Sys 7.5 and SE/30s
Jon Bodner
goodies seem too, well, good to pass up...However, I have a nagging question
in the back of my head...
What is going to happen with 32-bit adressing and 7.5? As of right now,
there are heapum big warnings not to use Mode32 with the Thread Manager due
to possible file corruption. Since the 32-bit Enabler has done a lovely
job of making my SE/30 crash, I have simply pulled the Thread Manager and
stuck with Mode32. However, since (AFAIK) the Thread Manager is built in to
7.5, this is just not going to be possible.
Is Apple planning on fixing the wretched 32-bit Enabler? Or am I going to
have to suffer with 24-bit addressing and/or an unstable 32-bit addressing
mode?
-jon
Charles Wiltgen
concern for me as well. Any other SE/30 lurkers want to put in their 2¢?
In article <2tkuuu$c...@usenet.rpi.edu>, bod...@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jon
Bodner) wrote:
> What is going to happen with 32-bit adressing and 7.5? As of right now,
> there are heapum big warnings not to use Mode32 with the Thread Manager due
> to possible file corruption. Since the 32-bit Enabler has done a lovely
> job of making my SE/30 crash, I have simply pulled the Thread Manager and
> stuck with Mode32. However, since (AFAIK) the Thread Manager is built in to
> 7.5, this is just not going to be possible.
--
Charles Wiltgen "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and
cwil...@mcs.com then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
(INTP) At night, the ice weasels come." - Nietzsche (Groening)
World Wide Web http://www.mcs.net/~cwiltgen/home.html
Sandy Halflinger
So far I have comsidered myself lucky. My origanal SE of 6 or 7 years
ago is now an SE/30 8/230 (three HD's) with FDHD floppy and external color
Monitor running Sys 7.1. I have remained close to the cutting edge
without drifting to far from it.
The SE/30 is arguably Apples most robust flexible machine ever made. If
I won't be able to run 7.5 or have a major speed problem with it I will be
very upset. It would be a shame for the SE/30 to die the same death as the
Plus and SE did when 7.1 came along. I want to hold on to the past while
still being functional for as long as I can.
In article <cwiltgen-1...@cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net>, cwil...@mcs.com
(Charles Wiltgen) wrote:
> I just wanted to let you Apple fellows (small 'F') know that this is a big
> concern for me as well. Any other SE/30 lurkers want to put in their 2?
>
>
> In article <2tkuuu$c...@usenet.rpi.edu>, bod...@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jon
> Bodner) wrote:
>
> > What is going to happen with 32-bit adressing and 7.5? As of right now,
> > there are heapum big warnings not to use Mode32 with the Thread Manager due
> > to possible file corruption. Since the 32-bit Enabler has done a lovely
> > job of making my SE/30 crash, I have simply pulled the Thread Manager and
> > stuck with Mode32. However, since (AFAIK) the Thread Manager is built in to
> > 7.5, this is just not going to be possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Halflinger spac...@cattech.tiac.net spac...@l0pht.tiac.net
SPACE ROGUE CAT Technologies a division of L0pht Heavy Industries
"Where Technology Breeds"
AFL GeneS
spac...@cattech.tiac.net (Sandy Halflinger) writes:
> The SE/30 is arguably Apples most robust flexible machine ever
made.
> If I won't be able to run 7.5 or have a major speed problem with it
I
> will be very upset. It would be a shame for the SE/30 to die the
same
> death as the Plus and SE did when 7.1 came along. I want to hold on
> to the past while still being functional for as long as I can.
I've heard nothing to indicate that System 7.5 cannot be run on the
very same Macs that can use System 7 now (a Mac Plus or later, with
4MB or more of installed RAM).
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
cwil...@mcs.com (Charles Wiltgen) writes:
> I just wanted to let you Apple fellows (small 'F') know that this is a big
> concern for me as well. Any other SE/30 lurkers want to put in their 2¢?
>
>
> In article <2tkuuu$c...@usenet.rpi.edu>, bod...@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Jon
> Bodner) wrote:
>
> > What is going to happen with 32-bit adressing and 7.5? As of right now,
> > there are heapum big warnings not to use Mode32 with the Thread Manager due
> > to possible file corruption. Since the 32-bit Enabler has done a lovely
> > job of making my SE/30 crash, I have simply pulled the Thread Manager and
> > stuck with Mode32. However, since (AFAIK) the Thread Manager is built in to
> > 7.5, this is just not going to be possible.
This doesn't affect just SE/30 owners, but also IIx, IIcx and II
owners. Four distinct color Mac models are affected. All of us are
getting screwed in this.
MODE32 is incompatible with system 7.5 because of the built-in Thread
Manager, which together can cause file corruption. Apple's own 32-bit
enabler, while never much of a product to begin with, has just gotten
worse. Apple has announced that the 32-bit enabler is also
incompatible with system 7.5.
Time to consider buying a new computer? Maybe. Time to consider
leaving Apple for another computer vendor? Definitely.
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
aflg...@aol.com (AFL GeneS) writes:
Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are compatible
with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the functionality of
these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by not permitting them to
use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM beyond 8 megs that many of
these owners have purchased.
Since system 7.5, in all of its glory, can use oodles of RAM, this is
hardly the time to tell the many thousands of affected Mac users that
they will need more RAM to take advantage of sys 7.5's new
technologies, but that they will not be able to use the RAM above 8
megs that they have already paid for. People with 20 megs of RAM in
their SE/30 and IIcx's are going to fill a bit cramped (and more than a
bit pissed) being forced to ignore 12 of those megs while sys 7.5, with
QuickDraw GX and other nifty features of 7.5 chomping out perhaps 5-6
megs of that 8 megs.
But why bother with system 7.5 if you cannot use the new features of
7.5 and run your current applications at the same time? The severe
memory constraint cancels out any advantage that a user, formerly with
16-128 megs of RAM, might gain from using system software that limits
you to 8 megs of RAM and then requires 5-6 megs for itself to use its
new features.
In other words, you can use system 7.5 on a SE/30, II, IIx, or IIcx
just as long as you don't mind having your computer crippled by a
firmware bug, caused by Apple, and which Apple has failed to correct
adequately years later.
Thomas Reed
Yes. I've got an SE/30, and while I like it and still consider it to be
a useful machine, I ache for a new machine.
>Time to consider
>leaving Apple for another computer vendor? Definitely.
Why? Because some old software and hardware is not compatible with the
new stuff? That's the price of progress. If you don't like progress,
then go live in the IBM backwater where DOS hasn't changed much in YEARS.
The only real innovention to the IBM interface recently was Windows -- a
CLEAR attempt to copycat the Mac. And not a very good one, at that.
Apple is a pioneer in the field of computer technology. It seems like
Apple is always the one coming up with new, innovative ideas, which
everyone else starts to copy immediately afterwards. You can't expect a
company to be that innovative if they try to keep 5 year old hardware and
software compatible. These days, if you don't move with the technology,
you fall behind. And if you consider it, Apple has done a pretty good
job. I have quite a few apps that I used to use 3 years ago that I still
use today under System 7.1.
This is not to say that we should blindly follow Apple. But if you would
consider leaving because you're afraid you may have to replace your 5
year old computer, you're being awfully unrealistic.
-Thomas
=====================================================
Thomas Reed Washington University
Re...@telesphere.wustl.edu Medical School
(also: Re...@medicine.wustl.edu)
-----------------------------------------------------
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no
influence on society. -- Mark Twain
=====================================================
Opinions posted are not the opinions of Wash. U.
David C. Doherty
>Dr. Jon Gerard Temple,tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >Time to consider
> >leaving Apple for another computer vendor? Definitely.
>
> Why? Because some old software and hardware is not compatible with the
> new stuff? That's the price of progress.
True enough, this is the price of progress. But Apple sold the SE/30
as being a machine that could address more than 8MB. Turns out that
this is untrue. I don't think that it's unreasonable for me to expect
it to do this. The new software doesn't break on (most) other machines
that Apple claimed could do this.
btw, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance in hell that
I'll ever run 7.5 with 32 bit addressing on my SE/30. Apple
responded with a barely functional 32 bit enabler with the
introduction of 7.1. I'm not expecting a *better* reponse
two (?) years later.
--
David C. Doherty
Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
doh...@msc.edu
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
Thomas Reed <re...@medicine.wustl.edu> writes:
> In article <CrG4s...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Dr. Jon Gerard Temple,
> tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >Time to consider buying a new computer? Maybe.
>
> Yes. I've got an SE/30, and while I like it and still consider it to be
> a useful machine, I ache for a new machine.
Good for you. Are you also deciding for the rest of us?
> >Time to consider
> >leaving Apple for another computer vendor? Definitely.
>
> Why? Because some old software and hardware is not compatible with the
> new stuff? That's the price of progress. If you don't like progress,
> then go live in the IBM backwater where DOS hasn't changed much in YEARS.
> The only real innovention to the IBM interface recently was Windows -- a
> CLEAR attempt to copycat the Mac. And not a very good one, at that.
Wha? Progress my ass! Sys 7.5 is a bunch of already released
technologies rolled into one. This isn't the Taligent OS we're talking
about here; it's just a maintenance release plus a lot of preexisting
goodies. Apple is retaining support for LESSER machines (the LC, LC II
and Color Classic, for example) but not providing it for more powerful
machines (IIcx, SE/30). This is Progress? In what way? Don't you think
there are some rather appalling gaps in your logic?
