Why was the SE/30 called the SE/30?
Rowland McDonnell
Apparently:
"Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
the 68030, [...]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Hugh Browton
(in article
<1j9flg7.z7zhtlfue08dN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> 'cos it's a weird sort of a name for a Mac if you ask me.
>
> Apparently:
>
> "Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
> letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
> the 68030, [...]"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
>
> Rowland.
>
>
To differentiate it from the lowly, soooooo out-of date SE?
--
regards
hugh
hugh at clarity point uk point co
(by the sea) (using Hogwasher)
"The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the
question of whether Submarines Can Swim." Edsger Dijkstra (1930-2002)
Ian McCall
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> "Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
> letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
> the 68030, [...]"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
Is a -damned- shame they never followed that one through. The SE/30
remained, and in some ways remains, the machine I was completely
jealous of. Loved it.
Cheers,
Ian
Steve Firth
> Is a -damned- shame they never followed that one through. The SE/30
> remained, and in some ways remains, the machine I was completely
> jealous of. Loved it.
Still got mine, although at the moment it's sitting in a lock-up. It's
still in the Big Black Bag[1] with a RasterOps 264 ColorBoard installed
and a Kurta ADB tablet in a cardboard box next to it.
[1] Which made it portable. And yes, like the Apple adverts of the time,
I was one of those people dragging my SE/30 into the glum IBM Corporate
World.
Rowland McDonnell
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > 'cos it's a weird sort of a name for a Mac if you ask me.
> >
> > Apparently:
> >
> > "Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
> > letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
> > the 68030, [...]"
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
> >
> > Rowland.
> >
> >
>
> To differentiate it from the lowly, soooooo out-of date SE?
Yeah, but you see, using the consistent naming scheme Apple was using at
the time, it should have been called the SEx.
Ian McCall
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
>>
>> Is a -damned- shame they never followed that one through. The SE/30
>> remained, and in some ways remains, the machine I was completely
>> jealous of. Loved it.
>
> They are very nice.
One of the subjects I did at University within my degree was HCI -
Human Computer Interaction. The lecturer had an SE/30 and wrote various
tests and examples in Hypercard. Given that the only way I could put a
semi-decent UI together at the time was using those DOS character set
pipelines to approximate dialogs and windows, I was massively
impressed at how quickly something good could be put together. And the
SE/30 was -fast- for its day.
Was very common to see SE/30s connected to A4 monitors too - never saw
multiple monitors on PCs at that time. All in all, the SE/30 was my
real benchmark for how well a -system-, rather than just a lump of
hardware or some specific piece of software, could be designed.
A shame Hypercard seems to have lost its place in history too. A lot of
people here will know it of course, but I really think it deserves a
lot more credit than it gets.
Cheers,
Ian
David Sankey
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
I still use my Mac Plus carry case.
Steve Firth
> A shame Hypercard seems to have lost its place in history too. A lot of
> people here will know it of course, but I really think it deserves a
> lot more credit than it gets.
I used Hypercard on an SE/30 to prototype interfaces for a clinical
chemistry system. The people developing the system were astonished by
how quickly we could put together a demonstrator that showed the
consequences of the design decisions they were taking. I also built in
dummy subroutines to emulate the real-time consequences of their
hardware design (e.g. waiting the appropriate length of time for POST,
simulating various hardare failures).
At the time many of the engineers dismissed the SE/30 as "a toy" but I
did notice that three of them went off and bought their own SE/30s.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> Was very common to see SE/30s connected to A4 monitors too - never saw
> multiple monitors on PCs at that time.
SE/30s were never meant to have graphics additions like that, were they?
ISTR that proper colour graphics and multiple monitors weren't sorted
out properly on Macs until System 7 in, erm, about 1991, wasn't it?
> All in all, the SE/30 was my
> real benchmark for how well a -system-, rather than just a lump of
> hardware or some specific piece of software, could be designed.
What I liked about SE/30s was the way you got so much oomph in one tiny
little box.
> A shame Hypercard seems to have lost its place in history too. A lot of
> people here will know it of course, but I really think it deserves a
> lot more credit than it gets.
