wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) (11/03/90)
Sorry to cross-post, but I think this is pertinent to both groups. I just received System 7.0b1 in the mail, and a file which came along with it indicated that System 7 would not support virtual memory on 68000 Macs with third-party 68030 upgrades. Since I know that many have purchased these upgrades hoping to get the added functionality of VM from System 7, I was curious what the Net's reaction would be to this. In my opinion, Apple can't be expected to support every unholy combination of third-party hardware with the Mac, but I'm sure others have different views on that. However, I'm a little surprised and I'm not sure I understand. Does this come as a surprise to anyone else or is it just me? -- Mark Wilkins
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (11/03/90)
In article <9514@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) writes: >[...] a file which came along with it >indicated that System 7 would not support virtual memory on 68000 Macs with >third-party 68030 upgrades. Interesting. > Since I know that many have purchased these upgrades hoping to get the >added functionality of VM from System 7, I was curious what the Net's >reaction would be to this. In my opinion, Apple can't be expected to support >every unholy combination of third-party hardware with the Mac, but I'm sure >others have different views on that. However, I'm a little surprised and >I'm not sure I understand. Does this come as a surprise to anyone else or is >it just me? Well, I'm quite surprised by this statement. My surprise is based upon the already existing Virtual product. The only reason one would require obtaining a modified version of this product is due the fact that they LIMITED the hardware that could be used with each version for efficiency reasons. It was my understanding after having talked with their representative that the underlying code changed little (understandably). So, I wonder what's up with Apple's code that they decided that any '030 equipped machine won't support VM. I mean, let's face it; the only problems that I've encountered on mine involved software that noticed it was running on an SE and assumed an '000. I suppose that this leaves two reasons for Apple's edict -- 1) they make hardware assumptions in their code (hard to believe), or 2) They want to make sure the low end stays that way (VERY plausible!). This revelation is also funny. The two main reasons people would be updating to 7.0 are TrueType and VM. For a reasonable price, both can be had for ANY hardware configuration of Mac. I suppose the same will be true enough of TrueType (does this mean ATM is unTrueType?), but the seamless integration of VM into the System software would have been very nice. I guess this is yet another reason for a majority of users NOT to upgrade... especially those lucky new owners of Classics and LCs (after 1/91)... Oh well... there's always System 8.0... -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (11/04/90)
In article <1990Nov3.122558.28340@rodan.acs.syr.edu> wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: >So, I wonder what's up with Apple's code that they decided that any '030 >equipped machine won't support VM. I mean, let's face it; the only problems that >I've encountered on mine involved software that noticed it was running on an SE >and assumed an '000. I suppose that this leaves two reasons for Apple's edict >-- 1) they make hardware assumptions in their code (hard to believe), or 2) >They want to make sure the low end stays that way (VERY plausible!). Actually, according to Tom Dowdy at Apple, it's that they call system calls which are only available on the Mac II. I can understand that they would do this for reasons other than deliberately locking Mac SE or Plus users out of the VM technology. > >This revelation is also funny. The two main reasons people would be updating to >7.0 are TrueType and VM. Pardon my rudeness, but this is unmitigated B.S. I've been running System 7 nonstop for three or four months and almost never have V.M. turned on. Real RAM is cheaper than disk space, anyway, and V.M. makes the cursor jump around unpleasantly. The reason I posted my original message was merely to warn people off from buying these 68030 upgrades and finding them wanting. However, your response demonstrates a distinct lack of thought. The REAL reasons to upgrade to System 7, based on alpha and beta seed software I've worked with and based on what I'd be willing to give up given that experience, are: *** Improved Finder interface (!!! This is REALLY useful stuff, folks!) --- Keyboard shortcuts for selecting files --- multiple control panels open in the Finder layer --- Aliases (REALLY useful for adding things to the Apple menu and in network environments) --- "Find File" integrated into Finder with many search options other than just by file name --- Customizable layout, including spacing, fonts, and many options for list views --- Add your own items to the Apple menu --- "Hide <application>" option so background apps can be invisible. *** Personal FileShare, a distributed AFP disk server. *** The Edition Manager, providing dynamic links between documents *** AppleEvents support, which will make all kinds of neat utilities possible to control your Mac automatically. *** The Help Manager (I don't think many people realize how useful this will be, but by the time System 7 is released most applications will support it.) *** All the little improvements like the ability to display PICT2 files on a B/W mac and making double-clicks on text documents automatically open TeachText if the creator app isn't around and about a billion other things. Finally, of course, there are TrueType and VM, but as you say those things are available now. Say again why you won't be upgrading to System 7? Are you willing to put up with having features of your applications permanently disabled because you're not running the latest system software? More to the point, how many people are still running System 5.0? And what are they doing with their machines? And if you complain about not being able to afford a $35 memory upgrade I'll personally walk to Syracuse and bop you in the nose, Sir! :-) -- Mark Wilkins SpectroComp Software -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) (11/05/90)