Real "Progress" requires that do not abandon that which works
adequately. There are fundamental problems with the Plus that keep it
from utilizing more than 4 megs of RAM. Therefore, it is
understandable if Progress REQUIRING more RAM leaves them behind. The
problems with the early Mac II family were trifling in comparison; they
were DESIGNED to handle 128 megs of RAM and can do easily, providing a
bug in software is fixed. These machines were also designed to take ROM
upgrades, something which fixes the problems very well. Apple has
chosen not to do this because of MARKETING decisions that have jackshit
to do with "Progress". No, "Progress" doesn't necessitate abandoning
support for perfectly adequate platforms due to a software bug, one
that should have been fixed years ago!
> Apple is a pioneer in the field of computer technology. It seems like
> Apple is always the one coming up with new, innovative ideas, which
> everyone else starts to copy immediately afterwards. You can't expect a
> company to be that innovative if they try to keep 5 year old hardware and
> software compatible.
Why not? These machines are faster and more expandable than many
machines that Apple has come out with in the last several years! I'd
take a SE/30 over a IIvx any day! (Not much slower and a lot better
designed). Moreover, the IIci is still being supported, though it is
only 3 months younger than the SE/30 and only slightly faster. Age and
computational power are thus not the issue here: the only issue is a
software bug which Apple NEVER adequately fixed. End of story.
Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere. I currently
own 3 Macs. If Apple doesn't support them to the limit of their
technology, I will not buy a 4th Mac which is every bit as likely to be
abandoned in the dim light of Progress.
>These days, if you don't move with the technology,
> you fall behind. And if you consider it, Apple has done a pretty good
> job. I have quite a few apps that I used to use 3 years ago that I still
> use today under System 7.1.
Sorry, but this is baloney. We're talking about a goddamn software
bug! Fix the damn thing already! %*^&%&^*&^$%%$ Let the consumer, not
a software bug, decide if the technology can't keep up!
> This is not to say that we should blindly follow Apple. But if you would
> consider leaving because you're afraid you may have to replace your 5
> year old computer, you're being awfully unrealistic.
Why the hell shouldn't I? I have a 50 Mhz accelerator that makes it
run faster than emulated software on the powermac and many of the
Quadras and 20 megs of RAM that I can't carry with me, nor my 24-bit
video card. There isn't a damn thing wrong with my Mac except for a
shitty software bug that Apple won't fix! When Power Macs start
looking like Crays next to my Mac, then I'll start believing in this
crap, but until then, YOU are the one being unrealistic. In the REAL
world, baby needs new shoes.
Fix the friggin' software; let ME decide if I want new hardware, not
some marketing geek at Apple.
AFL GeneS
Jon Gerard Temple) writes:
> Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are
> compatible with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the
> functionality of these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by
not
> permitting them to use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM
beyond
> 8 megs that many of these owners have purchased.
This is not true. The 32-bit Enabler was designed to work with System
7.1, and MODE32 will work (though I believe there might be a virtual
memory issue with some users). What you state is not implied in my
comment or the one I quoted.
I've heard nothing to indicate that either is not compatible with
System 7.5. Why start a flame war without basis?
AFC PeterS
GeneS) writes:
> In article <CrG77...@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr. Jon Gerard Temple) writes:
>
> > Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are
> > compatible with system 7.1.
>
> This is not true. The 32-bit Enabler was designed to work with
> System 7.1, and MODE32 will work (though I believe there might
> be a virtual memory issue with some users). What you state is
> not implied in my comment or the one I quoted.
>
> I've heard nothing to indicate that either is not compatible
> with System 7.5. Why start a flame war without basis?
Gene, I believe Jon made a typographical slip, and meant to say that
neither is compatible with System 7.5, not 7.1. I have now heard this
from several people with SE/30s *and* System 7.5 betas. Putting aside
the issue of whether they should be discussing this at all (they
should be bound by NDAs), it appears to be a real problem, neither
without basis nor a flame war. However, since this *is* a beta OS
we're talking about, there's no reason to assume that the problem
will not be addressed in the release. Since Apple is essentially
rolling all other preexisting enablers into the OS, one would think
they would do the same with the patch for the II, IIx, IIcx and SE/30
as well. Let's hope so.
Peter Stoller (AFC PeterS)
Consultant, Macintosh Operating Systems Forum
Nathan J. Mehl
>
>Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are compatible
>with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the functionality of
>these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by not permitting them to
>use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM beyond 8 megs that many of
>these owners have purchased.
Pardon me for asking a possibly silly question, but is this pased on an
experience installing 7.5 on an Se/30 or IIcx, or simply on your
assumption that there will be no update to MODE32 or Apple's 32-bit enabler?
Apple is stupid, a known fact. They are not, however, *suicidal*. I'd
be willing to wager a fair amount of money that this problem (if, in fact
it exists or has not alreadly been solved) will be nailed down and
bleeding from every extremity by the time 7.5 shipts.
===============================================================================
| I woke the same as any other day / except a voice was in my head / it said |
|seize the day, pull the trigger, drop the blade / and watch the rolling heads|
===<Nathan J. Mehl>===============================<nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>===
RB3
chime in that between Apple's direct resonsibility for the matter at
hand, and perhaps the generosity of Connectix (a firm of geniuses it
seems to me from their innovative products), that 7.5 ought to
include either Mode32-2.0 or a new Enabler to allow me to use my 12Mb
RAM above and beyond the 8 available to me under 24 bit addressing.
Why else did I install 20 in the first place? I hope that these
concerns are not forgotten in the name of progress. My computer may
be 5 years old, but it cost me plenty then, and I do not have the
option to run out and plunk down another several grand to get the
newest Mac on the block, as much as I would like to.
regards,
Ran
Mark Gadzikowski
a SE/30 works real nicely with a (32 bit clean) IIci or IIfx ROM SIMM, if you
can find one of these precious gems.
Until they make a PowerPC in a compact ("Classic") enclosure, I figure my 50MHz
SE/30 will do me just fine. Of course, the Power^2 Books will tempt me severely
when they arrive.
--
I used to drive a Heisenberg Uncertainty car, but I could never read the
speedometer without getting lost.
Work: rice...@nimbus.com
Netcom: rice...@netcom.com
NewtonMail: rice...@eworld.com
America Online: rice...@aol.com
That's "Mark Gadzikowski" to you, Human.
Randy Shackelford
> The SE/30 is arguably Apples most robust flexible machine ever made. If
> I won't be able to run 7.5 or have a major speed problem with it I will be
> very upset. It would be a shame for the SE/30 to die the same death as the
> Plus and SE did when 7.1 came along. I want to hold on to the past while
> still being functional for as long as I can.
Eh? I have a Plus that can run 7.1 with SU 3.0 great. Gonna run 7.5 on it when
I get my hands on it.
--
Randy Shackelford
rgsh...@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Graham Allsopp
Gerard Temple) wrote:
[chomped]
>
> Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
> only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
> fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere. I currently
> own 3 Macs. If Apple doesn't support them to the limit of their
> technology, I will not buy a 4th Mac which is every bit as likely to be
> abandoned in the dim light of Progress.
>
Jon
I know how you feel - we've got a IIx and a IIcx here. However, you have to
admit thet they ARE getting a little long in the teeth now, and they are
rather slow (even the IIx with a DayStar 50 accelerator inside).
Unfortunately, computers don't go on for ever - look at the thousands of
80286 machines going into landfill sites now - and it's usually cheaper to
buy new rather than upgrade.
Yes, Apple made a mistake with the 'dirty' ROMs. I'm sure their 'apology'
was to provide MODE32 for free. However, to me this was probably the
biggest sales goof Apple made in 10 years (I never bought a IIvx :-) ), so
it's not a bad track record. And what do you want from S7.5 that S7.0.1 or
S7.1 can't provide - as I said, they're a lot slow for cutting-edge
applications.
Graham
--
Graham Allsopp Department of Geography
Email: G.Al...@Sheffield.ac.uk University of Sheffield
Tel: 0742 824741 (direct line) SHEFFIELD S10 2TN
Fax: 0742 797912 United Kingdom
Michael Kemper [RHRK]
inits, including thread manager). I saw an SE/3 running system 7.5 beta fine.
Don't panic!
--
kem...@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Michael Kemper, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
--
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Jeff Wythe
> In article <2tngj0...@medicine.wustl.edu>
> Thomas Reed <re...@medicine.wustl.edu> writes:
>
> > In article <CrG4s...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Dr. Jon Gerard Temple,
> > tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
[stuff deleted]
> >
> > Why? Because some old software and hardware is not compatible with the
> > new stuff? That's the price of progress. If you don't like progress,
> > then go live in the IBM backwater where DOS hasn't changed much in YEARS.
> > The only real innovention to the IBM interface recently was Windows -- a
> > CLEAR attempt to copycat the Mac. And not a very good one, at that.
>
> Wha? Progress my ass! Sys 7.5 is a bunch of already released
> technologies rolled into one. This isn't the Taligent OS we're talking
> about here; it's just a maintenance release plus a lot of preexisting
> goodies.
[rest deleted]
May I ask, then, why upgrade? What is is that will be missed that will not
be available via "already released technologies" and "preexisting goodies"?
