wangh@beasley.ucs.orst.edu (Guangliang He) (05/10/91)
For those who are so proud of system 7.0, I have a little question: Why can't I get 32 bit addressing on my SE/30? Dirty ROM? Software patch impossible? Then why there is a third party INIT to let me get 32 bit addressing? I really doubt the ability of System 7 design team. They've spend so much time to design, write, and debug, and ADVERTISING 7.0, but it is still broken (IMHO). Guangliang He ghe@physics.orst.edu
anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) (05/11/91)
Well, what have YOU built lately?
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) (05/12/91)
In article <1991May10.155244.29589@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> wangh@beasley.ucs.orst.edu (Guangliang He) writes: >For those who are so proud of system 7.0, I have a little question: >Why can't I get 32 bit addressing on my SE/30? Dirty ROM? Software >patch impossible? Then why there is a third party INIT to let me >get 32 bit addressing? I really doubt the ability of System 7 design I wouldn't crow about Mode32 until it's been fully tested (and deubgged.) Virtual is a great product, and I've used it on my II for a long time, but it took a LOT of time and revisions to get it to work with MOST software (and there's still stuff I have to reboot without it to use.) >team. They've spend so much time to design, write, and debug, and Perhaps there were more important parts of the system to work on than giving people with old machines the ability to use more than 14 megs of VM. Just because it's not in there doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Besides, the price is right on System 7.0. It costs less RETAIL than the DISCOUNTED price of Connectix Virtual alone. Also, it appears to be VERY stable. And the new features are very nice. Just because it's missing a feature YOU happened to want is no reason to call the people that worked on it incompetent. It makes you sound like a petulant child (mommy, mommy they left out 32-bit ROM's... waaaahhhhh. I'm gonna take my toys and go home, so there) >ADVERTISING 7.0, but it is still broken (IMHO). Funny, can't say I've seen anyone from the System 7 design team advertising it. What TV stations have YOU been watching? Besides, if there's a market for it, Apple will sell ROM upgrades. And people will complain because they aren't free. (Public question: Do you think $169 is a fair price for Connectix new "clean ROM" patch? Do you think it would be a fair price for an Apple ROM upgrade? Why or why not?) >Guangliang He >ghe@physics.orst.edu Robert Shull -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob
cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) (05/12/91)
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) posts: >>Public question: Do you think $169 is a fair price for Connectix >>new "clean ROM" patch? Do you think it would be a fair price for >>an Apple ROM upgrade? Why or why not? $170 seems about right for the ROMs; maybe as much as $200. That's enough over cost to allow Apple a hefty profit; cheap enough to not make people feel robbed or to generate a significant black market. Connectix' patch has two marks against it in comparison to new ROMs: (1) it's a third- party solution and (2) it's software for something that should be done in hardware. I'd be reluctant to pay more than $100, maybe $125 for it. --Carl Alexander News Editor, The Active Window cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) (05/12/91)
I hope what I am about to say isn't too naive, but I'm sure the answers will correct me. Here goes: 1. I know that Apple reps and techs read this feed. I know that it has been established in most forums that 'clean' 32 bit ROMS are a good thing. I also know that this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my machine. (A IIcx) Wouldn't responsibility on Apple's part dictate that they respond with a statement on this subject? I didn't know when I bought my machine that 32 bit ROM capability was important or thant this machine didn't have it. But I do know that I want to have as much memory as possible to do sound processing which will use everything I can throw at it. 2. In the June, 1989 issue of MacUser, the announcement of the IIcx said "The unit sports 256K of ROM soldered to the board, as well as an empty ROM SIMM socket. When ROM updates become available, a jumper on the motherboard can be altered to knock out the onboard ROM and kick-in new SIMM-mounted ROMs once they are in place. It was more than merely cost-efficient for Apple to solder ROMs directly to the motherboard (rather than plug them into the provided ROM SIMM socket). When a ROM upgrade comes, it will also keep down potential traffic in 'black-market' ROMs." If this is true, and speaking only for IIcx's (may be true for other models) doesn't this render moot the point about returning the old ROMs as an excuse for not providing new ones? 3. What is Apple's responsibility concerning owners of machines no longer produced? I purchased my IIcx two months ago through Falcon, a government reseller. They had an Apple-sponsored sale to clear the IIcx inventory. How far back should they be required to maintain compatibility of machines. Should they be required to support all machines they've ever produced? I think that wouln't be fair and bad business practice to boot, but I'd think that machines still under warranty (and mine would still be under the 90 day version) shouldn't be shuffled off into the closet just yet. I'm inviting comments on these questions, and I wouldn't mind hearing from an Apple rep, either. In fact, if someone could forward this to someone there (I haven't figured out how, yet) I'd appreciated an e-mail reply from them. Thanks. - Gary Goldberg Director' Office, Systems Integration and Research Staff US Census Bureau, Suitland, MD AOL:OgGreeb
wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.141345.15983@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes: >I hope what I am about to say isn't too naive, but I'm sure the answers will >correct me. Here goes: > >1. I know that Apple reps and techs read this feed. I know that it has been >established in most forums that 'clean' 32 bit ROMS are a good thing. I also >know that this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my >machine. (A IIcx) Wouldn't responsibility on Apple's part dictate that they >respond with a statement on this subject? > >I didn't know when I bought my machine that 32 bit ROM capability was >important or thant this machine didn't have it. But I do know that I want >to have as much memory as possible to do sound processing which will use >everything I can throw at it. > >2. In the June, 1989 issue of MacUser, the announcement of the IIcx said >"The unit sports 256K of ROM soldered to the board, as well as an empty ROM >SIMM socket. When ROM updates become available, a jumper on the motherboard >can be altered to knock out the onboard ROM and kick-in new SIMM-mounted ROMs >once they are in place. It was more than merely cost-efficient for Apple to >solder ROMs directly to the motherboard (rather than plug them into the >provided ROM SIMM socket). When a ROM upgrade comes, it will also keep down >potential traffic in 'black-market' ROMs." > >If this is true, and speaking only for IIcx's (may be true for other models) >doesn't this render moot the point about returning the old ROMs as an excuse >for not providing new ones? > >3. What is Apple's responsibility concerning owners of machines no longer >produced? I purchased my IIcx two months ago through Falcon, a government >reseller. They had an Apple-sponsored sale to clear the IIcx inventory. How >far back should they be required to maintain compatibility of machines. >Should they be required to support all machines they've ever produced? I >think that wouln't be fair and bad business practice to boot, but I'd think >that machines still under warranty (and mine would still be under the 90 day >version) shouldn't be shuffled off into the closet just yet. As a netter posted, Apple now has more important thing to do than let those OLD mac owner (myself included, a sad SE/30 owner) to have a 32 bit clean machine. :-(. If I were Apple, I probably will do the same. Because your $$ is already in my pocket, why should I care about 32bit clean IIcx, SE/30? :-( > >I'm inviting comments on these questions, and I wouldn't mind hearing from >an Apple rep, either. In fact, if someone could forward this to someone there >(I haven't figured out how, yet) I'd appreciated an e-mail reply from them. > >Thanks. > >- Gary Goldberg >Director' Office, Systems Integration and Research Staff >US Census Bureau, Suitland, MD >AOL:OgGreeb Guangliang He ghe@physics.orst.edu
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu (Philip Machanick) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.171226.3799@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) writes: >As a netter posted, Apple now has more important thing to do than let those >OLD mac owner (myself included, a sad SE/30 owner) to have a 32 bit clean >machine. :-(. > >If I were Apple, I probably will do the same. Because your $$ is already in >my pocket, why should I care about 32bit clean IIcx, SE/30? :-( This is all very well, but the SE/30 is still being sold. While the software fix which Connectix is advertizing may fix the problem (I await reviews with interest), the absence of any official statement from Apple is not acceptable. If they announced that they would encourage everyone to buy the Connectix solution because this would be cheaper than a ROM upgrade, this would make everyone at least partially happy. But what are they going to tell SE/30 buyers after they start bundling System 7 with new machines? Philip Machanick
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.171226.3799@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) writes: >As a netter posted, Apple now has more important thing to do than let those >OLD mac owner (myself included, a sad SE/30 owner) to have a 32 bit clean >machine. :-(. > >If I were Apple, I probably will do the same. Because your $$ is already in >my pocket, why should I care about 32bit clean IIcx, SE/30? :-( Hmmm. Perhaps because instead of buying a IIfx or IIci to get > 11-14MB of memory, we'll go out and buy NeXTs (or SPARCs, or...). Customer loyalty is an important thing, because at some point in the future, those of us who purchased non-32 bit clean Macs are going to need to buy new machines. Having already recieved one machine which fails to perform as advertised (and as specified in the manual), how anxious are you to purchase another possibly defective machine from Apple? Apple might already have our $$s in their pockets, but they would probably like more :^) Lawrence Miller
francis@magrathea.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May12.192202.25972@midway.uchicago.edu> lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes: > In article <1991May12.171226.3799@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) writes: > >As a netter posted, Apple now has more important thing to do than let those > >OLD mac owner (myself included, a sad SE/30 owner) to have a 32 bit clean > >machine. :-(. > > > >If I were Apple, I probably will do the same. Because your $$ is already in > >my pocket, why should I care about 32bit clean IIcx, SE/30? :-( > Hmmm. Perhaps because instead of buying a IIfx or IIci to get > 11-14MB of > memory, we'll go out and buy NeXTs (or SPARCs, or...). Customer loyalty is There's also a little matter of false advertising... -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9? | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | --Ultimate Question | \============================================================================/
cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) (05/13/91)
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (Gary Goldberg) asks a few questions about Apple and 32-bit ROMs.... >>this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my machine<< This is really the crux of the matter. It seems that some in Apple management want to take the attitude that those of us who are asking for 32-bit clean ROM upgrades are just a bunch of cry-babies. And if Apple had not stated in its product literature that these Macs would ultimately be able to address up to 128 Mb of RAM, they would be right. But the fact of the matter is that Apple did make that statement -- repeatedly. And that makes us not cry-babies but potential plaintiffs in a class-action suit. Of course Apple is well aware of the fact that, merits aside, they would probably not lose such a suit. But has it occurred to Apple's management that offering ROM upgrades could not only help them avoid a suit; it could also make them a significant profit and, if they were reasonably clever about it, they could even make it into a PR coup? >>doesn't this render moot the point about returning the old ROMs.... This point was moot from day one. I don't know a single owner of a 'dirty-ROMed' '030-based Mac who wouldn't gladly let Apple have their old ROMs back. If I owned a cx, I would be perfectly content if, as part of the installation procedure, the Apple certified tech destroyed the old ROMs that are soldered on (say, by cutting them in half with wire-cutters). Connectix has announced a software solution for this problem for $179. Nobody yet knows how robust that solution will prove to be, but it does provide a pricing benchmark. Most of us would gladly pay that amount, plus labor for a required dealer installation, to get a hardware solution known to be bug-free. Apple would make *at least* as much profit this way as they would from those few people who might be forced to buy new Macs otherwise, and it would help their customer-relations situation as well. >>Should they be required to support all machines they've ever produced? >>I think that wouldn't be fair and bad business practice to boot.... The fact of the matter is that Apple *does* support every machine they've ever produced, and it is one of the few areas in which their business practice is consistently *good*. If your II+ croaks, you can get parts: support means keeping equipment working, not keeping it current. What we are asking for is support in a sense, I suppose: we are asking that Apple make our Macs work in the manner Apple originally told us they would work. --Carl Alexander News Editor, The Active Window cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu
jbr0@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May13.144245.4435@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) writes: >cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (Gary Goldberg) asks a few questions about >Apple and 32-bit ROMs.... > this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my machine > This is really the crux of the matter. [...] Of course it is. I bought a IIcx in part because of its potential capacity for using a large amount of memory, especially after being locked into 4MB on a Plus. > [...] And that > makes us not cry-babies but potential plaintiffs in a class-action suit. > Of course Apple is well aware of the fact that, merits aside, they would > probably not lose such a suit. Why should Apple be guaranteed to win? Sure they have a lot of lawyers and deep pockets. However, in this case, they are simply in the wrong. They promised me and a lot of other Mac owners the ability to address up to 128 MB of memory. It is clearly printed in my owner's manual. As things stand now, this is simply not the case. Sure I can have a huge RAM disk, but that's not what they said -- they said I could *address* 128 MB. I can't. In fact, I think those of us who have been clamoring for a ROM upgrade are being quite patient and reasonable. We are willing to wait for the upgrade to be available, and we are also willing to pay for it. Quite reasonable for people would could easily make the case that they were the victims of false advertising. If Apple wants to silence things, all they need to do is make the statement that they will be providing such a ROM upgrade at some point. Another way to look at this is as an issue of customers clamoring for a product. If Apple doesn't want to provide its customers with what they want, they'll go elsewhere. Perhaps not for ROMS (since they can't), but certainly for future machine purchases. -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corporation @ AT&T Bell Labs /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.144245.4435@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) writes: > [...] And that > makes us not cry-babies but potential plaintiffs in a class-action suit. > Of course Apple is well aware of the fact that, merits aside, they would > probably not lose such a suit. Who sais they have to win it, what happens if 5,000 people take them to small claims in different towns all over the country (better yet do it on the same day :-) then it starts to cost a lot - they have to HIRE lawyers and fly them around the country - sue them for the cost of MODE32 plus (liftetime of your computer) years of support from Connetix only half a :-) for the above Personally I want an Apple supported solution - I want something that I know will be supported in years to come - I also have a real application that needs 40-50Mb of real memory that I've been waiting for 7.0 so I can run it :-( [BIG hardware simulations] Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P My son is now 2 months old, in that time he has doubled his weight, if he does this every 2 months for the next year he will weigh over 300lbs.