In article <9516@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: > Say again why you won't be upgrading to System 7? Are you willing to put >up with having features of your applications permanently disabled because >you're not running the latest system software? But more importantly, can my office survive upgrading when it has no idea which elements of its software base will blow up till further notice? My case in point would be Excel 2.2 which worked fine at 6.0.4 but blows up when I make a menu selection at 6.0.5. Not to mention having downloaded 6.0.7 to see whether it would fix the problem only to read the fine print that sez it kills Hypercard (pre-2.0). I mean, what does Apple think its doing building systems that break ITS OWN CODE!!! Now YOU tell me what fancy explanation I use to my boss as to why I upgraded the software on his machine that stopped him from seeing all his old spread- sheets! Just how many rev's back do I need to keep backups of Apple's system disks anyway? > More to the point, how many people are still running System 5.0? And what >are they doing with their machines? And if you complain about not being >able to afford a $35 memory upgrade I'll personally walk to Syracuse and bop >you in the nose, Sir! :-) Point me at a store where a megabyte costs ME $35 and my nose is yours for the bopping. Although Australia may be a little far to walk ;-)
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/05/90)
wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu (Mark Wilkins) writes: > Sorry to cross-post, but I think this is pertinent to both groups. I just >received System 7.0b1 in the mail, and a file which came along with it >indicated that System 7 would not support virtual memory on 68000 Macs with >third-party 68030 upgrades. > Since I know that many have purchased these upgrades hoping to get the >added functionality of VM from System 7, I was curious what the Net's >reaction would be to this. In my opinion, Apple can't be expected to support >every unholy combination of third-party hardware with the Mac, but I'm sure >others have different views on that. However, I'm a little surprised and >I'm not sure I understand. Does this come as a surprise to anyone else or is >it just me? >-- Mark Wilkins This is saddening to all who thought that Apple has finally started thinking about its customers and abandoned its previous "Want an upgrade? Buy another machine" attitude. However, won't Connectix's Virtual work on 68030-upgraded 68000 machines?
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/05/90)
rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) writes: >In article <9516@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: >> Say again why you won't be upgrading to System 7? Are you willing to put >>up with having features of your applications permanently disabled because >>you're not running the latest system software? >But more importantly, can my office survive upgrading when it has no idea which >elements of its software base will blow up till further notice? My case in >point would be Excel 2.2 which worked fine at 6.0.4 but blows up when I make >a menu selection at 6.0.5. Not to mention having downloaded 6.0.7 to see >whether it would fix the problem only to read the fine print that sez it kills >Hypercard (pre-2.0). I mean, what does Apple think its doing building systems >that break ITS OWN CODE!!! >Now YOU tell me what fancy explanation I use to my boss as to why I upgraded >the software on his machine that stopped him from seeing all his old spread- >sheets! Just how many rev's back do I need to keep backups of Apple's system >disks anyway? My, my, things are getting so tense here that Jesse Jackson will soon be making an appearance. :-) SERIOUSLY, 2.2 is NOT the current version of Excel. 2.2a has been around for a year and works fine on 6.0.7 (I don't know about 6.0.5 but would be surprised if it doesn't). Unfortunately, Microsoft has not widely advertised the availability of 2.2a (a very useful update that also fixes the misguided assumtion that if the CPU is newer than a 68000, an FPU exists [causing a massive crash on FPU-less IIsi and LC machines] AND a network file-corruption problem affecting TOPS users [we had an unpleasant encounter with it]). (I keep hearing about a 2.2b update, but haven't gotten around to asking Microsoft to send it to me. 2.2a works fine with 6.0.7, I garrontee it, as Justin Wilson would say.) Same goes for HyperCard. Apple has greatly improved it in v. 2.0, and it's still FREE, so why won't you get it? There's non-stop whining on Usenet by users of obsolete software versions who are refusing to update and complaining of incompatibilities. If you want to keep your system back, this is a free country, but so long as the publishers of your software, Apple or others, have released reasonably-priced or (in the case of both Excel and HyperCard) free updates, you have no moral right to complain. Now, the original Mac II also crashed when you tried to run MacWrite 4.5 (still very popular at that