Macworld Expo: NO COPLAND for PB 500
Steve S
The Copland preview at MacWorld expo today included admission by the
Apple engineers that PowerPC upgrade cards of all sorts will NOT
support Copland. Never, no way. It seems it would be more trouble
than it's worth to try to bring Copland through the underlying '040
architecture.
So unless you replace a motherboard, you be out of luck.
daughtercards and aftermarket solutions which add PPC to '040
desktops and PwerBooks will never run Copland.
The Copland demonstrators from Apple did, however, promise continued
support and upgrades for system 7.x on '040 and older machines. As
if that's consolation for those who purchased "PowerPC upgradeable!"
machines last year.
Then again, as they pointed out, it's worse on the Windoze side. you
don't see 286's running Win95 (or even 3.1!) but there are plenty of
serviceable II ci's from the same era which can run 7.5 Personally,
I'll sacrifice backwards compatability for the new OS if it really
is as good as it is being touted to be.
I can say that because I sold my 520c several months ago.
Michael E. Fryd
>Well, there it is direct from the horse's (*)
>
>The Copland preview at MacWorld expo today included admission by the
>Apple engineers that PowerPC upgrade cards of all sorts will NOT
>support Copland. Never, no way. It seems it would be more trouble
>than it's worth to try to bring Copland through the underlying '040
>architecture.
While it may be true that Copland *will not* run on an upgraded PowerBook 500,
Apple's official position is that it *will* run.
Apple Directions Express e-mail (issue #5 dated DEcember 20, 1995)
reports that: "...The final release of Copland will support all Apple and
licensee's Power PC-based systems, as well as systems that conform to
the PowerPC Platform (CHRP)..."
Apple Directions also claims to be the official word from Apple Computer.
Once you have an Apple (or Apple licensed) PowerPC in you PowerBook 500
it will be on the "officialy promised to run Copland" list.
I guess I'll just add this to the list of things Apple promised that
I am still waiting for:
- Macintosh OS support for the DMA in my IIfx
- Software upgrades to support faster modem speeds for the Geoport
Telecom Adapter on my Quadra 840AV
- Programable battery management in the PB 500 series for support
of Lithium Ion batteries
- Unix (AIX) for the x100 series (6100, 7100, 8100) of PowerPC machines.
- Lifetime OS upgrades ("You pay more upfront for the computer, but
you get free OS upgrades")
- Continued support for the Apple accelerated video card (8*24GC)
-Michael Fryd
--
+-----------------------------------------------------+
jokes at <URL:http://www.totalweb.com/ent/jokehome.html>
Michael E. Fryd <URL:http://www.totalweb.com/~mfryd/>
Mefco, Inc. e-mail: mf...@mefco.com
523 Michigan Avenue Phone: (305) 673-5200
Miami Beach, FL 33139 Fax: (305) 673-2950
Mark Routbort
(John Dowding) wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve" == Steve S <ze...@sirius.com> writes:
>
> Steve> Then again, as they pointed out, it's worse on the Windoze
> Steve> side. you don't see 286's running Win95 (or even 3.1!) but
> Steve> there are plenty of serviceable II ci's from the same era
> Steve> which can run 7.5
>
>Well, I didn't buy my 286 in June '95. This is a relatively new
>machine they are abandoning here. It's a pretty good bet that my 520c
>is the first and last Apple that I will every buy.
>
Not my first, but damn likely my last.
--
Just because your doctor has a name
Mark Routbort for your condition doesn't mean he
rout...@neuro.duke.edu knows what it is.
Doug Sturim
: Steve> Then again, as they pointed out, it's worse on the Windoze
: Steve> side. you don't see 286's running Win95 (or even 3.1!) but
: Steve> there are plenty of serviceable II ci's from the same era
: Steve> which can run 7.5
: Well, I didn't buy my 286 in June '95. This is a relatively new
: machine they are abandoning here. It's a pretty good bet that my 520c
: is the first and last Apple that I will every buy.
If this is so Apple sucks. Apple is abandoning a product that is a little
over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Sturim
Brown University Electrical Sciences
Box D
d...@lems.brown.edu
John Dowding
Steve> Then again, as they pointed out, it's worse on the Windoze
Steve> side. you don't see 286's running Win95 (or even 3.1!) but
Steve> there are plenty of serviceable II ci's from the same era
Steve> which can run 7.5
Well, I didn't buy my 286 in June '95. This is a relatively new
machine they are abandoning here. It's a pretty good bet that my 520c
is the first and last Apple that I will every buy.
--
John Dowding
dow...@ai.sri.com
Fletcher Sandbeck
>over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
>not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
>I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
>apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
>unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
I think it's important to make Apple realize
how important it is for Copland to support
5xx series PPC upgraded Macs without resorting
to threats and insults.
I want Apple to clear up this issue with a
definitive statement so I know whether or
not it is worth purchasing an upgrade for
my machine.
If the upgrade won't run Copland then I
will probably be better off saving my
pennies for a new laptop in the next
couple years.
[fletcher]
Ren Medalla
> If this is so Apple sucks. Apple is abandoning a product that is a little
> over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
> not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
> I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
> apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
> unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
>
>
Apple has survived over the years by the loyalty of its customers. I have
bought Apple since I moved over from PCs 2 years ago and have spent a
small fortune on Apple products and even convinced a few friends to switch
to Macs. I'm a proud owner of a PB520c which in my opinion is one of the
best notebooks ever made. Its also the last Apple computer I will buy. If
anybody asks me which Apple product to buy, I will point them to another
manufacturer if an alternative exists. I've always trusted Apple to do
right by their customers. I was wrong and I now see Apple's true colors.
