mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (01/11/91)
I apologize in advance if this topic is old news. Please feel free to
send private mail or post as you wish.
I have heard that the ROMs in the IIcx are not 32 bit clean, and thus
when I boot sys 7.0 I will only see 8 megs of memory even if I have 20
megs installed on a IIcx.
Can someone verify this?
Another question: Let's say the ROMs are not clean (the ROM memory
manager has certain assumptions built in, and AUX uses all physical
memory because it doesn't use ROM mem mgr, but MACOS uses ROM memory
mgr, and so can't go into 32 bit mode safely).
Would it be possible to patch things on a IIcx by reading the ROMs
into memory and have the MMU re-map the ROM address space, apply the
patch, and run with ROM code in RAM? or is a ROM upgrade for the IIcx
a more tractable solution?
I ask this because when System 7.0 is released and a bunch of IIcx
users boot their machines with 20mb of physical memory, it would be a
real shame if the finder showed 8mb as it does under 6.0.x.
--
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus!
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046
Net: mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdcjohnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (01/14/91)
In article <12925@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes... >Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of >physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly? > >Will this require a ROM upgrade? I have heard this over and over again -- it is a good question. So far, I don't think that there has been a decent response from Apple. Naively, it would seem that whatever is lacking could be taken care off by an init. Isn't this what 32-Bit QuickDraw does for the Mac II and the IIx? On a 20-meg IIcx it seems like very few people would opt to PAY for a 32-bit clean ROM if an init could patch the nasty bits ... What's the big deal? Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
johnim@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Im) (01/14/91)
In article <41599@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > >Naively, it would seem that whatever is lacking could be taken care >off by an init. Isn't this what 32-Bit QuickDraw does for the Mac II >and the IIx? On a 20-meg IIcx it seems like very few people would >opt to PAY for a 32-bit clean ROM if an init could patch the nasty >bits ... > Oh no, not another init! If the ROM upgrade doesn't cost too much (which I hope Apple will allow), I'd rather go that route. I've got too many inits as it is :-) -John johnim@euler.berkeley.edu (415) 649-7864
ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (01/15/91)
In article <41599@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > In article <12925@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes... > >Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of > >physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly? > >Will this require a ROM upgrade? > Naively, it would seem that whatever is lacking could be taken care > off by an init. > What's the big deal? The big deal is that the Memory Manager will either boot in 24 or 32 bit mode. However once booted you cannot switch. Therefore an init to clean things up is just a little too late to save the system from calling its own 32-Bit unclean ROM code. As to the original question. You can put as much memory in a IIcx as you like, 20, 40, 100 Meg. Go crazy. However with Maxima or System 7.0 you will only be able to access the first 14 Meg. As a side note I sent a question to DTS that went sometnig like this. Hi, I want to follow your suggestions and write code that is 32-Bit clean. However I have a IIcx and so I can't run in 32-Bit mode. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can test my applications for 32-Bit cleaness? They never even acknowleged that I sent in the question. ROM upgrade? I would like one but I am not holding my breath. Pete
jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (01/15/91)
In article <11707@goofy.Apple.COM> Greg@AppleLink.apple.com (Greg Marriott) writes: > In article <12925@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > >Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of > >physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly? > > > >Will this require a ROM upgrade? > >System 7 will not give IIcx users access to more than 8Mb of physical. It >will not take the place of a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade. [...] > >Greg Marriott >Apple Computer, Inc. That's fine. I'll gladly buy a ROM swap if Apple will offer one and the price is reasonable. So the question is, will Apple offer us one and can it be bought for a price with less than 3 digits in it? -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 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
lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) (01/17/91)
In article <13076@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. There was a product at MacWorld that claimed to provide 32-bit addressing under 6.x on all machines. Unfortunately, I don't recall the company name. (If someone's got a program, they were in Brooks Hall.) Larry
bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) (01/18/91)
In article <13076@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I have received mail from a number of people including Apple employees >about the IIcx ROM question. > >The general concensus is: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. > >This raises other harder questions: > > - How many people need this capability? > > - Is it worth Apple's while to do it? > > - Could existing ROMs (i.e. IIci) be used, perhaps in conjuction > with an INIT that fixed dependencies? > >Thanks for your help. > >Marty > >-- >Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus! >126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 >Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 >Net: mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... Mike -- ******************************************************************************** Mike Bell Internet: bell@opus.wizards.dupont.com Senior Engineer CSNet: BELLMA%ESVAX@dupont.com DuPont CR&D Applelink: D2747 Advanced Computer Technology Group MacBLITZ..... When you feel the need for speed.......... ******************************************************************************** --
oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) (01/18/91)