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.144245.4435@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) wrote: >ROMs back. If I owned a cx, I would be perfectly content if, as part of >the installation procedure, the Apple certified tech destroyed the old >ROMs that are soldered on (say, by cutting them in half with wire-cutters). Woah! Not very ecofriendly there, comrade. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## We're dying from the moment we're conceived, TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## Time wins, always. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 what is pure, who is pure, is it european, I ain't sure.......................PE
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (05/16/91)
In article <848@taniwha.UUCP>, paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes: |> Personally I want an Apple supported solution - I want something that I know will be |> supported in years to come - I also have a real application that needs 40-50Mb of real |> memory that I've been waiting for 7.0 so I can run it :-( [BIG hardware simulations] It seems to me that the easiest way out for Apple would be to make a deal with Connectix to sell MODE32 as an Apple product. Though I would prefer a ROM upgrade for my cx, I think this is a reasonable compromise, as this would ensure that Apple had a stake in keeping MODE32 compatible. I would rather Apple spent the money it would cost to engineer new ROMs on developing new stuff, if there is an alternative solution. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (05/18/91)
Lawrence Reed Miller writes in a message to All
LRM> Hmmm. Perhaps because instead of buying a IIfx or IIci to get
> 11-14MB of
LRM> memory, we'll go out and buy NeXTs (or SPARCs, or...). Customer
LRM> loyalty is an important thing, because at some point in the future,
LRM> those of us who purchased non-32 bit clean Macs are going to
LRM> need to buy new machines. Having already recieved one machine
LRM> which fails to perform as advertised (and as specified in the
LRM> manual), how anxious are you to purchase another possibly defective
LRM> machine from Apple?
What nonsense. First, do you really think that NeXT or Sun will treat you better. Hell, for most machines the problem would arise to begin with because you wouldn't be getting a free upgrade. Second, unless you have a problem most of us don't, your machine is NOT defective. It does exactly what it was designed to do in exactly the way it was designed to do it.
* Origin: White Mailer Test Point (1.0d6) (1:282/22.510)Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (05/19/91)
Paul Campbell writes in a message to All PC> Who sais they have to win it, what happens if 5,000 people take PC> them to small claims in different towns all over the country PC> (better yet do it on the same day :-) then it starts to cost PC> a lot - they have to HIRE lawyers and fly them around the country PC> - sue them for the cost of MODE32 plus (liftetime of your computer) PC> years of support from Connetix Each of those 5000 people will have to pay to get a complaint put together and the filing fees. Apple will then move in most cases to transfer the cases into district court where they will get each of those 5000 people to pay Apple's legal costs because there is no legal basis for the suit. * Origin: White Mailer Test Point (1.0d6) (1:282/22.510)
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (05/21/91)
In article <674629203.8@macgate.fidonet> Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: >What nonsense. First, do you really think that NeXT or Sun will treat you >better. Hell, for most machines the problem would arise to begin with because >you wouldn't be getting a free upgrade. Second, unless you have a problem >most of us don't, your machine is NOT defective. It does exactly what it was >designed to do in exactly the way it was designed to do it. From Webster: defective \di-'fek-tiv\ adj (14c) 1a: lacking something essential: FAULTY < defective pane of glass > My usage of the word defective is consistent with this definition. If you want to argue semantics, email me; don't bore the rest of the net with silly flames. If the machine was designed in a manner consistent with the product specification, I wouldn't be complaining. However, it lacks an essential element of the specification, and is therefore defective. I don't know how NeXT or Sun would treat me if they sold me a defective machine. Do you? Lawrence Miller (rather annoyed) Handy way of dealing with people like this: ^k ji/Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org/h:j<Return><Esc>ZZ
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) (05/21/91)