They made a big mistake underestimating users' reactions and will get
burned for that.
David Salvador Flores
Geez, Louise, they're not abandoning the 500 series machines.As the
poster pointed out, Apple's gonna continue supporting the OS for
040 machines. The problem you had was that you bought your PBook
just before Apple embraced a major change in its system architecture.
Had you bought a PB100 five years ago you could still put syetm 7.5
on it, since 7.5 was designed when 680x0 machines were still Apple's
bread and butter. You bought in at a bad time, but even with that,
you've got a machine that runs almost all Macintosh software.
As for PPC upgradeability, yeah, you can still upgrade your 520
to a PPC and it will run system 7.5 and run rings around your 520
at that. It will run all the PPC suftware that's been released to
this date, and will be able to run PPC software probably for the
next five years (until manufacturers begin releasing Copland
only apps).
You may choose to buy a PC clone as your next machine, if you'd
like, but good luck getting hardware upgrades for it. As far as
I know there aren't any.
>
>--
>John Dowding
>dow...@ai.sri.com
-Dave
Jon Bodner
rmed...@hk.super.net (Ren Medalla) wrote:
I don't understand the vitrol being heaped on Apple over this issue.
First of all, Copland probably won't appear until mid-1997. By that time,
the PowerBook 500 series will be 3 years old. People are making it sound
as though Copland is appearing tomorrow.
Furthermore, your Mac is not going to stop working as soon as Copland
appears. There is an installed base of something like 15-20 million 680x0
Macs out there; someone is going to continue to write software for them!
Apple is going to create a version of System 7.5 which has all of the
wizzy-cool interface features, so you will be able to get the new
interface.
Personally, I think that the first 6 months-1 year that Copland is out,
there will be virtually no software which takes advantage of the OS' new
features. Remember, the memory protection and pre-emptive multitasking
will only work with apps which are re-written for Copland. If you run a
dozen old-style Mac apps and one crashes, they all go down.
Would it be nice to run Copland on a 500-series PowerBook? Sure, I
guess. Would you like Copland to be even later while Apple futzes around
trying to get the drivers done for yet another system configuration?
John Dowding
Jon> I don't understand the vitrol being heaped on Apple over this
Jon> issue.
Well, let me try to explain it to you.
Step into the way-back machine, and go back 6 months. I need to buy a
portable. I know that the powerbook 520 has an oldish CPU, that will
soon be replaced by the power PC. No problem, I say, I can buy the
520 now, and upgrade it the PPC later. They even put the CPU on a
daughter card to make this easier, how far-thinking of them. In fact,
I won't even consider the 540, since the small difference in CPU
speeds won't matter when the CPU is replaced, anyways.
Roll forward 6 months: I find out that the very feature that I thought
would make my powerbook more upgradable is in fact going to prevent it
from running the next generation of the MAC OS. This, plus I hear (on
this newgroup) that the PPC upgraded 5xx machines won't run so hot
without this new OS.
Some people are comparing expecting my 520 to run 8.0 with expecting a
286 to run Win '95. This powerbook is only 6 freakin' months old, not
8 years. It was near the top of the line when I bought it.
Now, I am used to upgrading my machines every 3-4 years, just like
everybody else. We all know that new software comes out all the time
that has every higher expectation of the hardware, faster CPU, more
memory, larger disk, etc. We expect to have to upgrade from time to
time, but we also expect to be able to have the option of improving
our current machine for less than buying a new one. After all, Apple
told us we could.
Come a year from now, I am going to have exactly one upgrade option:
buy a whole new computer, and throw this thing in the trash. That's
like half of the expected life time that I thought I was buying.
This is a stupid engineering blunder, and it ought to be acknowledged
as such.
Some people on this news group seem to think that critizing Apple in
any way is a crime. These same people hooted and hollared when there
was a minor error with division in the Pentium chip. This Apple
blunder makes that look like pretty insignificant.
--
John Dowding
dow...@ai.sri.com
Jonathan Mergy
jhaw...@bora.dacom.co.kr (Jeffrey A. Hawkins) wrote:
> Upgraded PB 500's will definately not run Copland. Personally I thought
> Cary Lu's statement was as good of confirmation as any. But for those who
> need more, the announcement was made at the MacWorld Expo two days ago.
>
> PPCP (CHRP) computers will come out mid-year... Laptops by the end of it.
> Many of you are holding out for these. Here's a prediction six months in
> advance, and I hope you can save yourself some distress by considering it:
>
> When these machines come out, they will be the first of an entirely new
> breed. There will be hardware problems. They will be using a heavily
> tweaked and re-written MacOS. There will be bugs bigger than Korean
> roaches. (Pretty damn big) People will be writing pissed off letters by the
> hundreds. Many of them justified, more of them silly, some of them stupid.
>
> I have a 540c that I had hoped to run Copland on... That ain't gonna
> happen. But, I think I'll buy the Newer Tech upgrade with the L2 cache when
> it gets here anyway. I'll watch for updates to the system software. I'll
> convert my apps to native when it's cheap to do so, and delete non-native
> extensions.
>
> I'll run this pretty mean non-Copland machine for 18 to 24 months. Then
> I'll buy a PPCP 2.xx laptop with a huge black-matrix or plasma display, a
> stable Copland or a new buggy Gershwin, and all the new bells and whistles
> they have come up with at that time.
