Thread
Mac 512K/512Ke. Same model, or different?
As some of you may know, I like to play around with my Mac 512Ke and get it to work with modern devices. I refer to it broadly as a Mac 512K, and mention the "e" part only in the more technical details. I consider them to be the same models, with a slight revision. It got me thinking about how others in the community think. Is it a revision, or a separate model?
Consider these points:
1. The Apple IIe went though at least 3 revisions in it's life, including a major change with the "Platinum" release. It not only had a new case and keyboard, but more importantly had double the RAM and double hi-res graphics! Despite this, most people refer to it as just an Apple IIe. It doesn't even have it's on Wikipedia article!
The 512Ke got no such major additions, yet has it's own Wiki article. :lol:
2. The original Bondi Blue iMac had two versions, the second containing an improved video card with more VRAM. Again, most Mac sources on models merely note the two revisions of the original Bondi Blue iMac.
1. If the 512Ke is a separate model, then shouldn't the 128Ke be as well? It has different capabilities than a stock 128K, namely HD20 support, but there is even hardly a whisper that this thing exists when you do any research on it. Mac sources on models don't even mention it. Yes, I know Apple never shipped a Mac 128Ke, but you could upgrade your stock Mac 512K to an "e" as well.
Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I kinda see them as the same model with a different revision.
Thoughts?
Consider these points:
1. The Apple IIe went though at least 3 revisions in it's life, including a major change with the "Platinum" release. It not only had a new case and keyboard, but more importantly had double the RAM and double hi-res graphics! Despite this, most people refer to it as just an Apple IIe. It doesn't even have it's on Wikipedia article!
The 512Ke got no such major additions, yet has it's own Wiki article. :lol: 2. The original Bondi Blue iMac had two versions, the second containing an improved video card with more VRAM. Again, most Mac sources on models merely note the two revisions of the original Bondi Blue iMac.
1. If the 512Ke is a separate model, then shouldn't the 128Ke be as well? It has different capabilities than a stock 128K, namely HD20 support, but there is even hardly a whisper that this thing exists when you do any research on it. Mac sources on models don't even mention it. Yes, I know Apple never shipped a Mac 128Ke, but you could upgrade your stock Mac 512K to an "e" as well.
Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I kinda see them as the same model with a different revision.
Thoughts?
Hate to say it, but I'd say Apple precident is against you.
Other than a few very minor motherboard revisions (which don't count, since each model underwent revisions of a similar scale within their respective runs) the only difference between an Apple II and a II+ is Integer vs. Applesoft BASIC ROMs. Functionally you can change a II into a Plus just by swapping ROMs, but at the time Apple conidered the change in shipping configuration worthy of a name change.
The 512Ke has different ROMs *and* an 800k vs. 400k disk drive. By the II+ benchmark that seems like a new product to me. (Or at least an "enhanced" one.) If you want to split hairs and insist that your machine is a plain 512K you're free to if you have evidence that it shipped as one, but if you're discussing it in the context of "look what you can run on a 512K Mac" the distinction remains important.
Other than a few very minor motherboard revisions (which don't count, since each model underwent revisions of a similar scale within their respective runs) the only difference between an Apple II and a II+ is Integer vs. Applesoft BASIC ROMs. Functionally you can change a II into a Plus just by swapping ROMs, but at the time Apple conidered the change in shipping configuration worthy of a name change.
The 512Ke has different ROMs *and* an 800k vs. 400k disk drive. By the II+ benchmark that seems like a new product to me. (Or at least an "enhanced" one.) If you want to split hairs and insist that your machine is a plain 512K you're free to if you have evidence that it shipped as one, but if you're discussing it in the context of "look what you can run on a 512K Mac" the distinction remains important.
The Apple IIe Enhanced (1985) contained new ROMS and a new processor. The Platinum revision (1987) doubled the RAM. All of these are considered an Apple IIe.
Wasn't saying the entire Apple II line was the same, just referring to changes made in the IIe line.
Wasn't saying the entire Apple II line was the same, just referring to changes made in the IIe line.
Whether the 512Ke shipped as one or was upgraded doesn't matter. Not stating the original shipping condition is what identifies a early compact Mac. A Mac 128K that has been upgraded to a Mac Plus IS a Mac Plus.
I don't see where you are drawing the line. 512Ke was a distinct model with a different badge, as was the ED.