The previously mentioned thread manager, I assume.
So this discussion is really about Apple excluding several models from the
ability to have this thread manager feature. May I ask to be informed as to
what aspect of this feature is worth such emotional debate (by some, at
least)?
Jeff
--
Jeff Wythe
Texas A&M University College of Medicine
Dept. of Physiology
Reynolds Building Room 342
409-862-4596
email wy...@tamu.edu
Thomas Reed
tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>These machines were also designed to take ROM
>upgrades, something which fixes the problems very well. Apple has
>chosen not to do this because of MARKETING decisions that have jackshit
>to do with "Progress".
Geez, is there any OTHER reason that ANY business does ANYTHING? If it
won't sell, you're stupid if you make it. That's marketing. I imagine a
ROM upgrade would be expensive to design and build, and how many of them
do you think would sell? I wouldn't buy one. I have an SE/30, but it
only has 8 MB of RAM. I could get a new machine for the money I could
put into more RAM, a color card & monitor, etc. My Dad has an identical
setup. Sure, I've heard lots of people on the 'net say they've got
souped-up SE/30's, but how many of them total do you think there are in
the country? Undoubtedly not enough for Apple to be able to make it a
feasible option.
On the other hand, they could fix it in a software patch. That'd be
cheaper to design and build. And they did. However, there's talk now
about it not working on System 7.5. (Speaking of which, I still haven't
heard anything to convince me that this is more than just a rumor.) If
that's true, so be it. Apple can't keep building their software around
older platforms. If they took account for every bug in every ROM chip
that's ever been released in a Mac, the system software would get bloated
and slow. (And don't say it already is with version 7.1, 'cause 7.1
works GREAT on my IIci in the office AND my SE/30 at home.)
>Moreover, the IIci is still being supported, though it is
>only 3 months younger than the SE/30 and only slightly faster. Age and
>computational power are thus not the issue here: the only issue is a
>software bug.
Yes, that's true. And as I said before, progress cannot be made if you
must keep looking over your shoulder. They can't keep accounting for
that bug made 5 or so years ago.
>Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
>only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
>fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere.
They DID do something to fix it YEARS ago! It may not have been exactly
what you wanted, but Apple does not exist to service YOUR whims! They
aren't perfect, but I think that in this case they've done an adequate
job of trying to remedy the problem.
And again, if you want to switch to another platform because Apple is no
longer supporting a 5-year old machine, go ahead. We'll all move ahead
on the wave of progress while you sit on your IBM and try to catch up.
Y'know, on a different note, who ever said you had to run System 7.5?
There are still Plus users out there still running System 6. (I know a
couple myself.) If that's adequate for their needs, why bother worrying
that you're not "up" with the current technology. Does your SE/30 do
what you want it to do right now? If your answer is no, then you can't
blame Apple. You can buy a new machine.
>Sorry, but this is baloney. We're talking about a goddamn software
>bug! Fix the damn thing already! %*^&%&^*&^$%%$ Let the consumer, not
>a software bug, decide if the technology can't keep up!
They did. Most consumers probably bought new machines or remained
satisfied with what they had.
>There isn't a damn thing wrong with my Mac except for a
>shitty software bug that Apple won't fix!
...to your satisfaction.
Jeffrey C. Ollie
M>
M> On my SE/30 32-bit-enabler is doing its job very well (and I have a lot of
M> inits, including thread manager). I saw an SE/3 running system 7.5 beta fine.
I am sitting on a SE/30 running 7.5b2 typing this. Seems to run OK. So far
the only problems that I have had are that the installer crashed after
finishing up (everything installed just fine) and the HD setup on the
disk tools disk crashed. I'm sure that all these problems will be fixed by
the time 7.5 is released.
--
Jeffrey C. Ollie
jeffre...@uiowa.edu
http://caesar.cs.uiowa.edu/~jollie/
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
Thomas Reed <re...@medicine.wustl.edu> writes:
> In article <CrGHD...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Dr. Jon Gerard Temple,
> tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >These machines were also designed to take ROM
> >upgrades, something which fixes the problems very well. Apple has
> >chosen not to do this because of MARKETING decisions that have jackshit
> >to do with "Progress".
>
> Geez, is there any OTHER reason that ANY business does ANYTHING? If it
> won't sell, you're stupid if you make it. That's marketing. I imagine a
> ROM upgrade would be expensive to design and build, and how many of them
> do you think would sell? I wouldn't buy one. I have an SE/30, but it
> only has 8 MB of RAM. I could get a new machine for the money I could
> put into more RAM, a color card & monitor, etc. My Dad has an identical
> setup. Sure, I've heard lots of people on the 'net say they've got
> souped-up SE/30's, but how many of them total do you think there are in
> the country? Undoubtedly not enough for Apple to be able to make it a
> feasible option.
That's just dandy. But customers can lean on businesses to produce
better products and support by voting with their pocketbooks.
Businesses listen to the sound of a pocketbook clapping shut. What I
demand from a product from Apple is a certain level of support for the
many thousands of dollars that I have given them for various products.
I am a repeat customer. If they screw me on this, they will lose my
future business. If others feel the same way, then this BECOMES a
business issue. If customers fail to look after themselves and fail to
vote with their pocketbooks, then they deserve to get screwed.
You can placidly stand there and take it this bullshit if you want ---
that's how you have chosen to vote; I will vote differently. I'm very
serious about this. Apple is no longer the only player in the GUI
market; they can no longer afford to play marketing games which screw
customers and cost them marketshare.
I love the Mac. I have no doubt that in my 10 years of Mac use, that I
have directly and indirectly led hundreds of users to the Macintosh (I
did computer consulting for several years before going to grad school).
If Apple doesn't take my pocketbook vote seriously, I will spend the
next 10 years guiding users away from the Mac because of the rather
cheesy support that Apple provides. There will be many more
pocketbooks slamming shut if they do not get off their asses and do
something responsible.
> On the other hand, they could fix it in a software patch. That'd be
> cheaper to design and build. And they did. However, there's talk now
> about it not working on System 7.5. (Speaking of which, I still haven't
> heard anything to convince me that this is more than just a rumor.) If
> that's true, so be it. Apple can't keep building their software around
> older platforms. If they took account for every bug in every ROM chip
> that's ever been released in a Mac, the system software would get bloated
> and slow. (And don't say it already is with version 7.1, 'cause 7.1
> works GREAT on my IIci in the office AND my SE/30 at home.)
Did they really? They FIXED the bug? Really? Then I have news for
you --- the damned thing doesn't work correctly. It is a piece of s**t!
Apple actively supports many many different models and is constantly
releasing updated enablers that improve the unique functionality of
individual models including fairly old models. That is, they DO take
every bug for every ROM into account --- except for the first
generation Mac II and SE/30 family.
If they can't support so many goddamn models, they shouldn't be
releasing so many redundant models, using recycled technology. This is
called OVEREXTENSION. It is BAD BUSINESS. If what you say is true,
Apple is overextending themselves and better rethink their strategy
friggin' fast! But arbitrarily dropping support for some models and
not others is not something that should be tolerated by the tens of
thousands of affected Mac owners.
Bloat --- do enablers for the PowerBooks, the Duos, the Power Macs, the
Quadras, the LC III, etc., do any of these contribute to the size and
manageability of your system software? Hell no. It is not a wit
different with the SE/30 and Mac IIx, IIcx and II. Do you know how big
the 32-bit system enabler is? About 32k. That is a lot of bloat, eh?
How much bloat does the 32-bit system enabler add to newer models? Not
a thing. Thus, your argument about speed and bloat is completely
spurious. All Apple has to do is to ADEQUATELY support the full set of
system enablers, releasing bug fixes on a regular basis as they do for
every other Mac ever made. THAT is a responsible business. THAT is the
behavior my pocketbook votes for.
> >Moreover, the IIci is still being supported, though it is
> >only 3 months younger than the SE/30 and only slightly faster. Age and
> >computational power are thus not the issue here: the only issue is a
> >software bug.
>
> Yes, that's true. And as I said before, progress cannot be made if you
> must keep looking over your shoulder. They can't keep accounting for
> that bug made 5 or so years ago.
This is really sad reasoning. Many of us were asking for a fix 4 years
ago (I don't know where you get 5 years, as my mac is only 4 years old
--- Apple made SE/30s for a longer time than most models). Apple gave
us a song and dance story and then years later released some buggy
software that didn't work correctly and which they won't even bother to
support. Get it? Many of knew 4 years ago that we would not able to
buy a competely new system ever time Apple released a new Mac and
wanted our Macs to be fixed for the long haul. We wanted a long term
fix, not a fly-by-night hack. But this never happened.
> >Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
> >only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
> >fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere.
>
> They DID do something to fix it YEARS ago! It may not have been exactly
> what you wanted, but Apple does not exist to service YOUR whims! They
> aren't perfect, but I think that in this case they've done an adequate
> job of trying to remedy the problem.
Oh come on! They didn't fix a thing! You fix something so that it
doesn't break. By the way, Apple better damn well listen to my and tens
of thousands of other Mac users needs (not "whims"), or they may find
the sound of shutting pocketbooks to be thunderous.