>
> So when are the damn Gig drives and revision C PC card cages coming out?
> Anyone hear the latest?
>
> Good Day.
>
> Jeffrey A. Hawkins \ Home: (051) 343-8626
Hey, that might be the way to go. I have a 520c and I was happy to see
Newer's product that should be released soon, but the fact that it won't
run copland might be bad, or it might be good.
I was a little ticked to find out for certain that Copland is not going to
happen for me and my 520c. But, I still think the Newer upgrade is a must
for me. I will ride this 520c out untill I can't ride it no more then get
a new second generation PB a year and a half down the road.
--
Jonathan Mergy
me...@faludi.com
------------------
Faludi Computing
Macintosh Communications Consulting
Disclaimer: The above message only reflects MY opinions.
Jon Bodner
:>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Bodner <jcbo...@students.wisc.edu> writes:
:
: Jon> In article <DOWDING.96...@Gansett.ai.sri.com>,
: Jon> dow...@ai.sri.com (John Dowding) wrote:
:
: Jon> No, it wasn't. The 5300's are 4 months old. You bought your
: Jon> 520 towards the end of its (for the lack of a better phrase
: Jon> at 1:30 AM) sales life; over a year after they were
: Jon> introduced.
:
:Duh. The PPC versions weren't out yet, that's why I wanted to upgrade
:the 520. My only option was the 540.
The point was that you could have waited a couple of months.
:
: Jon> That's silly. In a year (or 18 months, which is when I think
: Jon> Copland will appear), your PPC-upgraded PowerBook will work
: Jon> just as well.
:
:In a year (or maybe even 18 months), software will start appearing
:that I will want to run, that won't run on my 520, upgraded or not.
:
: Jon> : :This is a stupid engineering blunder, and it ought to be
: Jon> acknowledged :as such.
: Jon> It's an unfortunate limitation. Would you rather see Copland
: Jon> delayed even more so Apple can make it run on the
: Jon> PPC-upgraded 500's?
:
:Yes. Absolutely. I would like to see Copland delayed until it works.
:
: Jon> Apple doesn't have infinite resources,
: Jon> and the ones it does have have not been managed all that
: Jon> well, lately.
:
:Meanwhile, I am reading (in this very newsgroup) not to worry about a
:$68 million loss last quarter, since Apple has a billion in cash
:sitting around to lose. Maybe they should take some of that billion,
:and hire some good programmers to keep their current customers happy.
There is a classic text in software engineering called "The Mythical
Man-Month." I forgot the author, but it explodes the myth that throwing
more people at a software project gets it done quicker. A great way to
make a small problem bigger is by throwing additional people at it. The
cross-communication and division of labor quickly bogs down the project,
making it even later. A long time ago, someone figured this out and
coined the phrase "Too many cooks spoiled the broth."
I don't know if Apple does in fact have a billion dollars in cash sitting
around; I'm not a shareholder, so I don't get that sort of info. I do
know that just throwing money at a problem won't make it go away.
:
:I think you've been fighting the holy war too long. Apple has
:been seriously screwing up, and there are some mighty dissatisfied
:customers out here. Arguing that we would be screwed even worse by
:Intel/Microsoft/IBM/The Devil won't make us shut up.
Oh, Apple has screwed up plenty of times. I was howling about the whole
Mode32 debacle (esp. when Apple announced that it broke Mode32 for System
7.5 before it announced a new version) and the LiIon battery disaster
(before Apple announced that it was going to reduce prices to match the
inferior battery). By and large, Apple has made good and NOT abandoned
people. There are a few times that Apple has seriously screwed people
(Apple /// anyone?). I will be the first to admit it.
I think you should wait 18 months before you see if your machine is going
to be the lonely orphan you believe. I bet that for the reasonable life
of a 520 (say, until 1998 or so), you'll be able to get upgrades to
software, as well as hardware supplies.
No software company is going to abandon an installed base as large as the
old Macs. I think Apple is going to have a hard time convincing
developers to write for Copland. Remember how long it took for System 7
features to be adopted? Hell, Apple still can't convince people to
support something as simple as GX printing! Well, the changes which were
needed to make software System 7 Savvy are piddling compared to the
changes Copland Savvy software requires.
You are going to be able to run a modified System 7.5 with the new
interface features. That is going to be the best of both worlds. I have
a feeling that there are some 5300 owners who are going to feel screwed
when they have no choice but Copland.
-jon
John Dowding
Jon> In article <DOWDING.96...@Gansett.ai.sri.com>,
Jon> dow...@ai.sri.com (John Dowding) wrote:
Jon> No, it wasn't. The 5300's are 4 months old. You bought your
Jon> 520 towards the end of its (for the lack of a better phrase
Jon> at 1:30 AM) sales life; over a year after they were
Jon> introduced.
Duh. The PPC versions weren't out yet, that's why I wanted to upgrade
the 520. My only option was the 540.
Jon> That's silly. In a year (or 18 months, which is when I think
Jon> Copland will appear), your PPC-upgraded PowerBook will work
Jon> just as well.
In a year (or maybe even 18 months), software will start appearing
that I will want to run, that won't run on my 520, upgraded or not.
Jon> : :This is a stupid engineering blunder, and it ought to be
Jon> acknowledged :as such.