STFW - Hypercard ain't forgotten. I still have access to it.
Ian McCall
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Was very common to see SE/30s connected to A4 monitors too - never saw
>> multiple monitors on PCs at that time.
>
> SE/30s were never meant to have graphics additions like that, were they?
>
> ISTR that proper colour graphics and multiple monitors weren't sorted
> out properly on Macs until System 7 in, erm, about 1991, wasn't it?
System 7 was about then, yes. I had an LC which came with System 6 but
which I upgraded to 7 not long afterwards.
Wikipedia says official support with the Mac II, but that the SE/30
also had it:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-monitor>
Cheers,
Ian
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9gxnh.h9y82fyync8eN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> 'cos it's a weird sort of a name for a Mac if you ask me.
>>>
>>> Apparently:
>>>
>>> "Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
>>> letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
>>> the 68030, [...]"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
>>>
>>> Rowland.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To differentiate it from the lowly, soooooo out-of date SE?
>
> Yeah, but you see, using the consistent naming scheme Apple was using at
> the time, it should have been called the SEx.
>
> Rowland.
>
>
and because you have the sense of humour of a fourteen year old, you simply
had to share it.
It was perhaps a little amusing 18 years ago, but now?
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >>
> >>> 'cos it's a weird sort of a name for a Mac if you ask me.
> >>>
> >>> Apparently:
> >>>
> >>> "Apple had indicated the presence of a 68030 processor by adding the
> >>> letter "x" to a model's name, but when the Macintosh SE was updated to
> >>> the 68030, [...]"
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
> >>>
> >>> Rowland.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> To differentiate it from the lowly, soooooo out-of date SE?
> >
> > Yeah, but you see, using the consistent naming scheme Apple was using at
> > the time, it should have been called the SEx.
> >
> > Rowland.
> >
> >
>
> and because you have the sense of humour of a fourteen year old, you simply
> had to share it.
Absolutely - after all, my sense of humour has been trained by Radio 4.
Hmm - for all my life. Of *COURSE* I love to share cheap smutty jokes
suitable for schoolboys. Haven't you ever heard Sandi Toksvig? Did you
never listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue when the magisterial Humph
was in the chair? Are Julian and Sandy perhaps /not/ friends of yours?
But there you go - I make an on-topic post that's a bit funny. You
whine on at me just because you like whining on at me.
> It was perhaps a little amusing 18 years ago, but now?
Since neither you nor I had heard of this little gem 18 years ago (when
I was a lot older than 14), I feel that you're just looking around for
some excuse to make an off-topic post purely to criticise me for the
sake of - well, just being a git and ruining the tone of this newsgroup
because you're a humourless pompous bastard who's taken a deep dislike
to me for bizarre reasons I've yet to fathom.
Why don't you stick your head in a goat?
Rowland McDonnell
What it says is this:
"The all-in-one Mac SE/30 featured a small black & white screen, but
could drive an external color monitor."
And yet the SE/30 was fitted with no video out port by Apple. I've read
of a internal hardware hack that let the built-in CRT run in greyscale,
and I'd also assume that video expansion (graphics) cards could be
fitted (using the variant of the NuBus standard unique to the SE/30, if
my data here is reliable) - but multiple monitors hung off an SE/30?
Back in those days, didn't that take more than one graphics card?
ISTR that System 7 provided support for up to 16 monitors and 24 bit
colour, which hadn't been `official Apple' up until then. I'd have to
dig around a bit to find out more - but I can tell you that Wikipeadia's
pages on Macs are not particularly reliable, especially when talking
about the old stuff.
Dorian Gray
Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:25:23 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote
> (in article
> <1j9gxnh.h9y82fyync8eN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
<snip>
Simon, please DNFT.
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9lnrq.8hrdn01a4i9u4N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> Of *COURSE* I love to share cheap smutty jokes
> suitable for schoolboys. Haven't you ever heard Sandi Toksvig? Did you
> never listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue when the magisterial Humph
> was in the chair? Are Julian and Sandy perhaps /not/ friends of yours?
they are both witty and original. You are neither.