Adequate --- what the hell is adequate about unsupported? Do you
realize that the 32-bit enabler is only about 1 and a half old? They
took a LONG time to provide their own solution and then released one
that didn't work and which they didn't support.
> And again, if you want to switch to another platform because Apple is no
> longer supporting a 5-year old machine, go ahead. We'll all move ahead
> on the wave of progress while you sit on your IBM and try to catch up.
>
> Y'know, on a different note, who ever said you had to run System 7.5?
> There are still Plus users out there still running System 6. (I know a
> couple myself.) If that's adequate for their needs, why bother worrying
> that you're not "up" with the current technology. Does your SE/30 do
> what you want it to do right now? If your answer is no, then you can't
> blame Apple. You can buy a new machine.
>
> >Sorry, but this is baloney. We're talking about a goddamn software
> >bug! Fix the damn thing already! %*^&%&^*&^$%%$ Let the consumer, not
> >a software bug, decide if the technology can't keep up!
>
> They did. Most consumers probably bought new machines or remained
> satisfied with what they had.
What I have is a machine with 20 megs of RAM! You want me to be
satisfied with LESS! Screw that elitist nonsense.
> >There isn't a damn thing wrong with my Mac except for a
> >shitty software bug that Apple won't fix!
>
> ...to your satisfaction.
...to anyone's satisfaction. Most people went back to MODE32 because
the 32-bit enabler was so badly written and unsupported. Listen: if
you want to get it between the cheeks, then fine; don't make that
decision for the rest of us because you are some kind of masochistic
computer elitist that thinks anything "old" is deficient (and what the
hell is "old" anyway? This is pretty damn arbitrary). My current
system is much more robust and powerful than many of the systems Apple
has released in the last 2 years. I see no reason to buy a new system
just because of some shitty software bug that Apple will not fix
correctly nor support.
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
> In article <CrG77...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr. Jon Gerard Temple) writes:
> >
> >Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are compatible
> >with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the functionality of
> >these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by not permitting them to
> >use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM beyond 8 megs that many of
> >these owners have purchased.
>
> Pardon me for asking a possibly silly question, but is this pased on an
> experience installing 7.5 on an Se/30 or IIcx, or simply on your
> assumption that there will be no update to MODE32 or Apple's 32-bit enabler?
>
> Apple is stupid, a known fact. They are not, however, *suicidal*. I'd
> be willing to wager a fair amount of money that this problem (if, in fact
> it exists or has not alreadly been solved) will be nailed down and
> bleeding from every extremity by the time 7.5 shipts.
>
Apple has not announced an update to the 32-bit enabler. The product
has been unsupported since its release.
But I hope you're right. Apple would be very foolish not to do
something.
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
G.Al...@Sheffield.ac.uk (Graham Allsopp) writes:
> In article <CrGHD...@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr. Jon
> Gerard Temple) wrote:
>
> [chomped]
> >
> > Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
> > only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
> > fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere. I currently
> > own 3 Macs. If Apple doesn't support them to the limit of their
> > technology, I will not buy a 4th Mac which is every bit as likely to be
> > abandoned in the dim light of Progress.
> >
>
> Jon
>
> I know how you feel - we've got a IIx and a IIcx here. However, you have to
> admit thet they ARE getting a little long in the teeth now, and they are
> rather slow (even the IIx with a DayStar 50 accelerator inside).
>
[other stuff deleted]
Compared to a PowerMac 8100, this is true. But my accelerated SE/30
does quite well against the Quadra 700 I use at work everyday. They run
at essentially the same speed. It also runs 680x0 software quite a bit
faster than a PowerMac 8100. "Long in the tooth" is relative.
Apple should support their products to the limits of their technology.
32-bit 68030-based Macs still have a lot of life left in them and Apple
is still releasing them (the PowerBook "Jedi" is next).
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
jol...@grant.cs.uiowa.edu (Jeffrey C. Ollie) writes:
> >>"M" == Michael Kemper [RHRK] <kem...@informatik.uni-kl.de> writes:
> M>
> M> On my SE/30 32-bit-enabler is doing its job very well (and I have a lot of
> M> inits, including thread manager). I saw an SE/3 running system 7.5 beta fine.
>
> I am sitting on a SE/30 running 7.5b2 typing this. Seems to run OK. So far
> the only problems that I have had are that the installer crashed after
> finishing up (everything installed just fine) and the HD setup on the
> disk tools disk crashed. I'm sure that all these problems will be fixed by
> the time 7.5 is released.
Are you in 32-bit mode? This is the issue that people are unhappy
about.
Jon Bodner
> On the other hand, they could fix it in a software patch. That'd be
> cheaper to design and build. And they did. However, there's talk now
> about it not working on System 7.5. (Speaking of which, I still
> haven't heard anything to convince me that this is more than just a
> rumor.) If that's true, so be it. Apple can't keep building their
> software around older platforms. If they took account for every bug
> in every ROM chip that's ever been released in a Mac, the system
> software would get bloated and slow. (And don't say it already is
> with version 7.1, 'cause 7.1 works GREAT on my IIci in the office AND
> my SE/30 at home.)
>
speaking of supporting old hardware, apple had a patch for the mac PLUS
in system update 3.0 which allowed the plus to use OSs > 7.1...
i think that if apple can keep the plus going, my 32-bit addressing should
be avaiable...
-jon
Nathan J. Mehl
Um, Apple hasn't even "announced" System 7.5 yet. The only reason we
know anything about this at all is because they haven't been very
militant about enforcing their non-disclosure agreements.
I really, really think you're over-reacting here. You're assuming that
because the *current* thread manager and MODE32/32bit enabler are
incompatible, that the versions of them included in the final release of
7.5 will be. This strikes me as a foolish, if not fallacious assumption
- why on earth would Apple consider for a nanosecond sacrificing many
millions of dollars to be gained by selling 7.5 to SE/30 and IIcx users
in order to save the few tens of thousands of dollars necessary to update
the 32-bit enabler or build it into 7.5? There are a *lot* of SE/30s out
there, and too much of Apple's profit margin depends on software sales
for them to safely ignore those potential customers.
>But I hope you're right. Apple would be very foolish not to do
>something.
The *only* circumstance under which I could forsee Apple not doing
anything about this is if Connectix has committed to delivering an update
to MODE32 the same day that 7.5 ships. Your backside is covered either
way. :)
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
bod...@goya.its.rpi.edu (Jon Bodner) writes:
They also released a software patch which allowed the Mac 512k to use
an external 800K drive (its 64K ROM only supported MFS formatted 400K
disks). Yet somehow 32-bit addressing on a SE/30 is too much of a
bother?
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
I really, really don't think I am over-reacting. Apple has not
announced any intention of supporting the 32-bit enabler or MODE32. The
32-bit enabler has been out for 1 1/2 years and they never bothered to
fix its many bugs.
I also really, really believe that Apple would orphan the many SE/30,
II, IIx and IIcx owners out there if given half a chance. They screwed
up the ROMs and they'd rather not be bothered by past mistakes (the
forward looking Apple). After all, too many owners of these machines
are willing to settle for the argument that their machines are "too
old" or "underpowered". It is possible that Apple can make a claim like
the following: "Sys 7.5 works just fine on the SE/30" without any
reference to its inability to function in 32-bit mode and the loss in
functionality that would entail (such as not being able to take full
advantage of features that require more than 8 megs of RAM). I'm
certain Apple would love for the many owners of these machines to toss
their old Macs and buy Power Macs -- being limited to only 8 megs of
RAM (especially after getting used to 20 or more!) in the days of
memory hungry/full featured system 7.5 just might be the incentive to
switch.
If ranting and raving makes Apple rethink its strategy, then it has
been a good day's work.
Bill Hewett
I won't be able to run 7.5 or have a major speed problem with it I will be
very upset. It would be a shame for the SE/30 to die the same death as the
Plus and SE did when 7.1 came along>>>
I've got an SE/30,50MHz, 8/160, 8-bit color, CD-ROM, Sys 7.1. I've been able to
keep pace until SU3.0. With SU3.0 installed my sound is non-existant, even with
Sound Manager 3.0. I reinstalled solely the SU 2.0.1 CDEV (kept the rest of
SU3.0) and everything is AOK. I also kept Mode32 (vs the enabler). The machine
continues to serve me well but it looks as though at long last I am being passed
by......
Nathan J. Mehl
>
>I really, really don't think I am over-reacting. Apple has not
>announced any intention of supporting the 32-bit enabler or MODE32. The
>32-bit enabler has been out for 1 1/2 years and they never bothered to
>fix its many bugs.
Again, you're asking Apple to announce what patches they will be making
available for a product that, officially, does not even exist yet. If
you were an official beta tester of 7.5, you might be entitled to such
consideration, but...
>I also really, really believe that Apple would orphan the many SE/30,
>II, IIx and IIcx owners out there if given half a chance. They screwed
>up the ROMs and they'd rather not be bothered by past mistakes (the
>forward looking Apple). After all, too many owners of these machines
>are willing to settle for the argument that their machines are "too
>old" or "underpowered". It is possible that Apple can make a claim like
>the following: "Sys 7.5 works just fine on the SE/30" without any
>reference to its inability to function in 32-bit mode and the loss in
>functionality that would entail (such as not being able to take full
>advantage of features that require more than 8 megs of RAM). I'm
>certain Apple would love for the many owners of these machines to toss
>their old Macs and buy Power Macs -- being limited to only 8 megs of
>RAM (especially after getting used to 20 or more!) in the days of
>memory hungry/full featured system 7.5 just might be the incentive to
>switch.