Jon> It's an unfortunate limitation. Would you rather see Copland
Jon> delayed even more so Apple can make it run on the
Jon> PPC-upgraded 500's?
Yes. Absolutely. I would like to see Copland delayed until it works.
Jon> Apple doesn't have infinite resources,
Jon> and the ones it does have have not been managed all that
Jon> well, lately.
Meanwhile, I am reading (in this very newsgroup) not to worry about a
$68 million loss last quarter, since Apple has a billion in cash
sitting around to lose. Maybe they should take some of that billion,
and hire some good programmers to keep their current customers happy.
I think you've been fighting the holy war too long. Apple has
been seriously screwing up, and there are some mighty dissatisfied
customers out here. Arguing that we would be screwed even worse by
Intel/Microsoft/IBM/The Devil won't make us shut up.
--
John Dowding
dow...@ai.sri.com
for...@slip.net
to run COPELAND when you got your machine. Also, they will be
UNIVERSALIZING sys 7. The new 7 versions will look and feel very much like
copeland and I hear that it will have many of the same functions as
Copeland. So be happy with the 500 machines, they are awesome creatures,
very reliable, quick, PPC-able and much sleaker than the 5300s. RIGHT
--
Best,
Jon Bodner
(John Dowding) wrote:
:>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Bodner <jcbo...@students.wisc.edu> writes:
:
: Jon> I don't understand the vitrol being heaped on Apple over this
: Jon> issue.
:
:Well, let me try to explain it to you.
:
:Step into the way-back machine, and go back 6 months. I need to buy a
:portable. I know that the powerbook 520 has an oldish CPU, that will
:soon be replaced by the power PC. No problem, I say, I can buy the
:520 now, and upgrade it the PPC later. They even put the CPU on a
:daughter card to make this easier, how far-thinking of them. In fact,
:I won't even consider the 540, since the small difference in CPU
:speeds won't matter when the CPU is replaced, anyways.
:
:Roll forward 6 months: I find out that the very feature that I thought
:would make my powerbook more upgradable is in fact going to prevent it
:from running the next generation of the MAC OS. This, plus I hear (on
:this newgroup) that the PPC upgraded 5xx machines won't run so hot
:without this new OS.
:
:Some people are comparing expecting my 520 to run 8.0 with expecting a
:286 to run Win '95. This powerbook is only 6 freakin' months old, not
:8 years. It was near the top of the line when I bought it.
No, it wasn't. The 5300's are 4 months old. You bought your 520 towards
the end of its (for the lack of a better phrase at 1:30 AM) sales life;
over a year after they were introduced. It will be 3 years from its date
of introduction until the release of Copland. That's a long time in
computer years.
Furthermore, you'll still get all of the interface parts of Copland,
anyway. The improved Finder and all its accoutrements will be ported to
the older machines.
The PowerMacs really aren't going to get much faster with Copland,
anyway. The only major system which isn't native is the disk manager.
Since the limiting factor here is the speed of the hard drive anyway, this
isn't such a big deal. Basically, file operations will be a smidge faster
under Copland. That's it.
:
:Now, I am used to upgrading my machines every 3-4 years, just like
:everybody else. We all know that new software comes out all the time
:that has every higher expectation of the hardware, faster CPU, more
:memory, larger disk, etc. We expect to have to upgrade from time to
:time, but we also expect to be able to have the option of improving
:our current machine for less than buying a new one. After all, Apple
:told us we could.
:
:Come a year from now, I am going to have exactly one upgrade option:
:buy a whole new computer, and throw this thing in the trash. That's
:like half of the expected life time that I thought I was buying.
That's silly. In a year (or 18 months, which is when I think Copland will
appear), your PPC-upgraded PowerBook will work just as well. You won't
need to worry about upgrading a thousand bucks worth of software or
spending weeks getting everything working correctly. No one is going to
stop producing software for System 7. There is an installed base of 15-20
million machines that won't be upgraded. Only a fool would ignore that
market.
:
:This is a stupid engineering blunder, and it ought to be acknowledged
:as such.
It's an unfortunate limitation. Would you rather see Copland delayed even
more so Apple can make it run on the PPC-upgraded 500's? Apple doesn't
have infinite resources, and the ones it does have have not been managed
all that well, lately.
:
:Some people on this news group seem to think that critizing Apple in
:any way is a crime. These same people hooted and hollared when there
:was a minor error with division in the Pentium chip. This Apple
:blunder makes that look like pretty insignificant.
You are comparing a mathmatical flaw in a system pitched to scientists and
engineers to a business decision not to support a group of machines. I
don't see the analogy.
Personally, I wish that Apple had the resources to make Copland run on
68040 Macs, upgraded to PowerPC or otherwise. The fact that a relatively
limited market is going to be able to use it is bad; it limits support.
MS, with its billion dollar marketing scheme hasn't sold very many upgrade
kits for Win95 (about 4 million upgrades sold; another 7 million were
pre-loaded on new PC's. For an installed base of over 100 million, that's
an awful number.). Apple had better pull off a miracle.
-jon
Jeffrey A. Hawkins
Cary Lu's statement was as good of confirmation as any. But for those who
need more, the announcement was made at the MacWorld Expo two days ago.
PPCP (CHRP) computers will come out mid-year... Laptops by the end of it.