time), because MacWrite 4.5 (not the Mac II) didn't fully follow its own guidelines. Should Apple have not introduced the Mac II so as not to "break its own code?" If it worried about endless compatibility with EXISTING software versions, it wouldn't be able to update the operating system at all. The solution is to warn developers as far as possible in advance (this was done in this case) so they can bring out updates (most of them who were affected did so). >> More to the point, how many people are still running System 5.0? And what >>are they doing with their machines? And if you complain about not being >>able to afford a $35 memory upgrade I'll personally walk to Syracuse and bop >>you in the nose, Sir! :-) >Point me at a store where a megabyte costs ME $35 and my nose is yours for >the bopping. Although Australia may be a little far to walk ;-) US$35 is the bottom end of the price range for 1MB SIMMs in the US. Many of the mail-order vendors at the back of MacWeek (such as the Chip Merchant) will sell at that price, although airmail to Australia would be extra, but then, no-one said that being a community of some 14 (?) million people on an island-continent far away from the nearest civilization was going to be easy. At least it encourages self-reliance :-) Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov5.065457.2872@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >My, my, things are getting so tense here that Jesse Jackson will soon be >making an appearance. :-) SERIOUSLY, 2.2 is NOT the current version of Well, tense is a good word. But consider how hard I had to work to get Macs into the office instead of PC's running Lotus, based on 'how easy they are to use' and 'the software is so much better'. Try running 'it will be ok when we get the next rev' past an accountant mentality and see which machine you buy. And factor in the number of days that the machine was unavailable as well... >Excel. 2.2a has been around for a year and works fine on 6.0.7 (I don't >know about 6.0.5 but would be surprised if it doesn't). Unfortunately, >Microsoft has not widely advertised the availability of 2.2a (a very useful >update that also fixes the misguided assumtion that Figures doesnt it. So if you want to keep using the 'friendliest' computer around, you need to keep your nose to the net and up to your eyeballs in the latest MacWeek, MacUser, MacTutor, etc and hope you catch the clues... >Same goes for HyperCard. Apple has greatly improved it in v. 2.0, and it's >still FREE, so why won't you get it? There's non-stop whining on Usenet Rest assured I 'would' get it. Lets just make sure that I 'can' before we start slamming around the term 'whining' please. And from what I read in the afore-mentioned media, HyperCard is not exactly free these days, is it? Just imagine our office runs a nifty little database on Hypercard which we justified because 'its free'. Now run a 'runtime-only' version instead. 'Oh, if you are a serious developer you'll get the edit-version for only $x bucks'. Lets see, 'Dear boss. I need to buy another copy of that software we have been using because it doesnt do what it used to any more. Im sorry we used it instead of DBASE on the PC and I promise it wont ever happen again but can we just do it this once?' Also, the deadlocks caused by 'User A: I want to use the latest features of MacNeato 7.3 but it needs System 6.12.3a. When are we upgrading?' 'User B: I need to keep using WizzoCalc 1.8 and it breaks under anything later than System 6.11.2. Get onto the people at WizzoInc and get the latest version from them, will you?' Who do I keep happy? And how do you guarantee that you will even be able to? >Now, the original Mac II also crashed when you tried to run MacWrite 4.5 >(still very popular at that time), because MacWrite 4.5 (not the Mac II) >didn't fully follow its own guidelines. Should Apple have not introduced >the Mac II so as not to "break its own code?" If it worried about As I recall, the change there was a CPU not just software. This sort of thing I can deal with. Have you heard me complain about the sound software that stopped working when I got my SE/30? Or the Thunderscanner that needs a different serial port to get power from? Or the TurboMouse that needs a non-adb connection. (And yes, I could get these upgraded if I thought spending the money was worth it. For now, I just keep using the 'other' Mac that I keep around 'just-in-case') >>Point me at a store where a megabyte costs ME $35 and my nose is yours for >>the bopping. Although Australia may be a little far to walk ;-) > >US$35 is the bottom end of the price range for 1MB SIMMs in the US. Many >of the mail-order vendors at the back of MacWeek (such as the Chip Merchant) >will sell at that price, although airmail to Australia would be extra, but Actually, my 5mb upgrade for the SE/30 cost me about $500 AUS once you factor in our crappy dollar, freight, insurance, etc. Thats about $125 per SIMM. And correct me if I'm wrong here but I just bet that sticking in $35 worth of RAM gets you system errors and not much else. Dont you need at least two? Or four? (Note: If you tell me you get TWO for $35 I really am going outside to burn an effigy of our national treasurer!) >then, no-one said that being a community of some 14 (?) million people >on an island-continent far away from the nearest civilization was going to >be easy. At least it encourages self-reliance :-) It certainly isnt. And it certainly does. But for a machine that prides itself on being for the international market, its software vendors sure dont realise that there is a world outside the U.S.A. And apologies to those who think this should be in some other newsgroup.