In article <526@scubed.SCUBED.COM> warner@scubed.com (Ken Warner) writes: >A bunch of people wroteSomebody wrote > >> >Will this require a ROM upgrade? > >>System 7 will not give IIcx users access to more than 8Mb of physical. It > >>will not take the place of a 32-bit clean ROM upgrade. [...] > >That's fine. I'll gladly buy a ROM swap if Apple will offer one and the > >price is reasonable. So the question is, will Apple offer us one and can > >it be bought for a price with less than 3 digits in it? > >Geeze! I sure hope Apple offers a ROM upgrade. It would obsolete a whole >lot of computers if they don't. Particularly MINE! I have that nice clean and >warm ROM socket just sitting there with a wistful look. How 'bout it Apple? Interesting. The University of Minnesota has suddenly slashed their prices on the IIcx by as much as $1,800, "while supplies last." Now, this could be overstock, but it may very well be that Apple is coming out with the ROM upgrade. Has the the IIcx price been dropped elsewhere? Anybody at Apple that's in the know care to confirm/deny? ********************** Signature Block : Version 2.1 ********************* * | * * "Was it love, or was it the idea | If at first you don't succeed . . . * * of being in love?" -- PF | you have failed. * * (Which one *is* Pink?) | * * | oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu * ****************** Copyright (c) 1991 by Doc O'Leary ********************
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan17.180702.9923@pyro.ei.dupont.com> bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) writes: In article <13076@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I have received mail from a number of people including Apple employees >about the IIcx ROM question. > >The general concensus is: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. [...] LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly because of the on-board video? -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
bdugan@teri.bio.uci.edu (Bill Dugan) (01/19/91)
> [...] > > LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that > a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but > does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... > >There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less >compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having >compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly >because of the on-board video? > My friend claims to have used IIfx ROMs in a IIcx, but then supposedly many applications would crash because of compatibility problems with the IIfx. But at least it works. bill
yossie@fnal.fnal.gov (Yossie Silverman) (01/19/91)
My impression, from having worked with a few MacIIci's, is that the main difference between those that run most anything (without any problems) and those that run with lots of problems, is the video board/internal. I plan on buying a board for my home machine very soon, to use instead of the internal circuitry. I am thinking of a RasterOps 386 ($799 at one place I called!) - Yossie --- yossie@fnal.fnal.gov; yossie@fnccf.bitnet What did the Caspian Sea? - Saki
russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan) (01/19/91)
In article <3078@ux.acs.umn.edu> oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) writes: >In article <526@scubed.SCUBED.COM> warner@scubed.com (Ken Warner) writes: >Interesting. The University of Minnesota has suddenly slashed their prices >on the IIcx by as much as $1,800, "while supplies last." Now, this could be >overstock, but it may very well be that Apple is coming out with the ROM >upgrade. Has the the IIcx price been dropped elsewhere? The Macintosh IIcx is a discontinued product. It was replaced by the IIsi last October. They really *do* mean, "While supplies last." $1,800 makes this machine substantially cheaper than a IIsi by my estimation. The thing to consider is, that without a ROM upgrade (if one comes along) can you survive with only 14Mb of RAM? (-or- 15Mb depending on configuration.) Most Macintosh users will probably say yes, many reading this message will say no. I find my Mac IIcx with 8Mb RAM a decent development platform and would not order a ROM upgrade if it were available. -Russ -- Russ Donnan, (214) 497-4778, russ@convex.com Convex Computer Corporation, 3000 Waterview Parkway, Richardson, TX "vi: the look-and-feel of Hollerith cards, but without the added bulk!"
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) (01/19/91)
yossie@fnal.fnal.gov (Yossie Silverman) writes: >My impression, from having worked with a few MacIIci's, is that the main >difference between those that run most anything (without any problems) and >those that run with lots of problems, is the video board/internal. I plan >on buying a board for my home machine very soon, to use instead of the >internal circuitry. I am thinking of a RasterOps 386 ($799 at one place I ^^^ Urrrghh! Please, it's the RasterOps 364. 386 brings up memories of some horrible chip architecture from some "other" company, which fortunately has little to do with the Mac world. By the way, isn't the 364 likely to get cheaper and cheaper now that the RasterOps STV? has superceded it? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "She's got a tongue like an electric eel, and she likes the taste of a man's tonsils!" - Rik Flashheart
nwc1@quads.uchicago.edu (einsturzende neubaten) (01/19/91)
Are there ROM SIMM's available then? One which could expand an SE/30? I would guess that this is not economically feasible, but still... extra features, or only incompatibility? 'later!
mkelly@cs.uoregon.edu (Michael A. Kelly) (01/20/91)
Sorry, I missed the beginning of this thread. Could someone please tell me what is the problem with the IIcx ROMs? Am I going to have a problem running System 7.0 on my IIcx? Thanks, Mike. -- Michael A. Kelly | "Fish heads, fish heads, Internet: mkelly@cs.uoregon.edu | Roly-poly fish heads, America Online: Michael792 | Fish heads, fish heads, Compu$erve: 73567,1651 | Eat them up, yum!" - Barnes & Barnes
woods@convex.com (Darrin Woods) (01/23/91)
> [..] >There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less >compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having >compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly >because of the on-board video? > [..] It was more a problem of software and some third party add on hardware not being 32 bit clean or rather 24bit dirty. Some applications used calls to addresses that the ci ROM's didn't like. Basically it was the mentality on the developers side that they could use those last 8 addressing bits for whatever they chose, since Apple wasn't using them. Again, this was only a select few developers. And since the IIci was the first end-user available mac with 32bit clean ROM, it was the first one to hit those developers up side the head and say 'Hey, stop using those bits, I need them.' Blacksheep -- Senior Systems Engineer woods@convex.com Convex is not my employer-Therefore they are not responsible for what I say.