Many of you are holding out for these. Here's a prediction six months in
advance, and I hope you can save yourself some distress by considering it:
When these machines come out, they will be the first of an entirely new
breed. There will be hardware problems. They will be using a heavily
tweaked and re-written MacOS. There will be bugs bigger than Korean
roaches. (Pretty damn big) People will be writing pissed off letters by the
hundreds. Many of them justified, more of them silly, some of them stupid.
I have a 540c that I had hoped to run Copland on... That ain't gonna
happen. But, I think I'll buy the Newer Tech upgrade with the L2 cache when
it gets here anyway. I'll watch for updates to the system software. I'll
convert my apps to native when it's cheap to do so, and delete non-native
extensions.
I'll run this pretty mean non-Copland machine for 18 to 24 months. Then
I'll buy a PPCP 2.xx laptop with a huge black-matrix or plasma display, a
stable Copland or a new buggy Gershwin, and all the new bells and whistles
they have come up with at that time.
So when are the damn Gig drives and revision C PC card cages coming out?
Anyone hear the latest?
Good Day.
Jeffrey A. Hawkins \ Home: (051) 343-8626
916-7 Man Duk 3 Dong / Fax: (051) 338-5199
Puk Gu, Pusan (616-113) S. Korea \ Work: (051) 336-6616
E-mail: jhaw...@bora.dacom.co.kr /
BTW, I have started a Free Mac consulting service via usenet/e-mail. Copy posts to my e-mail for personal response.
Kirt Thomas
> Right now, I use my 520c for word processing, logging in
> to the net, MIDI sequencing, graphing, drawing, and soon
> multi-track digital recording. Its a great machine!
> What will I be missing without Copland?
>
Babes, better health, and general well being <G>
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kirt Thomas http://www.sky.net/~kirtt
ki...@sky.net FidoNet: 1:280/101
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Marc Bizer
rpar...@infotel-systems.com (Richard Parkinson) wrote:
>I also went to MacExpo hoping to find someone who was selling 1 GB
>internal drives for my PB540c. The LaCie person said that Quantum were not
>going to make any SCSI 2-1/2" drives bigger than 340 MB. From my fairly
>exhaustive investigation, I believe the only manufacturer of SCSI 2-1/2"
>drives for the 5XX PBs is IBM, and I have only found 3 suppliers:
I assume that you've looked at the APS catalog; they offer a 1.1 GB SCSI
internal hard drive.
--Marc Bizer
Richard Parkinson
internal drives for my PB540c. The LaCie person said that Quantum were not
going to make any SCSI 2-1/2" drives bigger than 340 MB. From my fairly
exhaustive investigation, I believe the only manufacturer of SCSI 2-1/2"
drives for the 5XX PBs is IBM, and I have only found 3 suppliers:
IBM Direct, who quoted me $2400 Cdn., but they had none in stock
ProDirect, who have put me on a list to call me if they get any
APS, who took my order for a hopeful 1 month delivery @ $699. US
I am hopeful that APS will come through, as it is pretty clear to me that
if I don't get the IBM drive soon, I will be out of luck. My current
Toshiba 500 MB is the second one I have had in my PB540c, the first having
died after 10 months and thankfully under warranty.
I have also order the Newer PPC upgrade card, and figure I may as well max
out my PB540c as long as possible.
Regards
Richard
In article <AD1CBFF29...@pppps60.dacom.co.kr>,
jhaw...@bora.dacom.co.kr (Jeffrey A. Hawkins) wrote:
Reuben Bruchez
:You were promised a PPC and you got it. They never said you would be able
There´s a relatively simple solution to this whole hulabaloo. Lets take
it for granted that daughterboard upgraded 680x0:PPC computers won´t run
Copeland. For those of us who insist on having an OS that supports all of
Copeland´s many features, Apple or some third party should offer
motherboard and daughterboard upgrades, which would then enable all those
folks who wanted to the ability to run Copeland. Yes, I know it would be
more expensive, and one might as well buy a new PB, but I like my 520´s
case, the RAM that I bought for it that isn´t going to work anywhere else
on the planet, and all the other little features than make these great
computers.
So, how about it Apple. You really have no choice but to make these
computers compatible with the new OS. So, here´s the smoking gun...Give
me Copeland, or I´ll run MachTen an never upgrade my base OS.
Later,
Reuben B.
--
Reuben Bruchez
Announcer's voiceover: "You're young and indestructible, and the pigs
are less likely to pull you over if you're in a Volvo."
Simon Friedman
>>If this is so Apple sucks. Apple is abandoning a product that is a little
>>over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
>>not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
>>I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
>>apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
>>unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
>
>how important it is for Copland to support
>5xx series PPC upgraded Macs without resorting
>to threats and insults.
>
>I want Apple to clear up this issue with a
>definitive statement so I know whether or
>not it is worth purchasing an upgrade for
>my machine.
>
>If the upgrade won't run Copland then I
>will probably be better off saving my
>pennies for a new laptop in the next
>couple years.
>
>[fletcher]
I don't want this to sound snide, because its actually
a sincere question: What is going to be so great about
Copland that would make a previously excellent computer
have substantially less value because it couldn't run
it?
What do people use their 500s for?
What will Copland do that will let them do these things better?
What can't you do now, that Copland would have let you do?
Right now, I use my 520c for word processing, logging in
to the net, MIDI sequencing, graphing, drawing, and soon
multi-track digital recording. Its a great machine!
What will I be missing without Copland?
Thanks!