Parts are interchangeable, but think of it this way: if you sold the machine the way your are advertising, would the buyer agree? For example, if you sold a 512K Mac (label on the back is 512K not 512Ke) as a 512Ke because you upgraded the ROMs and FDD, I'd know something was amiss since that was not (afaik) a shipping configuration, and therefore a misrepresentation of the sale. You'd do better calling out what it actually is: a 512K with upgraded ROM and FDD. It gets even more obvious when you use non-original parts to do the upgrade (EPROMs to do the ROM upgrade instead of original PROMs, etc.). Sure, functionally it is equivalent, but it's not the same.
To further confuse matters, people incorrectly refer to 512K's with upgraded ROMs but not FDD's as 512Ke's or 512Ke-upgraded-512K's.
IMO, call it what it is. If it is not stock, call out what you did to it. If it's a casual mention, call it a modified version of the closest conparable stock machine. For I instance, I put upgraded ROMs in my 512K, but nothing else (still looking for an 800k floppy bracket). It's a 512K with upgraded ROMs, or if you prefer, a modified 512K. It isn't a 512Ke and it isn't a 512K. And if I eventually find a floppy bracket and upgrade the floppy drive, it still won't be a 512Ke IMO. It may be a 512Ke-upgraded-512K although I think that's even a bit disingenuous since I burned the ROMs, they aren't stock. My rule of thumb is along the lines of 'if I bought this machine based on the description I'm giving, would I be happy with it?'. And really, why not call out modifications? Not doing so makes people suspicious you have something to gain by the misrepresentation.
There are organizations that sell modified versions of products, and represent them as originals. Various criminal organizations do this, as well as legal ones. For instance walmart is famous for selling 'Walmart versions' of various products, the cost reduced variant that has a slightly different model number that isn't really made explicit. The practice has less than reputable associations that are easily avoided by simple honesty.
Parts are interchangeable, but think of it this way: if you sold the machine the way your are advertising, would the buyer agree? For example, if you sold a 512K Mac (label on the back is 512K not 512Ke) as a 512Ke because you upgraded the ROMs and FDD, I'd know something was amiss since that was not (afaik) a shipping configuration, and therefore a misrepresentation of the sale. You'd do better calling out what it actually is: a 512K with upgraded ROM and FDD. It gets even more obvious when you use non-original parts to do the upgrade (EPROMs to do the ROM upgrade instead of original PROMs, etc.). Sure, functionally it is equivalent, but it's not the same.
To further confuse matters, people incorrectly refer to 512K's with upgraded ROMs but not FDD's as 512Ke's or 512Ke-upgraded-512K's.
IMO, call it what it is. If it is not stock, call out what you did to it. If it's a casual mention, call it a modified version of the closest conparable stock machine. For I instance, I put upgraded ROMs in my 512K, but nothing else (still looking for an 800k floppy bracket). It's a 512K with upgraded ROMs, or if you prefer, a modified 512K. It isn't a 512Ke and it isn't a 512K. And if I eventually find a floppy bracket and upgrade the floppy drive, it still won't be a 512Ke IMO. It may be a 512Ke-upgraded-512K although I think that's even a bit disingenuous since I burned the ROMs, they aren't stock. My rule of thumb is along the lines of 'if I bought this machine based on the description I'm giving, would I be happy with it?'. And really, why not call out modifications? Not doing so makes people suspicious you have something to gain by the misrepresentation.
There are organizations that sell modified versions of products, and represent them as originals. Various criminal organizations do this, as well as legal ones. For instance walmart is famous for selling 'Walmart versions' of various products, the cost reduced variant that has a slightly different model number that isn't really made explicit. The practice has less than reputable associations that are easily avoided by simple honesty.
The Mac 512Ke does not have a different badge. It just says Mac 512K on the back. This was how it was shipped from Apple starting in April of '86. The only difference was the floppies, which had "Macintosh 512K enhached" on them
Also, I wasn't framing this debate around selling or missrepresenting an item. Just a technical debate.
Also, I wasn't framing this debate around selling or missrepresenting an item. Just a technical debate.
You're confusing groupthink with canonical model, here. Yes, Apple didn't change the base name of the "Enhanced" vs. "Standard" IIe, and a non-Apple fan isn't going to know the difference, but:
1: Apple's own literature and to a lesser extent branding referred to the existence of an "Enhanced IIe", IE, it's a different SKU.