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (11/06/90)
In article <3119@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au> rob@murtoa.UUCP (Robert Wallen) writes: >Also, the deadlocks caused by 'User A: I want to use the latest features of >MacNeato 7.3 but it needs System 6.12.3a. When are we upgrading?' >'User B: I need to keep using WizzoCalc 1.8 and it breaks under anything later >than System 6.11.2. Get onto the people at WizzoInc and get the latest version >from them, will you?' >Who do I keep happy? And how do you guarantee that you will even be able to? What you're missing here is that by and large in the Mac world software updates are FREE. The only reason you don't see this problem in the IBM world is that nobody can afford software updates. Given that issue, why don't you just tell your users not to update once their system works acceptably? Also, the type of deadlock you've described only have happened, in my experience, with companies like Ashton-Tate and Microsoft which have traditionally ignored Apple's rules. I guarantee you that half the software problems people have on Macs could be solved by taking out all the INITs and boycotting Microsoft. -- Mark Wilkins P.S. NO major package I've seen running broke under System 7.0b1, including: FullWrite Pro Word 4.0 WingZ Mathematica Claris MacWrite II Cricket Graph 1.3.1 Illustrator 1.9.5 PixelPaint Proffesional Adobe Photoshop PageMaker By and large, compatibility ISN'T a problem, and when it is a simple call to the manufacturer usually gets you a FREE update. -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) (11/06/90)
rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) writes: >Figures doesnt it. So if you want to keep using the 'friendliest' computer >around, you need to keep your nose to the net and up to your eyeballs in the >latest MacWeek, MacUser, MacTutor, etc and hope you catch the clues... You can still use the friendliest computer in the world without keeping abreast of current trends and issues. You'll just be the most ignorant manager managing the friendliest computer. >Just imagine our office runs a nifty little database on Hypercard which we >justified because 'its free'. Now run a 'runtime-only' version instead. I've never heard of a runtime version of HyperCard. Does it exist? Since it's free software to begin with there's no real reason for a runtime version. >Also, the deadlocks caused by 'User A: I want to use the latest features of >MacNeato 7.3 but it needs System 6.12.3a. When are we upgrading?' >'User B: I need to keep using WizzoCalc 1.8 and it breaks under anything later >than System 6.11.2. Get onto the people at WizzoInc and get the latest version >from them, will you?' >Who do I keep happy? And how do you guarantee that you will even be able to? We guarantee this by carefully planning which software packages we support. This means sticking to the "Excel"'s and the "Pagemaker"'s. We don't stuff our machines full of unsupported freeware and shareware, or outdated versions which are no longer supported by the publisher. If a user wants to use them that's his or her choice, but they realize that they're not supported and can't expect us to guarantee their compatibility with progressing technologies. Jeff Kain Macintosh Support Technician Indiana University Computing Services The above comments do not reflect the opinions of Indiana University or Indiana University Computing Services. -- "Quoth the raven, `Eat my shorts!'" -Edgar Allen Poe / Bart Simpson
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.061443.2140@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >> Sorry to cross-post, but I think this is pertinent to both groups. I just >>received System 7.0b1 in the mail, and a file which came along with it >>indicated that System 7 would not support virtual memory on 68000 Macs with >>third-party 68030 upgrades. >This is saddening to all who thought that Apple has finally started thinking >about its customers and abandoned its previous "Want an upgrade? Buy another >machine" attitude. However, won't Connectix's Virtual work on 68030-upgraded >68000 machines? This is really a move by Apple to "protect themselves". Let's say they decided to claim that yes, our virtual memory works so well, it will work with third party upgrades. Then what if it DIDNT work with some of them. They'd have to hear alot of crap from us who can say "You said it WOULD work". Now, as I seem to recall, Apple has been saying that 7.0 virtual memory will not work with third party upgrades all along. But at the summer Mac Expo, I asked various vendors who were doing 030 upgrades whether there upgrade will work with 7. All were quite honest to say "we won't really know until System 7.0 is here". Others assured me that there products WILL work with System 7 even if they have to make modifications. That's why I plan to wait UNTIL release 7.0 is out, and companies can claim that "yes, it's been tested and works with 7.0". =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: Silverberg WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop) "Ask me about TeleFinder... A Macintosh BBS with a Macintosh interface"