Look, you seem to be a rational, thinking human being, and your diction
is good enough that I'm even taking your title of Doctor on faith, so I'm
loathe to toss words like "paranoia" into the equation here. But you
really are sounding an alarum with nary a wolf in sight here. If you
believe, as an article of faith, that Apple has a deep-seated need, as a
corporation, to screw over the many, many people who bought IIs, IIcx'en
and SE/30's, then I'm not likely to be able to shake that belief. But
the closest thing to an official source here (the head of the Mac forum
on AOL - I forget his name momentarily) has stated that 7.5 will run in
32-bit mode on the aforementioned boxes, and given that your only
evidence to the contrary is the lack of an official press release saying
so, guess whom I choose to believe?
>If ranting and raving makes Apple rethink its strategy, then it has
>been a good day's work.
Or, since you are not privy to that strategy, and have some damn weird
ways of inferring it, possibly a complete waste of time.
Myself, I'd scream for a cheap hardware fix to put a PMMU on Plusses,
SE's and Classics to give them more than 4 Megs of RAM, so that using 7.5
or even 7 will be less painful on them...
bar...@ucs.orst.edu
rgsh...@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
All I can say is-- you're crazy running any kind of sys7 on that Plus.
have fun.
AFC PeterS
Hewett) writes:
> I've got an SE/30, 50MHz, 8/160, 8-bit color, CD-ROM, Sys 7.1.
> I've been able to keep pace until SU3.0. With SU3.0 installed
> my sound is non-existant, even with Sound Manager 3.0. I
> reinstalled solely the SU 2.0.1 CDEV (kept the rest of SU3.0)
> and everything is AOK. I also kept Mode32 (vs the enabler).
> The machine continues to serve me well but it looks as though
> at long last I am being passed by......
Well, SU 3.0 didn't kill the sound on my SE/30 20/240. My guess is
that either your accelerator or color card is the *real* source of
your problem, not Apple's hardware or software.
Peter Stoller
America Online Forum Consultant
Macintosh Operating Systems
Stephan Eggermont
> Is Apple planning on fixing the wretched 32-bit Enabler? Or am I going to
> have to suffer with 24-bit addressing and/or an unstable 32-bit addressing
> mode?
I really don't want an update. I want new roms. I've wanted them for the past
4 years. Does Apple think it's cheaper to solve this in software when they
already have the roms available? They could have made money out of the update
had they started selling them 4 years ago, instead of paying for the software
and giving it away free.
Stephan
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
> In article <CrIEG...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr. Jon Gerard Temple) writes:
> >
> >I really, really don't think I am over-reacting. Apple has not
> >announced any intention of supporting the 32-bit enabler or MODE32. The
> >32-bit enabler has been out for 1 1/2 years and they never bothered to
> >fix its many bugs.
>
> Again, you're asking Apple to announce what patches they will be making
> available for a product that, officially, does not even exist yet. If
> you were an official beta tester of 7.5, you might be entitled to such
> consideration, but...
Why is that so terrible? I'd rather not wait until AFTER the fact
(that is, after the release of system 7.5), at which point it might be
too late. All early indications point to the existence of a problem.
If these indications are reliable, then early detection might help in
prevention.
I'd prefer if you didn't distort my argument. No one here has
suggested (not even once) that Apple INTENDS to screw any one. This
has nothing to do with intentionality. What I have stated is that
Apple, through inaction and indifference, is perfectly capable of
screwing their customers, and all without a hint of malice. Why would
you even need to infer "malice"? It isn't a necessary construct here.
I believe that many corporations need to hear the concerns of their
customers and that it behooves them to address these concerns whenever
possible. This is good customer relations. Happy past customers make
good future customers. If a corporation believes they can get by with
doing less, without loss of income or marketshare, they may opt to do
this, and save some money. The affected customers therefore should not
remain silent but make their voice heard, so that the company is made
aware that inaction has repercussions.
> >If ranting and raving makes Apple rethink its strategy, then it has
> >been a good day's work.
>
> Or, since you are not privy to that strategy, and have some damn weird
> ways of inferring it, possibly a complete waste of time.
>
> Myself, I'd scream for a cheap hardware fix to put a PMMU on Plusses,
> SE's and Classics to give them more than 4 Megs of RAM, so that using 7.5
> or even 7 will be less painful on them...
Yes, that'd be a pretty amazing trick, but that's not Apple's fault.
Motorola didn't have the technology to build PMMUs into the 68000 back
in 1979 when the chip was first announced. Apple used what they had
and did their best with it. Unlikely the SE/30 and IIcx, these
machines have severe hardware limitations that make this problematical.
A simple software fix can save the SE/30 but not the Plus. (Yes, I
realize you were probably joking, but I couldn't help it! :)
Keith J. Schultz
>In article <CrG77...@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr.
>Jon Gerard Temple) writes:
>> Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are
>> compatible with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the
>> functionality of these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by
>not
>> permitting them to use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM
>beyond
>> 8 megs that many of these owners have purchased.
>This is not true. The 32-bit Enabler was designed to work with System
>7.1, and MODE32 will work (though I believe there might be a virtual
>memory issue with some users). What you state is not implied in my
>comment or the one I quoted.
Vitual Memory works just fine Under 7.1 and MODE32 and SU 3.0
I have not tried The 32-bit Enabler since it did not do to
good with 7.0.x when the enabler came out.
Keith.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith J. Schultz //// INTEL Inside >>>>> FOOL Outside
schu...@ldv01.Uni-Trier.de (o)-(o)
University of Trier | " | I do not use Intels.
Linguistics at its finest \`='/ We don't know what this guy will
/ |>o<| \ advise but we say .....
=============================================================================
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith J. Schultz //// INTEL Inside >>>>> FOOL Outside
schu...@ldv01.Uni-Trier.de (o)-(o)
University of Trier | " | I do not use Intels.
Keith J. Schultz
>In article <2tmr4m$7...@search01.news.aol.com>
>aflg...@aol.com (AFL GeneS) writes:
>> In article <spacerog-1...@199.0.65.253>,
>> spac...@cattech.tiac.net (Sandy Halflinger) writes:
>>
>> > The SE/30 is arguably Apples most robust flexible machine ever
>> made.
>> > If I won't be able to run 7.5 or have a major speed problem with it
>> I
>> > will be very upset. It would be a shame for the SE/30 to die the
>> same
>> > death as the Plus and SE did when 7.1 came along. I want to hold on
>> > to the past while still being functional for as long as I can.
>>
>> I've heard nothing to indicate that System 7.5 cannot be run on the
>> very same Macs that can use System 7 now (a Mac Plus or later, with
>> 4MB or more of installed RAM).
>>
>> Peace,
>> Gene Steinberg
>> America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
>Then hear it now. Neither MODE32 nor the 32-bit enabler are compatible
>with system 7.1. This dramatically diminishes the functionality of
>these machines (SE/30, Mac II, IIcx and IIx) by not permitting them to
>use 32-bit addressing and thus use the RAM beyond 8 megs that many of
>these owners have purchased.
I do not think you own a SE/30, as I am using MODE32, System 7.1
and SU3.0 !!!. Second Virtual memory works fine with a barely
noticable performance loss!! On my Giga Byte Drive (partioned)
I treid out a 260 MB virtual memory just fine !!
Also, you can stuff 8 4MB Simms into a SE/30 giving you
32 MB. I have also heard rumors of 16MB simms that can be used!
to me that sound like a lot of RAM to me !!
Bill Hewett
After removing it I reinstalled the SU 3.0 CDEV and my sound is AOK.
AFL GeneS
(Stephan Eggermont) writes:
> I really don't want an update. I want new roms. I've wanted them
for
> the past 4 years. Does Apple think it's cheaper to solve this in
> software when they already have the roms available? They could have
> made money out of the update had they started selling them 4 years
> ago, instead of paying for the software and giving it away free.
So long as Apple can ship a 32-bit Enabler or MODE32, I think the
chances that you will see a ROM upgrade for the SE/30, II, IIx or
IIcx are little to none. They do not have 32-bit clean ROMs available
for any of these models. I suppose you could try pulling one from
another model (if one was at hand), but that could create other
complications.
That doesn't mean I don't think there might have been a better way to
do it, but right now there's no compelling pressure for them to
change, considering that the last 32-bit dirty Macs are at least four
years old.
Thomas Reed
Mehl, nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>Um, Apple hasn't even "announced" System 7.5 yet. The only reason we
>know anything about this at all is because they haven't been very
>militant about enforcing their non-disclosure agreements.
Actually, this is the first time Apple has released a beta version of the
system to a more general group of people, rather than only to a select
group of testers. I just went to an Apple technical update seminar, and
got a free version of System 7.5 on CD-ROM. Of course, don't ask me to
violate my NDA! ;-)
AFL GeneS
Hewett) writes:
Disinfectant 3.5 should work fine under these circumstances. Which
version did you use?
AFC PeterS
(Keith J. Schultz) writes:
> Virtual Memory works just fine Under 7.1 and MODE32 and SU 3.0.