Simon
frie...@cgl.ucsf.edu
Jon Bodner
wag...@bullwinkle.cs.Colorado.EDU (Dave Wagner) wrote:
:In article <jcbodner-130...@f183-036.net.wisc.edu>,
:Jon Bodner <jcbo...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>There is a classic text in software engineering called "The Mythical
:>Man-Month." I forgot the author, but it explodes the myth that throwing
: ^^^^^^
:Fred Brooks.
Thanks. I hated my class on Software Design and Documentation (back when
I took it at RPI, the course was total make-believe; no actual coding,
just drawing lots of data flow diagrams. I've heard that the course has
been changed since then.) , but I tried to remember the important bits of
it.
-jon
Dave Wagner
>Man-Month." I forgot the author, but it explodes the myth that throwing
Fred Brooks.
Dave Wagner
Principia Consulting
(303) 786-8371
dbwa...@princon.com
http://www.princon.com/princon
John Dowding
Simon> What can't you do now, that Copland would have let you do?
I think you've got the question backwards. It's not about what I can
do now, but what will I be able to do *then*. New software comes out
all the time, with new features and capabilities. I am concerned
about the software that will come out, that I will want to run, but
that won't run on my powerbook without Copland.
Simon> Right now, I use my 520c for word processing, logging in to
Simon> the net, MIDI sequencing, graphing, drawing, and soon
Simon> multi-track digital recording. Its a great machine! What
Simon> will I be missing without Copland?
I can still run every program that I ran on my 286 7 years ago, for
word processing, terminal emulation, and games. So what? Who wants
to be stuck with that old crud.
Simon> Simon frie...@cgl.ucsf.edu
--
John Dowding
dow...@ai.sri.com
Martin Jourdan
<rparkins-130...@van-as-03a07.direct.ca>,
rpar...@infotel-systems.com (Richard Parkinson) wrote (écrivait) :
|> The LaCie person said that Quantum were not
|> going to make any SCSI 2-1/2" drives bigger than 340 MB.
Interesting: I have a 500-Mb Quantum Daytona 514 SCSI disk in my Duo...
Martin Jourdan
Avant-projet Charme, INRIA, Rocquencourt, France
Phone +33-1-36-93-54-35, fax +33-1-39-63-56-98, Martin....@inria.fr
Home page and PGP key: http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~jourdan
David E. Vangerov
>Well, there it is direct from the horse's (*)
>The Copland preview at MacWorld expo today included admission by the
>Apple engineers that PowerPC upgrade cards of all sorts will NOT
>support Copland. Never, no way. It seems it would be more trouble
>than it's worth to try to bring Copland through the underlying '040
>architecture.
i pressed a couple of people for answers to this dilema on friday.
what i was told was that the "initial" release of Copland wouldn't
support the PB500 series. you can interpret that statement two
different ways. i'm picking the more optimistic interpretation
that a second release of Copland *will* support the PB500 series,
as well as older Macs that have gotten PPC upgrades. i stressed
to the people that i talked to that a lot of people are upset
over the rumors that Copland won't run on the PB500 series and
that they should very seriously try to put in support for the
PB500 series into Copland. i was thanked for that. whether i
was being blown off or not remains to be seen.
i'm still planning on getting the PPC upgrade next month for
my PB520c. i'm not too worried about the future. Copland is
about a year away from being released. a *lot* can happen in
a year. and in the meantime i can finally run those cool
games i keep see coming out (Absolute Zero, Descent, Marathon 2).
--
David E. Vangerov, Systems Administrator, HaL Computer Systems.
d...@hal.com || d...@armory.com || d...@cats.ucsc.edu (pick an addres)
WWW: http://www.hal.com/~dev/ -or- http://www.armory.com/~dev/
<Insert favorite witty disclaimer of HaL's responsibility for this post>
Stephen Schwartz
> Once you have an Apple (or Apple licensed) PowerPC in you PowerBook 500
> it will be on the "officialy promised to run Copland" list.
>
> I guess I'll just add this to the list of things Apple promised that
> I am still waiting for:
> - Macintosh OS support for the DMA in my IIfx
> - Software upgrades to support faster modem speeds for the Geoport
> Telecom Adapter on my Quadra 840AV
> - Programable battery management in the PB 500 series for support
> of Lithium Ion batteries
> - Unix (AIX) for the x100 series (6100, 7100, 8100) of PowerPC machines.
> - Lifetime OS upgrades ("You pay more upfront for the computer, but
> you get free OS upgrades")
> - Continued support for the Apple accelerated video card (8*24GC)
Here's another:
The "Apple Resource Guide" that came with my Duo 280c says regarding the
AppleCare extended warranty that:
"AppleCare offers up to 36 months of the same protection as the original
Apple One-Year Limited Warranty, beginning when your warranty expires."
My warranty is about to expire. I had someone in the states call the
AppleCare number. Guess what? AppleCare *unlike the original Apple
One-Year Limited Warranty* does not offer international coverage. In
other words: it is not the same protection. Since I'm not in the U.S.,
I'm up shit's creek.
Steve
Kirt Thomas
>
> But hey... at least my old IIsi can run System 7.5 and still be fast
> enough to be useful. I don't think a 386 can handle Windows 95, but then
> again, I haven't been stupid enough to try it.
>
I put it on a 386dx40 (AMD), w/16megs of RAM and it ran fine.
Peter Payne
> If this is so Apple sucks. Apple is abandoning a product that is a little
> over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
> not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
> I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
> apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
> unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
There is likely a _reason_ why they are doing it other than, they don't
want to put in the time. Jeez. Let's be a little understanding, shall
we? I'm as hosed with my Duo 280 as you, but I am planning to upgrade to
_real_ PPC soon anyway, so it's okay.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Anyone who thinks they're a vampire needs to get up and walk out of the
gene pool right now.
- Josh
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kirt Thomas
>
> Doug Sturim <d...@lems.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> > If this is so Apple sucks. Apple is abandoning a product that is a little
> > over a year old. The fact that a 8 year old 286 can't run windows 95 is
> > not a sufficient argument. Apple engineers don't want to put in the time.
> > I have owned many macs since 1985 and have always been very pleased with
> > apple's support. My next computer will be a clone labtop running a free
> > unix. Enjoy your 7% market Apple.
>
> There is likely a _reason_ why they are doing it other than, they don't
> want to put in the time. Jeez. Let's be a little understanding, shall
> we?
greener pastures, read Netscape. As someone else pointed out, if apple
has a 1 billlllion dollar rat hole, then they should be spending it on talent.
Based on OT, 7.5.2, etc, that ain't happening.
Peter Payne
> The Copland preview at MacWorld expo today included admission by the
> Apple engineers that PowerPC upgrade cards of all sorts will NOT
> support Copland. Never, no way. It seems it would be more trouble
> than it's worth to try to bring Copland through the underlying '040
> architecture.
I say ***YAY***.
It is a GOOD thing to get past the 040 line. Why does Win95 suck, you
ask? Because of too much backward compatibility. Having to be compatible
with everything from the first PC (which it isn't, I know, but still).
A fresh start with Copland is a GOOD thing. I am HAPPY.
There will still be 7.5, and 7.6, or something. You will get updates to
get all the connectivity with Copland you need. It'll be OKAY. There
will just be two OS in use by Macs, sort of like Win95 and WinNT.
> Then again, as they pointed out, it's worse on the Windoze side. you
> don't see 286's running Win95 (or even 3.1!) but there are plenty of
> serviceable II ci's from the same era which can run 7.5 Personally,
> I'll sacrifice backwards compatability for the new OS if it really
> is as good as it is being touted to be.
Good. Glad we agree.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In SAFEWAY, many kinds of corn flakes about one hundred have overpowered
me. I felt a difference of the staple foods. Then Terry (host family's
woman) had a Coke of L size. I was really astounded by tremendous size.
- Yuko
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeffrey A. Hawkins
le...@gol1.gol.com (Peter Payne) wrote:
> I say ***YAY***.
>
> It is a GOOD thing to get past the 040 line. Why does Win95 suck, you
> ask? Because of too much backward compatibility. Having to be compatible
> with everything from the first PC (which it isn't, I know, but still).
>
> A fresh start with Copland is a GOOD thing. I am HAPPY.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentement, but this issue is about making
Copland run on a PPC Mac, not an 040. Here is a loose quote of what I and
many others were told when we bought our machines:
"...and the processor is on a daughter card along with
the ROMs and clock crystal. That means when you put in
a new daughter card, it's fully updated... like buying
a new PPC computer..."
Now, this argument made sence. If the Processor and the ROMs... everything
from the system bus up, is on the daughter card, replacing this card is
equivalent to replacing the motherboard minus the subsystems like video,
SCSI, and such.
People were led to believe that they would have the equivalent in
compatibility and speed to Apple's PPC powerbooks, with the upgrade. We
knew we would not get a bigger screen or hard drive. We knew that any
advancements in SCSI or the trackpad would not be included. But we were
told that we would have the compatability of a new PPC machine for an
additional $600 to $1000. (Prices not set at that time.)
Facts are facts. For better or worse, this is a broken promise.
Dave Wagner
Jeffrey A. Hawkins <jhaw...@bora.dacom.co.kr> wrote:
>
> ...this issue is about making
>Copland run on a PPC Mac, not an 040. Here is a loose quote of what I and
>many others were told when we bought our machines:
>
> "...and the processor is on a daughter card along with
> the ROMs and clock crystal. That means when you put in
> a new daughter card, it's fully updated... like buying
> a new PPC computer..."
You "were told" this? By whom? The pimply-faced sales droid at
Mega-Super-Compu-Mall?
>Facts are facts. For better or worse, this is a broken promise.
Yes, but a vague recollection of something that an unspecified party
told you is hardly a fact. It's not made any more convincing by saying
that "many others" were told the same thing. You are grasping at
straws.
You know, I'm sympathetic to people with PPC upgrades (I've got one
on my desktop, after all), but really, I've yet to hear a
convincing argument that Apple owes us anything w.r.t. Copeland.
Since Copeland is 2 years late, and counting, it's irrelevant
what I thought was going to happen when I bought my upgrade.
What pisses me off is that it's so late in the first place.
I don't want it to be any later.
Michael E. Fryd
not be able to run Copland.
These statements are based on un-offical statements from people
with direct knowledge Copland and PowerBook product development.
Whatever the future brings, the Fact remains that Apple has
officially promoted the PowerBook as being upgradeable, and that once upgraded
it will run "Future" technologies. Copland is certainly <i>The</i> future
technology.
Apple Management has promised owners (by way of official press releases) to
keep the PowerBook 500 series on the "vanguard" of technology if upgraded
with the PowerPC upgrade. They have promised to "Protect our investment"
if only we purchase the PowerPC upgrade.
I would expect that Apple Management will find it is much cheaper to
make Copland run on the upgraded PowerBook 500 then to deal with the
legal issues of breaking promises to such a large customer base.