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/06/90)
rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) writes: >>Same goes for HyperCard. Apple has greatly improved it in v. 2.0, and it's >>still FREE, so why won't you get it? There's non-stop whining on Usenet >Rest assured I 'would' get it. Lets just make sure that I 'can' before we >start slamming around the term 'whining' please. And from what I read in the >afore-mentioned media, HyperCard is not exactly free these days, is it? NO! NO! NO! A complete HyperCard set, NOT a runtime version, will continue shipping with all Macs. The main difference between the Apple and Claris HyperCard packages is that Claris will include a 700-page manual. Also, I believe, the Claris HyperCard will be preset to the authoring level. In short, you'll keep getting all the HC capabilities free with each Mac, plus the rudimentary documentation you received previously. Apple's press release on the new Claris HC package was misleading and they almost immediately retracted it. >Also, the deadlocks caused by 'User A: I want to use the latest features of >MacNeato 7.3 but it needs System 6.12.3a. When are we upgrading?' >'User B: I need to keep using WizzoCalc 1.8 and it breaks under anything later >than System 6.11.2. Get onto the people at WizzoInc and get the latest version >from them, will you?' >Who do I keep happy? And how do you guarantee that you will even be able to? True. But much less true for the Mac platform than for DOS. I'm not even going to start comparing; just think of the zillion different printer drivers (each application has to have its own driver for YOUR particular printer) or of the seven-some and counting major imaging standards. Oh god. Also: Yes, programmers could be perfect and not write bad, incompatible or non-guideline-following code. Humanity could be perfect. Communism would then be a great idea. Unfortunately, this is not the case with our particular species. But take heart: on the Mac platform, at least, software incompatibilities are constantly decreasing (and fewer now, per number of software titles published, than on any other major platform). Yes, a business installation of more than one Mac does need an administrator, or at least a minder. (Again, this is even more true of other platforms.) He is supposed to "keep his nose up to MacWeek, MacUser, MacTutor, etc.," as you write. Maybe if more angry users complained to Microsoft about failing to notify its registered users directly about important maintenance updates such as 2.2a, Microsoft would improve its service. >>Now, the original Mac II also crashed when you tried to run MacWrite 4.5 >>(still very popular at that time), because MacWrite 4.5 (not the Mac II) >>didn't fully follow its own guidelines. Should Apple have not introduced >>the Mac II so as not to "break its own code?" If it worried about >As I recall, the change there was a CPU not just software. This sort of thing I >can deal with. Have you heard me complain about the sound software that >stopped working when I got my SE/30? Or the Thunderscanner that needs a >different serial port to get power from? Or the TurboMouse that needs a >non-adb connection. (And yes, I could get these upgraded if I thought >spending the money was worth it. For now, I just keep using the 'other' Mac >that I keep around 'just-in-case') I believe you meant "the TurboMouse that needs an ADB connection." Try to see it this way: the major software incompatibility crisis we're facing now is the one over the upcoming System 7.0 (I assume the 6.0.7 troubles are at least partly the result of the operating system code's evolution towards 7.0), and System 7.0 will be considerably more useful to many more users than any particular Apple hardware model or even something like ADB ever was. >>>Point me at a store where a megabyte costs ME $35 and my nose is yours for >>>the bopping. Although Australia may be a little far to walk ;-) >>US$35 is the bottom end of the price range for 1MB SIMMs in the US. Many >>of the mail-order vendors at the back of MacWeek (such as the Chip Merchant) >>will sell at that price, although airmail