kate, Anna, & Jane McGarrigle
bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre) (05/26/91)
Reading people upset about the lack of "cleanliness" of ROMs, I see a pattern that happens often on the Usenet, and I want to dispel some of the bad feelings that people have. First off, the problem that people describe is real, and important. (The fact that it does not practically inhibit more people does not reduce the nature of the problem.) Many machines which were claimed to be able to use big memory really can't. Word games about "big" and "use" are not gonna change these facts. On the other hand, I really don't see Apple as doing something deceptive or evil. The fact that Apple has not announced a fix does not mean that they won't. The wheels often turn slowly, but usually end up pointing in the right directions. What you have to remember is that there are many people that work for Apple, and only a few of them -- mostly engineers way down on the corporate totem pole -- read the Usenet. Many engineers don't read it any more, simply because of the attitude of some people that post here. In any case, the people that do read it are not in any position to make the "ROM cleanliness" issue get resolved. Nor can they be relied on to report these discussions to the appropriate people. (Hell, I dunno WHO the appropriate people are!) I do want you to understand that many people feel bad about your plight. We're sorry that you can't address all that memory. But we can't change the story, so don't yell at us. Write to Apple instead. I'd also like to point out that although the squeaky wheel gets the grease, the shrieking, irate customer tends not to. Human nature, I suppose, but if you do want results, don't call all of Apple a "bunch of assholes" because they won't drive over to your house and fix the problem. bill coderre whose opinions are not the official word of Apple. Probly not even close.
rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) (06/01/91)
Unisys 2200/600ES machines have the capability to use two 16 megaword
MSUs [32 megawords or 128 megabytes of memory] but the software cannot
address more than 16 megawords of memory. (Sounds familer doesn't it).
Until very recently all of the C-series Unisys machines have had the
ability to use hardware gates for protection. This has been part of
the architecture since the 1100/90 which was introduced around 1985.
The ltest release of the operating system will finally take advantage
of this feature.
The DEC-10 systems had four machine states in which the processor
could run. TOPS-10 only used two of them.
The point I am making here is that in many cases, the architectural definition
may allow capabilities which are beyond the scope of the software or the vendor
may choose to not take advantage of them. All I have seen in the material is
an indication that the hardware had this ability and I have never seen anything
which indicated that the software WOULD [as opposed to could] take advantage
of the features.
--
Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (06/07/91)
In article <1991May29.011256.28849@news.media.mit.edu> mjkobb@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Michael J Kobb) writes: >Perhaps part of the attitude of the people who post here is due exactly to the >fact that nobody who's equipped to do anything about the problems we discuss >reads netnews? If Mr. Sculley would take the time out of his day (it doesn't >take all that long, after all) to read netnews, he might realize that there Excuse me, but what news do you read that "doesn't take that long?" I need upwards of an hour a day to read news, 45+ minutes of that being the c.s.m.* groups alone. If I don't read it over the weekend, it backs up even further. And this is with a good newsreader, gnus, that shows me a list of subject lines, so that I can cull easily. I do feel that Apple should hire somebody specifically to represent them on the various nets (maybe they could take on the FTP site, make it official), but the CEO is not the person to do that. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Welcome to the Real World. Enjoy the | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | show. | \============================================================================/