I would suggest that those who don't have the old press releases handy
go to Apple's Web sites and look up the press releases
and technotes that cover the issue.
If you look at official Apple press releases
<URL:http://product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1995/q4/950828.pr.rel.pbupgrades.html>
you will find that Apple used the following phrases to describe
the PowerPC upgrade for the PB500 series:
"By making these affordable upgrades available, Apple is helping its
customers preserve their PowerBook investments, while also keeping them in
the vanguard of notebook computing technology."
...
"With this upgrade, our customers can protect their investments in
Macintosh technology,"
The Apple Technical Information Library note
<URL:http://cgi.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/read.wais.doc.pl?/wais/TIL/Macintosh!Hardware/Macintosh!PowerBook!Family/PB!PwrPC!Upgrds!Descs!-!Specs>
on the PowerPC upgrade says:
"The entire family of upgrades gives you PowerPC processor based cap-abilities
designed for the future, built on the foundation of the investment you have in
your PowerBook today."
These upgrades were announced along with the 5300 series notebooks.
The first statement claims that the technology provided by the
upgrade is equivalent the technology provided by the 5300, after
all both are on the "vanguard" of notebook computing.
The second statement implies that the upgrade 'protects' the customer's
investment. At the time of this press release, Apple had already announced
an tentative ship date for Copland. Obviously if the upgrade
is to 'protect your investment' it must support technologies
that have been announced as for PowerPC machines.
The statement from the Technical Information Library
cleary states that that the PowerPC upgrade is designed for the future.
No matter how you slice it, customers who bought the PowerBook 500 series
thought they
would be able to run Copland. These customers thought that Apple had promised
Copland compatibility. If they can't run Copland, Apple will have a large
number
of unhappy customers. The bad press alone will cause Apple's stock to
tumble yet
again. If Apple intends to be successful, Apple needs to keep the
customers happy.
+-----------------------------------------------------+
jokes at <URL:http://www.totalweb.com/ent/jokehome.html>
Michael E. Fryd <URL:http://www.totalweb.com/~mfryd/>
Mefco, Inc. e-mail: mf...@totalweb.com
523 Michigan Avenue Phone: (305) 673-5200
Miami Beach, FL 33139 Fax: (305) 673-2950
hv...@cln.etc.bc.ca
supporting Copland on upgraded PB5xx computers would be a TECHNICAL one.
If the PB5xx COULD run Copland, it WOULD.
Marrying a 32 or 64 bit processor to a 16 bit datapath motherboard does
not make a 32 or 64 bit computer. It may run the same code, but it doesn't
have the same technical capabilities.
The fact is, every time you picked up a MacWorld and read an article about
the PB 500s in comparison to the Duo 200s, they mentioned the differences
in the underlying hardware, their data paths, etc...
Your argument that Apple must support future operating systems on old
hardware because they promised processor upgrades is silly. If a future
operating system offers 16 bit sound, a computer with 8 bit sound would
not benefit.
If, on a more extreme case, the operating system REQUIRED 16 bit sound,
the operating system would not work at all.
Just as virtual memory didn't work on a Mac II without a PMMU, Copland
aparently won't run on an upgraded PB500.
There was no promise that the PB500 would be your last computer, eternally
capable and upgradable to the latest system software. They just promised
you would be able to upgrade to the PowerPC chip and run PowerPC software.
Of course, judging from past history, I wouldn't be surprised if Connetix
stirred about in their magic black caldron (eye of Newt is takes on a
whole new meaning) and magically came up with an extension called "Mode
Copland 32" or somesuch.
-Randall
JFK
All good points, but what if Copland ran on upgraded DESKtop units?
The March Macworld seamed to indicate Cop would run on those (article
somewhere in the 'news' section).
Also, there is supposidly a HAL, Hardware Adstraction Layer, that is
designed to allow Cop to compensate for various hardware configurations.
No, the problem is not technical, it is the cost of development for Apple
to support something that is little used by most people.
If Connextix could double RAM and double the speed with software, why
does Apple think it cant put Cop on 5xx?
We who did/will purcase the upgrades ASSUMED that it will run future
software, including OS. We want this so we can use our machine for as
long as possible. IF we knew about this befor, we would not have gotten
it, and now it has been announced, the price of non PPC machines has dropped
in value by a sizble amount (lame duck computers).
If Win95 can work on an ancient 386-40 w/ 4 megs, using an ancient buss
sytem, why cant Cop not work on a relative new bus??
Joe Kudrna
Jaime Navon
> You know, I'm sympathetic to people with PPC upgrades (I've got one
> on my desktop, after all), but really, I've yet to hear a
> convincing argument that Apple owes us anything w.r.t. Copeland.
> Since Copeland is 2 years late, and counting, it's irrelevant
> what I thought was going to happen when I bought my upgrade.
> What pisses me off is that it's so late in the first place.
> I don't want it to be any later.
You thought it was going to happen whe you bought the upgrade
(Copland) and you can't see why PB5xx owners might expect
Copland to run in the upgraded machines some day ?
You are right in that, legally speaking, Apple doesn'owe us
anything, but Apple (loyal) users expect a little bit more.
| _ . _ _ _ |\ | _ _ _ Jaime C. Navon
|_|(_||| | |(/__| \|(_|\/(_)| |___ na...@cs.unc.edu
____________________________________/ http://www.cs.unc.edu/~navon