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9lnrq.8hrdn01a4i9u4N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> Since neither you nor I had heard of this little gem 18 years ago
I well remember my in-laws giving me a little book as a christmas present in
1992 called 'a macintosh dictionary'- it contained lots of little snippets
like this, including the SE/30 thing you allude to.. I remember the year
because I was then making a career change.
So I had heard of it.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > Since neither you nor I had heard of this little gem 18 years ago
>
> I well remember my in-laws giving me a little book as a christmas present in
> 1992 called 'a macintosh dictionary'- it contained lots of little snippets
> like this, including the SE/30 thing you allude to.. I remember the year
> because I was then making a career change.
>
> So I had heard of it.
17 years ago, perhaps. 17 is not 18. So you hadn't. So there.
Rowland McDonnell
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:25:23 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote
> > (in article
> > <1j9gxnh.h9y82fyync8eN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
>
> <snip>
>
> Simon, please DNFT.
Dorian, please do not insult me so.
You know that you're a shit who's come here to disrupt things behind a
veil of anonymity. I, on the other hand, post under my real name.
You're a cowardly creep who loves stirring and I'll thank you to stop
mucking up this newsgroup with personal abuse.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > Of *COURSE* I love to share cheap smutty jokes
> > suitable for schoolboys. Haven't you ever heard Sandi Toksvig? Did you
> > never listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue when the magisterial Humph
> > was in the chair? Are Julian and Sandy perhaps /not/ friends of yours?
>
> they are both witty and original. You are neither.
Indeed: I am humourless, pompous, and arrogant.
Just as you are.
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9oj6l.s2vajfdze4gvN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> 17 years ago, perhaps. 17 is not 18. So you hadn't. So there.
Oh so clever- 17 years and eleven twelfths is a lot nearer to 18 years than
it is to 17.
twat.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > 17 years ago, perhaps. 17 is not 18. So you hadn't. So there.
>
> Oh so clever- 17 years and eleven twelfths is a lot nearer to 18 years than
> it is to 17.
>
> twat.
Thank you for your carefully considered and courteous reply.
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9pr6s.16abtrjbp66otN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> 17 years ago, perhaps. 17 is not 18. So you hadn't. So there.
>>
>> Oh so clever- 17 years and eleven twelfths is a lot nearer to 18 years than
>> it is to 17.
>>
>> twat.
>
> Thank you for your carefully considered and courteous reply.
>
> Rowland.
>
>
I'll start being courteous to you when you start being courteous to me,
shitface.
Dorian Gray
Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:40:19 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote
> (in article
> <1j9pr6s.16abtrjbp66otN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
>
> > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
<etc.>
Simon, if you don't like what he writes, killfile him. Vice versa for
Rowland (I don't see Rowland's posts). Please don't subject the list to
this stuff.
Simon: Don't you realize that you both seem as bad as each other?
Looking at all your contributions to this newsgroup over the last few
months, I find very little reason to killfile you too as a troll.
Rowland McDonnell
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> <etc.>
>
> Simon, if you don't like what he writes, killfile him.
Simon likes what I write, because it gives him what he thinks is a good
excuse to make off-topic abusive posts.
He does that because he's a malicious disruptive person who enjoys
attacking those whom he dislikes. I'm not sure why he does that, but
obviously Simon here is the sort of person I'd not invite round for tea.
> Vice versa for
> Rowland (I don't see Rowland's posts). Please don't subject the list to
> this stuff.
This is a newsgroup, not a list.
> Simon: Don't you realize that you both seem as bad as each other?
Seems to me that Simon's a much ruder and less useful poster to this
newsgroup than I am.
> Looking at all your contributions to this newsgroup over the last few
> months, I find very little reason to killfile you too as a troll.
<cough> Dorian, you're a malicious poster here, given to gratuitous
personal abuse every bit as much as Simon Dobbs. Don't talk as if
you're in a position to give advice - you're a disruptive element here.
There's no sign of *ME* being a troll, I have to say. Hell, I'm the one
who suggested the creation of this newsgroup and (due to no-one else
wanting to do the job) the bloke who actually got this newsgroup
created.