In article <674629203.16@macgate.fidonet> Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: > > Paul Campbell writes in a message to All > > PC> Who sais they have to win it, what happens if 5,000 people take > PC> them to small claims in different towns all over the country > PC> (better yet do it on the same day :-) then it starts to cost > PC> a lot - they have to HIRE lawyers and fly them around the country > PC> - sue them for the cost of MODE32 plus (liftetime of your computer) > PC> years of support from Connetix > > Each of those 5000 people will have to pay to get a > complaint put together and the filing fees. Apple will > then move in most cases to transfer the cases into > district court where they will get each of those 5000 > people to pay Apple's legal costs because there is no > legal basis for the suit. If that happened, Apple would win the lawsuits and lose the war. Whether Apple has the legalese all setup so they could win such suits is kinda immaterial. If a few thousand Mac owners get nailed by Apple over *this* particular issue, the result will be that no one will buy Macs anymore. You ask a company to live up to promises made, and they cause you to lose your shirt? Are you going to turn around and buy more products from them? - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@rpi.edu or gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (05/21/91)
In article <674629203.8@macgate.fidonet> Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: >What nonsense. First, do you really think that NeXT or Sun will >treat you better. What nonsense. That other companies might be as unresponsive and deceptive as Apple has been on the 32-bit clean issue does not excuse Apple. >Second, unless you have a problem most of us don't, your machine is >NOT defective. It does exactly what it was designed to do in exactly >the way it was designed to do it. What utter nonsense. When the technical specification in my owner's manual says that the machine is designed to accept 4mb simms and it doesn't, then it is not doing what it was designed to do. It may still be highly useful, but if it fails to meet the design characteristics advertised by Apple, then it is defective nonetheless. -- 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
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (05/21/91)
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: >What nonsense. First, do you really think that NeXT or Sun will treat >you better. Dunno about Sun. NeXT is MUCH more responsive to its customers than Apple. For example, I purchased a set of technical documentation back in 89. I have received FOUR completely new sets of this documentation (it's bigger than Inside Macintosh, BTW) since then; one with each OS update, and one interim set. NeXT has had hardware trouble with their optical drives. Though our machines are out of warranty, we have yet to pay for a replacement optical drive. You may argue that NeXT has so few customers that they have to treat them better. That does not change the fact that they do. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.131744.23732@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) writes: > >You may argue that NeXT has so few customers that they have to treat them >better. That does not change the fact that they do. I'd probably word this a little differently. I think it's more accurate to say "...NeXT has so few customers that they _can_ treat them better." Take a look at some (best guess) numbers. NeXT probably has an installed base of something like 50,000 computers and about 1000 empoyees. Apple has about 4 milllion Macs and god-knows how many Apple II's. That's at least 100 times the installed base of the NeXT. So you figure that we should have 100,000 people before we can give that same level of support. But we don't have 100,000 people. We've got 15,000. And if someone posts "Well, maybe you should think about hiring 100,000 people," then I suggest that perhaps the price of the Mac is a little too high already... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/23/91)
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes to Jim Spencer: >What nonsense. First, do you really think that NeXT or Sun will >treat you better. SK> What nonsense. That other companies might be as unresponsive SK> and deceptive as Apple has been on the 32-bit clean issue does SK> not excuse Apple. <sigh> The original poster made the comment that, given Apple's stance on this issue, he is seriously thinking about switching companies that he buys hardware for. Mr. Spencer merely pointed out that the original poster isn't necessarily going to get better service from anyone else--the original poster's implication being that another company _will_ provide better service. Mr. Spencer was not attempting to excuse Apple; he was merely pointing out a simple fact of life. Sprint pissed you off one day over one small issue, so you go storming off to MCI in a huff. You're acting irrationally. Same goes for the original poster. No excuse of Apple was ever offered, only an attempt to shed some light on a knee-jerk reaction. >Second, unless you have a problem most of us don't, your machine is >NOT defective. It does exactly what it was designed to do in exactly >the way it was designed to do it. SK> What utter nonsense. When the technical specification in my SK> owner's manual says that the machine is designed to accept 4mb SK> simms and it doesn't, then it is not doing what it was designed SK> to do. It may still be highly useful, but if it fails to meet SK> the design characteristics advertised by Apple, then it is defective