In most cases, yes. There are some problems associated with a few
specific NuBus cards, MODE32 and VM. Most people would never
encounter them, and none with SE/30s (for obvious reasons).
Petri Aukia
<re...@medicine.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Actually, this is the first time Apple has released a beta version of the
> system to a more general group of people, rather than only to a select
> group of testers. I just went to an Apple technical update seminar, and
> got a free version of System 7.5 on CD-ROM. Of course, don't ask me to
> violate my NDA! ;-)
>
> -Thomas
I belive that 7.0 was also given to a very wide audience before its
release. After all, even I got an Apple-labeled beta set! I seem to
remember, that they got a substatial amount of subtle bugs squashed that
way. Maybe that was just marketing propaganda, though.
--
Petri Aukia <pe...@nixu.fi>
Keith J. Schultz
>In article <schultzk.771842087@ldv01>, schu...@ldv01.uni-trier.de
>(Keith J. Schultz) writes:
>> Virtual Memory works just fine Under 7.1 and MODE32 and SU 3.0.
>In most cases, yes. There are some problems associated with a few
>specific NuBus cards, MODE32 and VM. Most people would never
>encounter them, and none with SE/30s (for obvious reasons).
Hey, then most of the others should not blame Apple but
blame the card developers. Its their fault let them
give you the support you are asking from Apple.
Sorry, nothing against you Peter, just wanted to get some things
put into perspective. The others are
raising hell with Apple when there are other to consider
too.
Keith.
Keith J. Schultz
So I am crazy. But, I'll be .... if I have to rebuild the desktop
when switch from my Plus to my SE/30. Besides, a Plus
will be a collectors item real soon. !!??
Anthony J. Stuckey
>On the other hand, they could fix it in a software patch. That'd be
>cheaper to design and build. And they did. However, there's talk now
>about it not working on System 7.5. (Speaking of which, I still haven't
>heard anything to convince me that this is more than just a rumor.) If
>that's true, so be it. Apple can't keep building their software around
>older platforms. If they took account for every bug in every ROM chip
>that's ever been released in a Mac, the system software would get bloated
>and slow. (And don't say it already is with version 7.1, 'cause 7.1
>works GREAT on my IIci in the office AND my SE/30 at home.)
I'm not sure that I buy this argument. I don't claim to be an expert
on such matters, but it seems to me that this is a perfect application for
that customized installer. You know -- the one that installed the Portable
control panel regardless of which machine you were installing system 7
onto. It shouldn't be hard to have different code resources for different
machines, and I was under the impression that this was what was done.
>Yes, that's true. And as I said before, progress cannot be made if you
>must keep looking over your shoulder. They can't keep accounting for
>that bug made 5 or so years ago.
They can if they only have to do it once.
>>Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
>>only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
>>fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere.
>They DID do something to fix it YEARS ago! It may not have been exactly
>what you wanted, but Apple does not exist to service YOUR whims! They
>aren't perfect, but I think that in this case they've done an adequate
>job of trying to remedy the problem.
Your opinion and mine differ. I've got a lot of problems, actually,
with Apple's designs over the years.
>Y'know, on a different note, who ever said you had to run System 7.5?
>There are still Plus users out there still running System 6. (I know a
>couple myself.) If that's adequate for their needs, why bother worrying
>that you're not "up" with the current technology. Does your SE/30 do
>what you want it to do right now? If your answer is no, then you can't
>blame Apple. You can buy a new machine.
System 7 is a massive step up in usability and features. It is now
possible to use a mac almost entirely mouse-less, and to do things like
virtual memory, which allows me to do some image-manipulation jobs that I
otherwise couldn't deal with, without relying on a third-party program.
Rant Mode ON:
You are correct in noting that all of this is bounded by the
opinionated nature. But the simple fact that Apple has failures as
spectacular as their successes in their systems should and does say
something. It took them HOW LONG to make use of DMA? Virtual memory?
Selection methods other than the mouse for Finder-based operations? Memory
Protection still isn't there. The 32-bit-ness problems are another example
of an artificial, arbitrary, unnecessary, and, IMHO, STUPID restriction on
the natural capabilities of the '030 in that SE/30. Apple is blindly
ignoring things that have been proven to be useful for more than just the
geeks among computer users.
Rant Mode OFF.
--
Anthony J. Stuckey stu...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
"And if you frisbee-throw a universe where does it go?" -- Steve Blunt.
GCS/S -d+@ p c(++) l u+ e+(-) m+(*) s+++/-- !n h(*) f+ g+ w+ t+@ r y?
KiboNumber == 1
Allan_...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com
> II, IIx and IIcx owners out there if given half a chance."
> It is possible that Apple can make a claim like
> the following: "Sys 7.5 works just fine on the SE/30" without any
> reference to its inability to function in 32-bit mode and the loss in
> functionality that would entail (such as not being able to take full
> advantage of features that require more than 8 megs of RAM)."
I could see a 16 year old running off speculating about the evil things
Apple means to do to his beloved SE/30, but a professional? (I assume the
"Dr." in your address is for real).
Your rabid criticism is based on speculation that you will not be able to
run 7.5 (still in beta, and months from release) on your computer in 32 bit
mode. Your speculation is founded in a rumour (whether it is true or not is
immaterial) that beta 7.5 doesn't and never will work with one of the 32
bit patches. You are assuming that
* the rumours are accurate;
* that if accurate, the release versions will suffer the same
incompatibility;
* that Mode32 will not be updated;
* that God willed you to have system 7.5;
... and then your posts really get rabid.
Even in the event your astrological predictions do come true, you still
have these options:
- don't upgrade to 7.5 - it isn't free and, as you said, baby needs new
shoes;
- if baby has a few dollars to spend on your software upgrade, spend
another $100 and swap up to a used LCIII,475 etc. (I bought 3 LCIIIs used,
mono monitors, no keyboards, for CAN$700 each last week;
Honestly, some people have real problems.
Stephen Jonke
Gerard Temple) wrote:
> Time to consider buying a new computer? Maybe. Time to consider
> leaving Apple for another computer vendor? Definitely.
This makes no sense - if it's definitely time to leave Apple for another
computer vendor, then why do you say that it only "may be" time to consider
another computer? :)
Of course, it makes even less sense to jump ship. You can upgrade to a
newer machine (you can get a color classic pretty darn cheap, or even a
Quadra 605 which would leave you with a MUCH faster machine) or you can opt
not to upgrade to 7.5. Either way you end up better off then some PC user
struggling to get their mouse or sound board to work with anything, which
once (if) they get it working, end up with Windows! :)
Steve
-------------------------
jo...@gsfc.nasa.gov
I speaketh for my selfeth
-------------------------
Steven Lee
Gerard Temple) wrote:
> > Myself, I'd scream for a cheap hardware fix to put a PMMU on Plusses,
> > SE's and Classics to give them more than 4 Megs of RAM, so that using 7.5
> > or even 7 will be less painful on them...
>
> Yes, that'd be a pretty amazing trick, but that's not Apple's fault.
> Motorola didn't have the technology to build PMMUs into the 68000 back
> in 1979 when the chip was first announced. Apple used what they had
> and did their best with it.
Actually, this is not correct. PMMU has nothing to do with addressing
physical RAM beyond 4 MB. The 4-MB limitation on the Plus/SE/Classic is
because of the motherboard design. For example, the Mac Portables
(remember those boat anchors?) are fully capable of taking more than 4 MB
of RAM onboard. PMMU is only needed in virtual memory. If you don't use
virtual memory, you don't really need a PMMU.
----
Steven Lee
SH...@CORNELL.EDU
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
Allan_...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com writes:
> > I also really, really believe that Apple would orphan the many SE/30,
> > II, IIx and IIcx owners out there if given half a chance."
>
> > It is possible that Apple can make a claim like
> > the following: "Sys 7.5 works just fine on the SE/30" without any
> > reference to its inability to function in 32-bit mode and the loss in
> > functionality that would entail (such as not being able to take full
> > advantage of features that require more than 8 megs of RAM)."
>
> I could see a 16 year old running off speculating about the evil things
> Apple means to do to his beloved SE/30, but a professional? (I assume the
> "Dr." in your address is for real).
>
> Your rabid criticism is based on speculation that you will not be able to
> run 7.5 (still in beta, and months from release) on your computer in 32 bit
> mode. Your speculation is founded in a rumour (whether it is true or not is
> immaterial) that beta 7.5 doesn't and never will work with one of the 32
> bit patches. You are assuming that
> * the rumours are accurate;
> * that if accurate, the release versions will suffer the same
> incompatibility;
> * that Mode32 will not be updated;
> * that God willed you to have system 7.5;
>
> ... and then your posts really get rabid.
The pot is calling the kettle black here. You are personally insulting;
I was not.
[more general nastiness deleted]
> Honestly, some people have real problems.
Agreed.
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
sh...@cornell.edu (Steven Lee) writes:
Re-read what I was replying to. To wit:
> > > Myself, I'd scream for a cheap hardware fix to put a PMMU on Plusses,
I know full well why these machines can not address more than 4 megs of
RAM (Apple quartered the 16 meg address space of the 68000 processor,
leaving only four megs to RAM.) But given that Apple probably also
compounded this limitation in ROM with other hardware limitations (such
as not having enough address lines on the motherboard for over 4 megs
of RAM), the only way you could address more than 4 megs would be
through some of virtual memory. The fellow that I responded to hinted
that a PMMU might be needed for such and my reply was nothing less than
whimiscal.