2: They sold a kit to convert a "Standard" to an "Enhanced", so the changes clearly have the potential to impact the user. (IE, this change is distinct from examples when, say, when a manufacturer revises a motherboard design to use denser RAM or combines discrete logic into ASICs to make the board more compact and cheaper to produce while remaining 100% compatible with older machines.) Notably, Apple did the same with the Mac 512k: if you bought an internal 800K floppy drive upgrade you got the new ROMs, which were also readily available as an upgrade to allow a 512k to boot from an HD-20.
Even though in (around) 95-99% of cases it doesn't matter whether it's a plain or Enhanced IIe you're sitting in front of there *is* software that will work on one and not the other. (And it goes both ways. Some old software is broken by the 65C02, while some new software requires the ROM changes the Enhanced IIe contained to make it compatible with the IIc.) They're different machines even if the unwashed masses lump them together; Exactly the same way that an original ROM-and-Floppy "Fat Mac" is distinct from a 512Ke, whether the "e" came with stock badging or is implicit via an upgrade. Even though they share the same motherboard a 512Ke is from a software standpoint a hardware-emasculated Plus, not an "original" Macintosh.
Didn't mean to imply that there isn't an impact to the user. Revisions can have an impact to a user, without being a new model.
I strongly disagree that a Mac 512Ke is more of a emasculated Plus than a revised 512K.
I strongly disagree that a Mac 512Ke is more of a emasculated Plus than a revised 512K.
From a *software* standpoint (which is what I said) what's your justification? Dove (and several other companies) sold snap-on-under-the-CPU SCSI boards which completely lack ROMs yet provide a fully-functional Macintosh Plus Compatible SCSI port when installed in a 512k with Plus ROMs, IE, a 512ke. Likewise, if you provide a board with additional RAM the 512ke will recognize and use it. The exact same ROMs are installed in both machines; therefore, again, from a programming standpoint there is absolutely no difference between the two. If the 512Ke used unique ROMs that provided 800k and HD-20 support without probing for hardware that isn't there you'd have a case, but that's not reality.
From a timeline standpoint the 800k floppy drive (and the support for it) wasn't available until the Plus' debut in 1986. Therefore 800k drives are a feature "backported" to the earlier models, and if your machine has one it's part Plus, period. And again, timelinewise: The Plus debuted before the 512Ke. (IE, complete Plus-es were available before either the complete 512ke machines were being sold or ROM upgrades were available.) If you have a 512ke you therefore have a machine that chronologically is *newer* than an early Plus. The hardware design (and manufacture date) may be older, but the *combination* is newer. Therefore, well... you do functionally lose "original Mac" bragging rights. Not that it's a bad thing, but that's what it adds up to.
Because I'm looking at the hardware when I make that statement. The Plus is a major upgrade, with SCSI, Double-Sided/HFS floppy, mini-din 8 serial ports, and SIMMS. The Mac 512Ke was created for one thing, Double-Sided/HFS compatibility with the new Plus. It is essentially a peripheral upgrade. Any increased software compatibily was an accident discovered after the fact. EasyShare (which I use) and System 6 (which I do not) weren't around in 1986 when the Mac 512Ke came out. It was revised soley as a peripheral improvment.
Oh, and I've never though of a Mac 512K or Mac 512Ke as "Original Mac" That is exclusively the 128K, branded or otherwise.
The standard IIe and Enhanced IIe have a differing CPU, ROM, and Video ROM.
Uhm, actually, you're saying contradictory things. You say the reason the 512ke configuration/upgrade exists is to provide "Double Sided/HFS compatibility with the new Plus", and then immediately follow with "Any increased software compatibily was an accident discovered after the fact". So you're saying an intentionally sold and widely used upgrade explicitly designed to make older machines compatible with the new "from this point forward" hardware and software standards (HFS is *software*) had the unintentional effect of making those machines more compatible with future software? That logic makes my head hurt.
I'm completely granting that the motherboard of the 512ke is identical to that of the 512k (and mostly identical to that of the 128k) while the Plus has a completely different one. But, again, if you're out to say "look what I can do with software running on a Mac 512k" it *does matter* that what you're working with adds up to being a floppy-only Plus with a partial lobotomy. Create a 512K RAM disk on a 1MB Mac Plus (or otherwise figure out some way of disabling the extra RAM) and your software constraints will be the same.