SK> nonetheless. Again, will you please READ what Apple claimed???? Your machine is designed to accept 4MB SIMMs, and accept 4MB SIMMs it does. Ergo, it's not defective. Exactly how does your machine not accept said SIMMs? Oh, you mean that your OPERATING SYSTEM can't use them in a manner that's acceptable to you. (Please note that if you install 32MB of RAM, your About the Finder shows some 24+ megs of RAM in the System heap. That's how the OS handles the extra RAM. It can't, but it fakes it.) Well, then, you best go looking for some advertising blurb from Apple that says you can use all that RAM under the Macintosh OS. THEN go and make a stink about it. Until then, A/UX runs on an SE/30 and a IIcx and a IIx and a II, and addresses all the RAM that the machine is capable of stuffing in there. So it looks to me like Apple's claim that the machine can handle 4MB SIMMs, and any implied claims therein that you can use it all, are not deceptions after all. They are the truth, plain and simple. Don't blame Apple because you can't read what they wrote. Does anyone actually read what's posted, or do you all make shit up to quote and flame? --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.ORG
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (05/24/91)
In article <266626.283C328F@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>, Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes... > (Please note that if you install 32MB of RAM, your About the Finder shows > some 24+ megs of RAM in the System heap. That's how the OS handles the extra > RAM. It can't, but it fakes it.) Well, then, yo Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that the Mac OS is limited to 8MB, period?! I know there is a 16MB limit in 24-bit mode, but running in 32-bit mode, why shouldn't I be able to stuff 32MB of SIMMs in and have it work? Richard C. Long | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Selfware: If you like --------------- | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | this program, send A First Edition | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | yourself five bucks!
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (05/24/91)
In article <4956@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that the Mac OS is limited to 8MB, > period?! I know there is a 16MB limit in 24-bit mode, but running in 32-bit > mode, why shouldn't I be able to stuff 32MB of SIMMs in and have it work? AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! OF COURSE THERE IS NO SUCH LIMIT IN 32-BIT MODE!! The problem that so many people have been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about is that some machines have ROMs that PRECLUDE 32-bit mode under the Macintosh OS!! -- 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
rp23+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ray Pelletier) (05/24/91)
>>Second, unless you have a problem most of us don't, your machine is >>NOT defective. It does exactly what it was designed to do in exactly >>the way it was designed to do it. >SK> What utter nonsense. When the technical specification in my >SK> owner's manual says that the machine is designed to accept 4mb >SK> simms and it doesn't, then it is not doing what it was designed >SK> to do. It may still be highly useful, but if it fails to meet >SK> the design characteristics advertised by Apple, then it is defective >SK> nonetheless. > >Again, will you please READ what Apple claimed???? Your machine is designed to > accept 4MB SIMMs, and accept 4MB SIMMs it does. Ergo, it's not defective. Ex >actly how does your machine not accept said SIMMs? Oh, you mean that your OPER >ATING SYSTEM can't use them in a manner that's acceptable to you. (Please note I wouldn't buy a car from you. Yes, in the Owner's guide, Apple doesn't claim that the MacOS will in fact use memory beyond 8 Meg. But they don't warn Joe User that he wont be able to use the extra memory either. Unlike you, I do not believe in defending half truths. It would not have hurt Apple in the least to put a caveat in the manuals for those who aren't geeks in the know. But of course, no one documents the limitations of their product unless they could be sued for omitting the reference. I don't blame SK & ancestors for being upset. -Ray Pelletier
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (05/25/91)
In article <266626.283C328F@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > >acceptable to you. (Please note that if you install 32MB of RAM, your >About the Finder shows some 24+ megs of RAM in the System heap. That's how >the OS handles the extra RAM. It can't, but it fakes it.) Well, then, you The number associated with System is not the size of the system heap. It is the total RAM less the RAM used by running applications and the RAM available to run additional applications. (Under System 7, it includes the memory used by the Finder.) It does include the System Heap, but it also includes the RAM cache, memory allocated towards background tasks, the memory beyond 8Mb (when running in 24-bit mode), etc. -- Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. lsr@apple.com (or AppleLink: Rosenstein1)