The Mac Portable and the PowerBook 100, too, use 68000s. But Apple
chose to give half of the address space (16 megs div 2 = 8 megs) to
RAM. But they also provided hardware support for these 8 megs on the
motherboard, something lacking on the 68000 desktop Macs.
William Lueg
: In article <G.Allsopp-1...@mac029001.shef.ac.uk>
: G.Al...@Sheffield.ac.uk (Graham Allsopp) writes:
: > In article <CrGHD...@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, tem...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Dr. Jon
: > Gerard Temple) wrote:
: >
: > [chomped]
: > >
: > > Simply put: Apple screwed up my Mac when they released it, which is the
: > > only reason it won't run system 7.5. Either Apple does something to
: > > fix it, or next computer around, I'm shopping elsewhere. I currently
: > > own 3 Macs. If Apple doesn't support them to the limit of their
: > > technology, I will not buy a 4th Mac which is every bit as likely to be
: > > abandoned in the dim light of Progress.
: > >
: >
: > Jon
: >
: > I know how you feel - we've got a IIx and a IIcx here. However, you have to
: > admit thet they ARE getting a little long in the teeth now, and they are
: > rather slow (even the IIx with a DayStar 50 accelerator inside).
: >
: [other stuff deleted]
The pertinant stuff I might add.
: Compared to a PowerMac 8100, this is true. But my accelerated SE/30
: does quite well against the Quadra 700 I use at work everyday. They run
: at essentially the same speed. It also runs 680x0 software quite a bit
: faster than a PowerMac 8100. "Long in the tooth" is relative.
Your accelerated SE/30 is hardly the same machine that Apple put out all
those years ago. *They* made a 16MHz 68030 machine. God only knows what
it is now. The machine *they* made is very slow and obsolete by today's
standards.
: Apple should support their products to the limits of their technology.
: 32-bit 68030-based Macs still have a lot of life left in them and Apple
: is still releasing them (the PowerBook "Jedi" is next).
For your machine, 7.1 is at the limits of your machine's technology. Why
should "the rest of us" be held back like those DOS guys are with their
640K limits imposed upon them by the 8088 compatibility and DOS in
general? You are willing to trade all the things you have in 7.1 to go to
that stuff? This is shooting yourself in the foot merely to make a point.
I'm not defending Apple's dirty ROMs. I think that they should have made
new ones to go in those nice ROM expansion slots they put in those
machines so they wouldn't get bitten like they did in the Mac Plus/Fat Mac
days when the HFS was introduced. However, those machines are very old now
and it is too much to ask that the be supported forever. Five years is
plenty long the way technology moves.
----------
Bill Lueg -- bill...@netcom.com, 2:12:39 AM CDT, 26 Jun 1994
Then happy I, that love and am belov'd
Where I may not remove, nor be remov'd.
-- Sonnet xxv, William Shakespeare
--
Charles Wiltgen
Lueg) wrote:
> *They* made a 16MHz 68030 machine. God only knows what
> it is now. The machine *they* made is very slow and obsolete by today's
> standards.
Well, your apparent argument that Apple shouldn't bother with the SE/30
because it's "too slow" or "too obsolete" for 7.5 is silly. I use an 840av
at work and don't notice how "very slow" and "obsolete" my unaccelerated
SE/30 at home is. It's a fine, compact machine ideal for some uses and not
for others.
> For your machine, 7.1 is at the limits of your machine's technology.
Definitely not true. I ran a preemptive multitasking realtime OS on a
lowly 6809 *years* ago -- there's no reason to expect that Copland
shouldn't run on all 68030 machines.
> Why
> should "the rest of us" be held back like those DOS guys are with their
> 640K limits imposed upon them by the 8088 compatibility and DOS in
> general?
Don't get too angry, because that analogy doesn't really apply. Early PC
hardware offered real restrictions that impeded the evolution of the OS --
the Mac's hardware (*especially* the 68020 or later) didn't. Also,
consider that most of the PowerBooks that Apple sells are still 68030-based
-- it's not in Apple interest (yet) to create a version of the OS that
doesn't run well on 68030 machines.
--
Charles Wiltgen "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and
cwil...@mcs.com then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
(INTP) At night, the ice weasels come." - Nietzsche (Groening)
World Wide Web http://www.mcs.net/~cwiltgen/home.html
Gregory Carter
ste...@stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont) writes:
Stephan,
You DO realize that ROMS run SLOWER than software RAM patches don't
you?
I would take the patch guy, and NOT new ROMS.
And it IS cheaper to do it in software. Issuing ROMS is very much more
expensive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Gregory Carter | "I value peace of
mind and
Unix Network Administrator (Among other things) | silence, more than
anything
Promega Corporation | else in life."
gca...@promega.com (aka ro...@promega.com) | Myself at age 10
Gregory Carter
> nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>
>
> I really, really don't think I am over-reacting. Apple has not
> announced any intention of supporting the 32-bit enabler or MODE32. The
> 32-bit enabler has been out for 1 1/2 years and they never bothered to
> fix its many bugs.
>
> up the ROMs and they'd rather not be bothered by past mistakes (the
> forward looking Apple).
Now wait a minute here. Being a developer myself, I can vouch for the
fact that when you design software you can't possibly predict the many
uses your software will be put to. This is especially true with
Operating Systems software.
A good example is MS-DOS. When the original 1 Megabyte memory
limitation was imposed and thought of as a good idea because no one
would ever possibly use that much memory on a desktop machine, people
thought at the time it was a competent engineering trade-off.
Now we have digital media, CD-ROM, and other HUGE memory guzzling
applications....not the orginal intended purpose of MS-DOS.
Apple made a competent decision at the time these machines were
designed and hooked them up with the best software they felt could meet
your needs and mine.
So, don't come off like this is a mistake on Apple's part. You can't
look at a piece of 1987 hardware and then in 1994 look at it in todays
advances and say it was a short comming or mistake.
Why don't YOU try making a piece of software that is GREAT FOR NOW and
ALL ETERNITY. If you CAN write me back so I can FTP it. Better yet,
let me know where you got your degree in software design because I have
spent 30G's for my BS/MS education at the University Wisconsin -
Madison up here and I am no where near that point yet!!! Niether are
any of our "pre-emminent" faculty members either!!!
> After all, too many owners of these machines
> are willing to settle for the argument that their machines are "too
> old" or "underpowered". It is possible that Apple can make a claim like
> the following: "Sys 7.5 works just fine on the SE/30" without any
> reference to its inability to function in 32-bit mode and the loss in
> functionality that would entail (such as not being able to take full
> advantage of features that require more than 8 megs of RAM). I'm
> certain Apple would love for the many owners of these machines to toss
> their old Macs and buy Power Macs -- being limited to only 8 megs of
> RAM (especially after getting used to 20 or more!) in the days of
> memory hungry/full featured system 7.5 just might be the incentive to
> switch.
>
> If ranting and raving makes Apple rethink its strategy, then it has
> been a good day's work.
Ranting and raving has its points, ask my boss. :) But only when you
do it intelligently. None of what you said is possible or even
reasonable to attribute to Apple's short sightedness. Its a fact of
the industry, software grows old and dies, or is evolutionized through
versions in its life cycle.
For Christ sake, System 7 was FTP'able when it came out!!! Do you
think Chicago will be?
Dr. Jon Gerard Temple
gca...@promega.com (Gregory Carter) writes:
> > In article <940616#SHAZBOT#150355...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
> > nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
> >
> >
> > I really, really don't think I am over-reacting. Apple has not
> > announced any intention of supporting the 32-bit enabler or MODE32. The
> > 32-bit enabler has been out for 1 1/2 years and they never bothered to
> > fix its many bugs.
> >
> > I also really, really believe that Apple would orphan the many SE/30,
> > II, IIx and IIcx owners out there if given half a chance. They screwed
> > up the ROMs and they'd rather not be bothered by past mistakes (the
> > forward looking Apple).
>
[stuff deleted]
> Apple made a competent decision at the time these machines were
> designed and hooked them up with the best software they felt could meet
> your needs and mine.
>
> So, don't come off like this is a mistake on Apple's part. You can't
> look at a piece of 1987 hardware and then in 1994 look at it in todays
> advances and say it was a short comming or mistake.
>
> Why don't YOU try making a piece of software that is GREAT FOR NOW and
> ALL ETERNITY. If you CAN write me back so I can FTP it.
[more deleted]
Sorry, but it is very clear that this WAS a mistake on Apple's part.
There is no escaping from that.
Before the SE/30, IIcx, etc. were ever released, Apple had been warning
developers NOT to use the upper address byte for things other than
addressing, that developers should not be assuming that a 24-bit
address model would be supported in the future (even then Apple had
plans for writing a 32-bit OS for the Mac, and wanted their developers
to prepare for this contingency). However, in writing the memory
manager for the SE/30/IIcx ROMs, Apple then went and violated their
own guidelines and wrote routines that were NOT 32-bit clean. Clearly,
this wasn't very smart given that were aware of the implications of
32-bit uncleanness.