to Australia would be extra, but >Actually, my 5mb upgrade for the SE/30 cost me about $500 AUS once you factor >in our crappy dollar, freight, insurance, etc. Thats about $125 per SIMM. I meant US$35. I believe A$1=US$0.75 (?), so let's define our terms. Freight can't be all that expensive so long as you're shipping standard airmail; ditto for insurance. I suggest you call the Chip Merchant (US+619-268-4774; actually his latest ad quotes $39/1MB SIMM) and ask him how much insured airmail to Australia would cost. >And correct me if I'm wrong here but I just bet that sticking in $35 worth of >RAM gets you system errors and not much else. Dont you need at least two? Or >four? (Note: If you tell me you get TWO for $35 I really am going outside to >burn an effigy of our national treasurer!) I quoted the price per one one-megabyte SIMM, of course. Please, let's not be coy. >>then, no-one said that being a community of some 14 (?) million people >>on an island-continent far away from the nearest civilization was going to >>be easy. At least it encourages self-reliance :-) >It certainly isnt. And it certainly does. But for a machine that prides >itself on being for the international market, its software vendors sure dont >realise that there is a world outside the U.S.A. Many of them don't seem to realize there is a world inside the USA, judging by the way they treat us domestic users. Seriously, your complaints are badly needed. Write, fax or e-mail Bill Gates and let him have it. (Take courage from all the foreign users who forced MacWeek to start printing pubishers' fax numbers.) >And apologies to those who think this should be in some other newsgroup. No, actually, it all ended with a discussion of the operating system and related issues, so this thread is finally in the correct newsgroup :-) Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov3.122558.28340@rodan.acs.syr.edu> wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: >Well, I'm quite surprised by this statement. My surprise is based upon the >already existing Virtual product. The only reason one would require obtaining >a modified version of this product is due the fact that they LIMITED the >hardware that could be used with each version for efficiency reasons. It was >my understanding after having talked with their representative that the >underlying code changed little (understandably). > >So, I wonder what's up with Apple's code that they decided that any '030 >equipped machine won't support VM. I mean, let's face it; the only problems that >I've encountered on mine involved software that noticed it was running on an SE >and assumed an '000. I suppose that this leaves two reasons for Apple's edict >-- 1) they make hardware assumptions in their code (hard to believe), or 2) >They want to make sure the low end stays that way (VERY plausible!). ...There's a difference between not enabling VM on a Plus/030 (although the Control Panel enabling bit for VM will certainly not be set for the Plus, I [and this is only a guess] expect that if something like that is flipped, it would work) [note: I have had no exposure to Sys7 yet (nor, actually, to an 030'd plus...)] and not _supporting_ it. For Apple to allow the user to enable VM on a Plus/SE with an 030 accelerator without a hack requires that Apple be able to support it. I don't know of any business that would make guarantees that they will work with twenty other brands of product that don't even comply to any set standard... >This revelation is also funny. The two main reasons people would be updating to >7.0 are TrueType and VM. For a reasonable price, both can be had for ANY >hardware configuration of Mac. I suppose the same will be true enough of >TrueType (does this mean ATM is unTrueType?), but the seamless integration of VM >into the System software would have been very nice. I guess this is yet another >reason for a majority of users NOT to upgrade... especially those lucky new >owners of Classics and LCs (after 1/91)... I'd wait until System 7, 7-studly apps, and IAC-aware apps come out to guess at what people want 7 for, but given that ATM and VM are available, I'd expect that the majority of people waiting for System 7 are waiting for the whole suite of features, and not necessarily primarily those two. I'm really looking forward to the heirarchical-view finder, myself... >Oh well... there's always System 8.0... Or, as MacWeek describes, (Nov20, p8) Yogen Dalal, Claris VP of Software Development, advising 'applications developers thta Unix is the platform of the future....' ...Hmmm... | William Lee Nussbaum, Jr. | wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu