NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/system/11429

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 7.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.system:11429 comp.sys.mac.hardware:16176 comp.sys.mac.misc:15686
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att!ucbeh.san.uc.edu!temple
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Apple breaks promise? MODE32 not in 7.1?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:59:56 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati
Lines: 126

> This strikes me as a rather hysterical response. Mode32 exists. You can ftp
> it for free. It works. We have no evidence that it does NOT work with
> system 7.1. Why not get that clarified before getting excited. So it's not
> built into 7.1. If it still works with 7.1, what does it matter? Maybe it
> won't be compatible with System 8. But do you know it won't be part of
> System 8? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think, based on
> what Apple has done so far, we owe them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Maynard Handley

Response in brief: you totally missed the point.

Response in detail:

An earlier letter posted by someone indicated that MODE32 would not be
integrated into sys 7.1. Presently, MODE32 is a hack that Apple
licenses from Connectix. It works well, but it is not Apple
system software in  any sense of the word. When MODE32 was initially
distibuted by Apple, Apple  included a public letter announcing its
intention to integrate MODE32 into a future version of the system
software. I'm still waiting for Apple to make good on this.
        What's the difference?  It's a support issue, as I see it.
When Apple originally distributed MODE32 for free, a lot of people
were still very upset because  they didn't want a temporary (i.e.
third party) fix for an Apple software bug, but something which Apple
could actively support. When they read the documentation enclosed,
however, they realised, oh, MODE32 may be temporary, but eventually
it'll be just another software patch, with Apple's direct support (not
third party). This took the heat off of Apple, as it offered a long
term solution short of a ROM upgrade, which many of us were lobbying
for (I'm summarizing dozens of letters I accumulated back then. I'm
not saying that everybody felt this, but a lot of people did, enough
to make Apple  to promise to provide a more permanent solution (the
integration of MODE32 into the system software)).
        You may not agree, but the argument is easy to follow: code
that is directly supported by Apple will more likely to maintain
compatibility with future  system  versions,  because  it  will  be
tested  at  the same time the rest of the system is. Third party
support, on the other hand, can be, well, flakey. Not that Connectix
isn't a fine company, but they aren't Apple, and they  do not write
the Mac OS. Putting that code into the hands of the people who write
the Mac OS is a much safer bet.
        Apple has the ROMs of various macs patched all over the place. Mac
users are used to this, and we feel confident about them. I sometimes wonder
just how much of the original ROM on a, say, Mac Plus with 128K ROM is still
really being used (not patched) when running system 7.x.x. Apple promised to
make MODE32 just another of these many patches, instead of a separate extension
from a third party company. Think of it this way: 32-bit Quickdraw is a patch
for the old 256-color quickdraw (once known as "color" quickdraw). It is not in
the ROMs of many older Mac II class machines, but came first as a
Apple-supported system extension, and then was built directly into system 7. I
would feel very insecure about 24-bit color compatibility (I do have a 24-bit
color card) if Apple didn't directly support 32-bit QuickDraw, but paid say
(gasp) Microsoft for the rights to distribute it, but then decided not to
bundle it with my system disks in any fashion.
        In short, it suggests a lack of COMMITMENT. And commitment is precisely
why Apple promised to include MODE32 code as an Apple system patch (not forever
a stand-alone hack). I need that commitment if I am going to invest any more
money in my SE/30. I can't afford to lose any compatibility. MODE32 is not
another wham-gee-whiz extension, but a critical part of the software of my Mac
that enables it to do what I paid for, and without which my 20 megs
of RAM will be useless .
        But as I see it, there are MANY ways Apple could integrate MODE32 into
the system software thereby living up to their promise to many mac owners, and
giving us the kind of commitment many of us require.

        1.) MODE32 as system resource patch. The installer already includes
would be easy to do, and MODE32 would become, voila, system software with the
"special systems" for various mac models. It would never have to be part of the
Apple label. Sounds silly (it is silly!), but meets their original promise.
"general (for all macs) install". The installer for the SE/30, IIcx, IIx, and
II would automatically include those resources for those macs. This is already
done for other model-specific resources.
        As far as I know, the SE and Plus are not given the 32-bit
memory manager under system 7, since they are limited to using the
24-bit memory manager.  The memory manager patch for the dirty-ROM
quadruplets would be installed only on these machines in a similar
manner
        (If they ARE loaded on these 68000-based machines and I am
wrong, then  please note that these managers are taking up room which
these machines cannot benefit from. Adding MODE32's extra 32K of patch
(less with Apple's compressed resources, say 16K) would hardly make
things much worse, while benefitting  the many folks who paid top
dollar for their IIcx, IIx, II, and SE/30s.)

        2). MODE32 as re-labelled Apple extension. This would also use
the Apple system installer, but just to place an extension on the
right Mac models. This would be easy to do, and MODE32 would become,
voila, system  software with the Apple label. Sounds silly (it is
silly!), but meets their  original promise. Apple already does this
with model-specific control panels, such as the Portable control
panel, etc.

        2a.) A combination of the two above. The installer loads the
MODE32 resource code into another already used control panel, such as MEMORY
when installing to a Mac model that requires it. But I don't like this
as  much as the others listed here. Kind of vulgar.

        3.) System enablers. System 7.1 has a feature by which
model-specific code can be loaded separately of a "general-ish system
setup." This feature, while great for developing new machines and
making them compatible with existing system software, can also do the
same thing with older systems. The code for MODE32 could then be part
of the system enabler for a SE/30, for example. Future
backward-enablers might even let Mac IIfx users use all of that extra
hardware (advanced DMA and so forth --- those little 6502s all  over
the place which were meant to take the load off of the 68030, but
which  Apple never actually supported in software (a missing addition
to the original system 7.0 spec sheets)).

        Anyway, this is where I'm coming from. MODE32, by itself,
wasn't enough for many of us. In tandem with their promise to
integrate it into the system software (but they didn't say how! so
they have some leeway there, although it will still have to be, at a
minimum, available along with the system software and installable
along with it, when appropriate), they made a lot of disenfranchised
mac owners (defined as, any mac owners  without  a mac currently being
produced. sorry --- cynicism there) very happy. Now I  want to see
them make good by that promise, or at least, announce their
commitment to do that later (after 7.1).  As it stands, it feels like
they've forgotten (or hoped we have) --- but I won't let them!

                                Cheers,

                                Jon