Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!dwal
From: dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton)
Subject: Re: 32 bit roms
Message-ID: <1991May24.015733.1403@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago, Academic and Public Computing
References: <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 01:57:33 GMT

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 32 bit roms
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Chicago, Academic and Public Computing
Keywords: 

In article <266625.283C328D@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes:
>
>lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes:
>
>LRM> This is directly from my Mac IIcx Owner's Guide, Appendix A: 
>LRM> Technical Information, under the heading "Specifications" (page 
>LRM> 88): 
>LRM> Memory: 1MB expandable to 8 MB (expandable to 128 MB when SIMMs 
>

LRM> with higher  density DRAM chips become available; additional 
>LRM> expandability through  NuBus slots. 
>LRM> I have heard that there are similar statements in SE/30 and Mac 
>LRM> II manuals. 
>LRM> Obviously, you have not looked at very much literature. 
>
>Au contraire.  Mr. Spencer knows _exactly_ of what he speaks; he _has_ read the manuals.  He read exactly what you read:  that the machine, the hardware, your SE/30 sitting on a table, can physically accept 128MB of RAM.  What Mr. Spencer sees is what I see, and what you are overlooking completely:  that Apple never made any statements of any kind concerning the conditions under which that lump of plastic and metal and chips can actually use the 128MB of RAM.  Go back and read your manual, sir.  Better ye








t
>

Oh, please.

If Apple meant that 128 MB could only be addressed under A/UX, they
should have said so.  If they write on a spec sheet that the Macintosh
II can handle 128MB of memory, it's sort of silly to come back and
say, "but that doesn't mean you can USE it, of course; it's only for
decorative purposes (unless you pay $600 for a completely different
operating system, but we're not going to mention that in the product
literature)."  I really don't think that Apple meant to do that at the
time.  I find it a little silly that people are seriously saying it.

Come on, folks.  Apple customers are supposed to be the rest of us,
right?  What do you think the rest of us are going to think when we
see a quote like "expandable to 128MB" on a product spec sheet?  "Hey,
Bob, look at my new whiz-bang CD player!  It can hold a changer that
takes 128 disks!"  "Oh, yeah?  So you can, like, just sit back and
listen to all 128 in a row?"  "Er...no, it can't actually DO anything
with them.  But it's still pretty neat to look at, don't you think?"

If you want to be as anal-retentive about details as Apple's lawyers,
fine.  Apple never did promise that their machines could address 128MB
of memory under the OS that came in the box.  But if they were really
thinking about that distinction at the time, they should have made it
much clearer to the customer (BEFORE the machine was purchased).
Personally, I don't think that's what happened; I suspect that some
folks are just getting carried away with interpreting what Apple did
say.  My guess is that the problem was just oversight.  But it's an
oversight that's being borne by Apple's customers, and I think it's
reasonable to expect Apple to take care of it.

>Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
-- 
David Walton            Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago   {  Any opinions found herein are mine, not  }
Computing Organizations {  those of my employers (or anybody else). }