I'm hardly going to troll my own creation, am I now?
zoara
>
> > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > <etc.>
> >
> > Simon, if you don't like what he writes, killfile him.
>
> Simon likes what I write, because it gives him what he thinks is a
> good
> excuse to make off-topic abusive posts.
here?
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >>
> >>> 17 years ago, perhaps. 17 is not 18. So you hadn't. So there.
> >>
> >> Oh so clever- 17 years and eleven twelfths is a lot nearer to 18 years than
> >> it is to 17.
> >>
> >> twat.
> >
> > Thank you for your carefully considered and courteous reply.
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> I'll start being courteous to you when you start being courteous to me,
> shitface.
The infants' playground is this way ->>>
Or, for an alternative point of view:
Simon, dear boy, I have never given you any cause to hurl abuse at me.
It is a malicious lie on your part to suggest otherwise.
Long ago, you decided that since a lot of people here enjoy abusing me,
that you'd claim you had an excuse to hurl personal abuse at me too
simply because you like being part of a gang that goes around fucking
things up for others.
That's all it is - pure malice on your part, for the sake of being nasty
because you like being nasty, being a nasty-minded abusive sort of
person who likes making other people miserable by treating them
shittily.
There are a lot of scum like you in this newsgroup. I've never
understood the psychology of shits like you, but there you go.
Even if your libellously false implications against me were true (and
they are not), there is no excuse for hurling personal abuse around in a
technical newsgroup such as this - your abusiveness is in all cases
entirely unacceptable behaviour here.
I expect that you will reply with yet more inexcusable libels against
me. It's your usual behaviour - I wonder, does your dictionary of foul
language extend beyond `twat'? Go on, entertain me with more
impoverished language demonstrating your lack of intellect, wit,
imagination, and education.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2036279701280895068.2...@news.individual.net>):
Well, nothing _he_ writes is off-topic here...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j9rooi.1w0xnif1p7indfN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> libellously false implications
your accusations of libel are themselves libellous- so I hope that you can
prove that they are false!
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > Simon likes what I write, because it gives him what he thinks is a
> > good excuse to make off-topic abusive posts.
>
> I thought you'd carefully worded the charter so nothing was off-topic
> here?
You thought wrongly, then. As anyone with a basic operational command
of the English language would be able to tell if they read the charter.
So I have to say that your above post is more evidence of you behaving
like an arse.
Peter Casserole
> There's no sign of *ME* being a troll, I have to say. Hell, I'm the one
> who suggested the creation of this newsgroup and (due to no-one else
> wanting to do the job) the bloke who actually got this newsgroup
> created.
Oh, not again. Bragging about your creator role. Can you prove it? You lied
when you said you started UPSD and you're lying again.
>
> I'm hardly going to troll my own creation, am I now?
Why don't we paint you on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, finger
extended to Usenet at the moment of creation?
--
"I can't see any problem with what I do - but your behaviour is vile,
inhuman, disgusting. "
Rowland McDonnell - Can't See a Problem with Abuse - 03Mar09
zoara
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>
> > wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Simon likes what I write, because it gives him what he thinks is a
> > > good excuse to make off-topic abusive posts.
> >
> > I thought you'd carefully worded the charter so nothing was
> > off-topic
> > here?
>
> You thought wrongly, then. As anyone with a basic operational command
> of the English language would be able to tell if they read the
> charter.
It's funny that this is exactly the argument the rest of us were all
making back in August about why certain subjects were off-topic, and
it's funny how vehemently you were arguing that anything with even the
slightest tenuous link to a Mac made it on-topic. That included problems
with Windows machines, and also - IIRC - dolphin masturbation.
You were repeatedly proudly telling us about how you'd carefully worded
the charter so that anything was on-topic, with the intention that it
would self-police.
Now you are arguing strongly in the opposite direction. Perhaps you just
like being a contrarian? Perhaps it matters not what the "correct"
answer is, so long as you can tell people how wrong they are?
> So I have to say that your above post is more evidence of you behaving
> like an arse.
Of course it is, dearest.