Second, Apple released the SE/30, for example, with this line written
into the manual (paraphrased): Expandable to 128 megs of RAM. This was
an advertised feature of this machine and also of the IIcx, etc. This
line was written with their planned 32-bit OS in mind (the Blue OS,
which later became system 7). This was a promissory note that support
for 128 megs of RAM would be provided as soon as the operating system
could handle it. Many thousands of us are STILL waiting for Apple to
live up to their promise. The ONLY reason Apple hasn't been able to
live up to this promise is because they violated their own guidelines.
I'd call this a mistake if anyone ever made one.
This mistake has been compounded by Apple's reluctance to release
32-bit clean ROMs for the SE/30, IIcx, etc., machine that were equipped
with ROM SIMMs for just such an easy upgrade. Three months after the
release of the SE/30, the IIci had just these 32-bit clean ROMs and its
ROMs work, as is, in these only slightly older machines. Apple decided,
however, to void yet another feature of these machines and to ignore
yet another advertised feature --- easy ROM upgrades.
Charles Wiltgen
Carter) wrote:
> You DO realize that ROMS run SLOWER than software RAM patches don't
> you?
Luckily, that's not true in any Macs that I know of -- only PCs. Macs
access ROMs in a different way that's basically the same speed as accessing
RAM, to my knowledge.
AFC PeterS
cwil...@mcs.com (Charles Wiltgen) writes:
> Macs access ROMs in a different way that's basically the same
> speed as accessing RAM, to my knowledge.
I copy ROM to RAM in my Quadra 800 with QuadraCache, and it speeds
things up. The difference may be more drastic in other systems, but
RAM is still faster than ROM in Macs.
Stephan Eggermont
> You DO realize that ROMS run SLOWER than software RAM patches don't
> you?
Yes, I do. But with 128 Mbyte, I can do some ROM caching, can't I?
> I would take the patch guy, and NOT new ROMS.
Not if the patch isn't as stable. And it isn't.
> And it IS cheaper to do it in software. Issuing ROMS is very much more
> expensive.
The dealers would have liked it: Rom upgrade: $100,-. And four years ago,
I would have upgraded immediately. It would have put some strain on the
repair channel, but not very much. No development necessary, just ordering some
extra roms. And destroying the old ones, of course. Developing patches is
pretty expensive. And supporting them even more so.
Stephan
te...@cruzio.com
>
> [more deleted]
>
>
> Sorry, but it is very clear that this WAS a mistake on Apple's part.
> There is no escaping from that.
> Before the SE/30, IIcx, etc. were ever released, Apple had been warning
> developers NOT to use the upper address byte for things other than
> addressing, that developers should not be assuming that a 24-bit
> address model would be supported in the future (even then Apple had
> plans for writing a 32-bit OS for the Mac, and wanted their developers
> to prepare for this contingency). However, in writing the memory
> manager for the SE/30/IIcx ROMs, Apple then went and violated their
> own guidelines and wrote routines that were NOT 32-bit clean. Clearly,
> this wasn't very smart given that were aware of the implications of
> 32-bit uncleanness.
>
> Second, Apple released the SE/30, for example, with this line written
> into the manual (paraphrased): Expandable to 128 megs of RAM. This was
> an advertised feature of this machine and also of the IIcx, etc. This
> line was written with their planned 32-bit OS in mind (the Blue OS,
> which later became system 7). This was a promissory note that support
> for 128 megs of RAM would be provided as soon as the operating system
> could handle it. Many thousands of us are STILL waiting for Apple to
> live up to their promise. The ONLY reason Apple hasn't been able to
> live up to this promise is because they violated their own guidelines.
> I'd call this a mistake if anyone ever made one.
>
> This mistake has been compounded by Apple's reluctance to release
> 32-bit clean ROMs for the SE/30, IIcx, etc., machine that were equipped
> with ROM SIMMs for just such an easy upgrade. Three months after the
> release of the SE/30, the IIci had just these 32-bit clean ROMs and its
> ROMs work, as is, in these only slightly older machines. Apple decided,
> however, to void yet another feature of these machines and to ignore
> yet another advertised feature --- easy ROM upgrades.
Perhaps a class action suit is in order, Jon. I understand that IIci ROMs snap
right into the SE/30 and work without a hitch. Getting my hands on a IIci (or
IIsi or IIfx) ROM proves difficult to impossible. Now, Apple could do this
easily, but they have no motivation.
Ted Tripp te...@cruzio.com The SE/30 platform lives on!
--
Ted Tripp te...@cruzio.com
Charles Wiltgen
In article <2uohrn$6...@search01.news.aol.com>, afcp...@aol.com (AFC
PeterS) wrote:
> > Macs access ROMs in a different way that's basically the same
> > speed as accessing RAM, to my knowledge.
>
> I copy ROM to RAM in my Quadra 800 with QuadraCache, and it speeds
> things up. The difference may be more drastic in other systems, but
> RAM is still faster than ROM in Macs.
Peter,
Shortly after programs appeared that would copy ROM to RAM, a thought some
hardware-knowledgable guys criticized that as a waste of RAM (which, of
course, it isn't on PCs).
Can anyone from comp.sys.mac.hardware argue for or against this? I'm
really interested to know, especially since Speedometer didn't show any
speedup.
AFC PeterS
> Shortly after programs appeared that would copy ROM to RAM, I
> thought some hardware-knowledgable guys criticized that as a
> waste of RAM (which, of course, it isn't on PCs).
Well, I could run some comparitive benchmarks on my Mac and see what
Speedometer says, although it's not the world's most reliable
benchmarking utility. The DayStar QuadControl panel gives you a few
options: aside from "off," there's a minimum gain (64K), maximum gain
(1MB) and "good" gain (344K). I use the Good setting. Not exactly my
top priority, but I'll try to work it in in the next week or so.
Adam Nash
>Shortly after programs appeared that would copy ROM to RAM, a thought some
>hardware-knowledgable guys criticized that as a waste of RAM (which, of
>course, it isn't on PCs).
>
>Can anyone from comp.sys.mac.hardware argue for or against this? I'm
>really interested to know, especially since Speedometer didn't show any
>speedup.
>
Well, I don't work for Apple, but the ROMs in the Quadra/Centris line
(and PowerMacs, I believe) are 100ns. While that may seem like a lot
from the POV that Q800 uses 60ns RAM, I believe that due to bus
arbitration the speed-up isn't nearly as significan, especially given
that you don't need t write to ROM, only read from, and I think the
on chip cache readily absorbs any hit that would exist.
On older machines w/ 150ns ROMS it may have been different.
-Adam
Mike Bell
> edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.
> com!ddsw1!cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net!user From: cwil...@mcs.com (Charles
> Wiltgen)
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.hardware
> Subject: ROM slower than RAM? [was: Sys 7.5 and SE/30s]
> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.system
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 20:17:23 -0500
> Organization: Muso Communications
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <cwiltgen-2...@cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net>
> References: <cwiltgen-2...@cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net> <2uohrn$614@
> search01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cwiltgen.pr.mcs.net
>
RAM accesses are faster than ROM accesses (on Quadras).
-Mike
****************************************************************************
Mike Bell
Macintosh on PowerPC
Apple Computer, Inc.
MS 302-3SB
2 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
email: be...@apple.com
****************************************************************************
Klaus
> Can anyone from comp.sys.mac.hardware argue for or against this? I'm
> really interested to know, especially since Speedometer didn't show any
> speedup.
My understanding is this: RAM is significantly faster than the PROM
(programmable ROM, which is manufactured with nothing stored in it and
programmed later) that is often used for ROM chips. However, Apple uses
_real_ ROM (i.e. the information is hard-wired in when the chips are
manufactured), which is just as fast as RAM. That's why you're unlikely to
see any benefit from copying ROM to RAM.
-Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
Charles Wiltgen
(Klaus) wrote:
> My understanding is this: RAM is significantly faster than the PROM
> (programmable ROM, which is manufactured with nothing stored in it and
> programmed later) that is often used for ROM chips. However, Apple uses
> _real_ ROM (i.e. the information is hard-wired in when the chips are
> manufactured), which is just as fast as RAM. That's why you're unlikely to
> see any benefit from copying ROM to RAM.
So, these messages seem to indicate that although it might be faster from
RAM in theory, in practice ROM access is not "slower" enough to warrent
copying to RAM?
Thanks.
John W. Baxter
(Charles Wiltgen) wrote:
> So, these messages seem to indicate that although it might be faster from
> RAM in theory, in practice ROM access is not "slower" enough to warrent
> copying to RAM?
I think so. In addition: if it's in ROM, wild writes by insane
applications or INITs won't hurt it [despite the story below]. If it's
been copied into RAM, it's yet one more thing which can be destroyed by
errant developers.
[In the 1960s, the NCR 315-100 small mainframe used a table lookup
technique for multiply/divide. The tables were in "read only memory". The
machine used BCD encoding for numbers. Certain illegal values in the
divisor and/or dividend could cause the tables in "read only memory" to be
destroyed, causing a Customer Engineer trip to the site to rewrite them.
In that case "read only memory" meant core (non-volitile) which the machine
wasn't **intended** to be able to write in normal operation. Our ROMs take
cosmic ray accidents or the like to destroy.]
--
John Baxter Port Ludlow, WA, USA [West shore, Puget Sound]
No hablo Intel.
jwba...@pt.olympus.net