I'm completely granting that the motherboard of the 512ke is identical to that of the 512k (and mostly identical to that of the 128k) while the Plus has a completely different one. But, again, if you're out to say "look what I can do with software running on a Mac 512k" it *does matter* that what you're working with adds up to being a floppy-only Plus with a partial lobotomy. Create a 512K RAM disk on a 1MB Mac Plus (or otherwise figure out some way of disabling the extra RAM) and your software constraints will be the same.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Pretty standard stuff, really.
The 128K ROM was designed for extended peripheral support: Double-Sided Drives, native HD20 support, SCSI support.
System 6 (which works on a Mac 512Ke but not a Mac 512K) was released well over 2 years later. I highly doubt they were thinking System 6 when the revised this ROM. It was for peripheral support only.
The 128K ROM was designed for extended peripheral support: Double-Sided Drives, native HD20 support, SCSI support.
System 6 (which works on a Mac 512Ke but not a Mac 512K) was released well over 2 years later. I highly doubt they were thinking System 6 when the revised this ROM. It was for peripheral support only.
I would tend to declare a system based on its maximum capability. So if it is the enhanced version, why not just say it's a 512Ke? It's just one more letter. I found a 512Ke on a sidewalk during a city-wide clean-up and it came with the box and it clearly says "enhanced". The 512Ke being able to use 800k floppies sounds like it would have a big impact on the end user.
There are actually several significant bugs in items completely unrelated to "peripheral support" that the 128k ROM fixes. I don't have the list in front of me but I remember in particular several issues with QuickDraw were either fixed or significantly accelerated. (Code optimized for compactness was replaced with code optimized for speed.) Google around and you'll find citations.
Really, like tt says, what's your problem with calling it what it is, a 512keNHANCED? It clearly is.
I've never said I have a problem calling it a Mac 512Ke!!!! Read the documentation on my web page.
http://web.me.com/nilesmitchell/Mac512k/The_Details.html
I have always pointed in my techincal articles that I'm using a Mac 512Ke, and that EasyShare seems to require it.
I was just picking people's brains to see if they thought these were fundementally different models, or just a minor revision. I'm support the latter.
http://web.me.com/nilesmitchell/Mac512k/The_Details.html
I have always pointed in my techincal articles that I'm using a Mac 512Ke, and that EasyShare seems to require it.
I was just picking people's brains to see if they thought these were fundementally different models, or just a minor revision. I'm support the latter.
Clearly.
And clearly there are two answers. From a hardware standpoint, it's a small, practically nill change, on the system board combined with a new floppy drive unit. From that perspective it's a revision, though "minor" is a judgement call. The new drive doubles the storage capacity of the base unit, which seems pretty big.
From a software standpoint: If you oversimplify it the Plus' ROMs are basically a bugfix release that also includes several new hardware drivers and software tweaks. But if you dive into the details those "little tweaks" basically are what enabled the Mac to scale from a cute yet limited exclusively floppy-disk centered machine to a system capable of handling multi-mega (and ultimately giga)byte hard drives and (by 1986 standards) fairly vast quantities of RAM. From that point basically any significant internal upgrade (double sided drive, SCSI card, combo RAM/SCSI/accelerators, etc.) applied to a machine with the original 128k/512k circuit boards required them to be retrofitted with a Mac Plus ROM. Which makes the 512ke a significant model: Whether its configuration was reached via upgrades or shipped from the factory it's the least powerful* "Modern" Mac.
(* Edit: I originally said "oldest", but that's not strictly true. From a total-package standpoint a debut-day Plus is.)
Is it an all-new model? No. But if you were intending to use your pre-512ke Mac past 1989 or so it was going to end up transforming into either a 512ke or a Plus at some point along the way. So I'd say "Major Revision".
I'd say that's a fair assesment.
Interestingly, Apple's model indentifier for the Mac 512Ke is 3, and the Mac Plus is 4. Clearly, despite the 4 month delay in getting the 512Ke out, Apple considered it to be chronoloically first. Perhaps the delay was a marketing decision by Sculley. Maybe he wanted the Plus to shine for a bit before giving customers a cheaper alternative.
Interestingly, Apple's model indentifier for the Mac 512Ke is 3, and the Mac Plus is 4. Clearly, despite the 4 month delay in getting the 512Ke out, Apple considered it to be chronoloically first. Perhaps the delay was a marketing decision by Sculley. Maybe he wanted the Plus to shine for a bit before giving customers a cheaper alternative.
A while back there was a long discussion about a simple homebrew SCSI adapter for the original Macs that was published in Dr. Dobb's Journal starting in September 1985. If you compare the design of that adapter (in terms of both hardware and memory mapping) it's actually eerily similar to the Mac Plus' SCSI port. It's not *compatible*, but it's very close, close enough that one just has to wonder...
There's no way of knowing without finding someone who actually worked in Apple's secret laboratory at the time, but it's a reasonable conjecture to suppose that early versions of the 128K ROM might have been developed and tested on otherwise normal "Fat Macs" equipped with a piggyback-board version of the Plus' SCSI port, prior to the Plus' board design being finalized. (Said board was never released as a product by Apple because the "no slot" philosophy meant any such board was the sort of a hack only a third-party supplier could sell with a straight face.) Those same Macs might also of had prototype 800k drives, as Apple started shipping a double-sided version for the Apple IIe/IIc in September 85'. Which means... yes, the 512ke as a prototyping platform almost certainly existed before the full-blown Plus.
I actually got into a fight on Wikipedia with one of the old Apple II guys there who insisted that all the Apple IIes were nothing more than minor revisions, so much so, that he fought to keep them from even being split into separate sub-headings. Same for the Apple IIcs, which had a similar upgrade history. Totally agree with you. But since I am not an Apple II guy, I slunk away ... life's too short ...The Apple IIe went though at least 3 revisions in it's life, including a major change with the "Platinum" release. It not only had a new case and keyboard, but more importantly had double the RAM and double hi-res graphics! Despite this, most people refer to it as just an Apple IIe. It doesn't even have it's on Wikipedia article!
As for the 128Ke, again, I look at Apple's offerings based on marketing (which is why the Apple II fight on Wiki was so frustrating). Not only was the 128Ke not sold as a package, but it was actually discouraged by Apple, so in my mind it doesn't qualify.
Since the 512Ke was a distinct product over the original stock 512K, I have to side with Apple that it was a separate distinguishable model. However, Apple also sold the 512Ke in Europe as the 512K/800. So does that qualify as a separate and unique model, or in the same way the Performas are considered separate models? You certainly wouldn't make a distinction between a Performa 200 and a Classic II. Then again, they are the exact same hardware. The 512Ke is not. Those ROMs make a huge difference in functionality, forget the 800K drive, you can run a 512Ke, or even a Plus off a 400K drive. Essentially the 500K RAM and 128K ROMs allow that Mac to do quite a bit more than a stock 512K or even a 128Ke. Despite being a mere upgrade, it allows the Mac to do far more than the stock model, so claiming a 512K can do some of the things you have it doing, is similar to saying a 512K can run System 6 or can boot off an HD20. Those statements only make sense if you add the disclaimer "with 128K ROMs", or "upgraded". Since 512Ke is the shorthand for those disclaimers, it seems so much easier to say that. Ultimately it makes clear how you are able to do some of the things you do on the 512K, and avoids understandable confusion. I don't have a problem with you calling it a 512K, since I know you know what you are doing, and I know what it takes to do what you're doing, I can infer that what you really mean is an enhanced 512K. For others it's confusing.
As if this thread weren't long enough already, I'd just like to add that I somewhat agree with the sentiments of Gorgonops that the 512ke is more like a stripped down Plus than a souped up 512k, due to the ROMs. Honestly, if you have the choice to buy a 512ke or a Plus on EBAY, why on earth would you choose the 512ke? (And the 128ke has such a small amount of RAM it is never a serious consideration for a purchase in my book.) I actually chose my Mac512 over the Plus and the 512ke because it has the original 64k ROMs, yet it has 4 times the RAM of the 128k, making it more usable. And some of the earliest software written for the 128k and 512k (both with 64k ROMs) won't play right with the new 128k ROMs of the 512ke and Plus (as per my memory from the 1980's, which is why I cannot be specific today about which apps won't work on the 128k ROMs).
All said, the 512ke doesn't have much "value" to me (although I would give it more value relative to a 128ke). Ditto for the "ED" model.
All said, the 512ke doesn't have much "value" to me (although I would give it more value relative to a 128ke). Ditto for the "ED" model.
I've seen other discussions about that, and it seems like most of the examples people remember of software "not playing right" were actually traceable to incompatibilities between the 400k and 800k disk drives, not the ROM.
(The 400k drive uses the PWM signal from the Mac to directly regulate its speed, while the 800k drive just turns on the correct speed for whatever track it's on automatically. As I understand it some early copy protection schemes relied on running the drive at a nonstandard speed to read specially encoded data, which of course the 800k drive can't be ordered to do.)
Other incompatibilities were traceable to system versions which supported HFS and hard disks, but the Plus will boot earlier systems, (Obviously at the cost of losing the use of those features.) demonstrating it has *very good* backwards compatibility. (I believe that it's been demonstrated that the very oldest prototype finder versions that are floating around on the Internet will run on a Plus/Plus-configured emulator.) I'm not sure anyone's definitively named a program that's broken by the 128k ROM itself.
Waiting now for the flood of citations proving otherwise, of course.
I guess "value" is in the eye of the collector. For me, the Plus is worth less than a Mac 512Ke. It was made for almost 5 years (more than any Mac ever) and is not hard to find.
But, primarily, the Plus is much too advanced to make my experiments interesting. I can't believe anybody in the Compact Mac community would find what I did with the Mac 512Ke as interesting if I did them with the Plus. 4 Megs of RAM? SCSI to Ethernet? MacTCP? FTP server (NetPresenz)? System 7.X? AppleShare Server? All of these can be done on a Plus, but not a 512Ke. The challenge was to get this little Mac to do something that it wasn't supposed to be able to do. The Plus is a monster compared to the 512Ke.
Mac128,
Do you have any documentation on Apple discourging this ROM upgrade? Everything thing I've ever seen (which is very little) from Apple implied that it was an upgrade appropriate for both the 512K and the 128K. It was sold seperately from the Mac Plus upgrade, which was also avaialble to both machines.
I agree that other Macs are of more value to me than the Plus. In fact, I don't even own a genuine Plus, although I have the ROMs from one. No, when I searched EBAY for a compact Mac (to replace the Macintosh 128k that I originally owned in 1984 but later sold when I got into college), I passed over the Plus in a heartbeat for the Mac512. Again, the 64k ROMs were the ticket for me. But if one doesn't care about the ROMs, one would do better with a MacSE than a Plus.
It all depends on what you want to do with your Mac. The Plus actually is a fun machine to work with because it CAN do so much. How many computers from 1986 can play a CD, post a Tweet, display a dithered desktop picture, and run system software made ten years after it was released with no modifications aside from the RAM upgrade? I actually used a Plus to connect to AOL as late as 2001 and wrote a novel on one for Retrochallenge three years ago, all while listening to my CD collection on it through a SCSI CD drive. I had a dithered photograph as its desktop pattern, utilized multitasking, and printed to a printer made nearly a decade after the machine. (For the record, this machine was running System 6, not 7). Find me another computer introduced in January 1986 that can do that!!!
The 512Ke is obviously far less powerful and is limited by its fixed RAM and lack of SCSI. Still, it is, as others have pointed out, far less common than a Plus. That's not to say interesting things can't be done with 512Kes; someone recently used one to receive a message from Siri. Still, it's considered more of a "historical" machine than the Plus due to its old-fashioned case design and inability to be expanded or run newer software packages. It may not receive as much attention as the original 128K and 512K, but from a hobbyist's point of view, it's actually quite desirable--it's the ultimate original Mac (by original, I mean non-SCSI) and has the far more reliable 800K drive, perfect for those who aren't up for restoring the trouble-prone 400K drives.
The 512Ke also has one of the most rare variants--the platinum edition. These were made in 1987 and appear to be extremely uncommon.
Apple probably didn't update the 512Ke badging because they felt the model wouldn't stick around for long. They knew by April 1986 that they would be releasing two new models within the next year. (In fact, I remember reading they had originally wanted to use the 68020 in the SE). They essentially released the 512Ke as a temporary stopgap model until the Plus could become the low-end machine, but kept it around for another six months afterward, perhaps for educational customers and others on a budget. The IIe Enhanced, meanwhile, was a computer Apple probably felt would be kept around for some time (which it was). Still, the 512Ke had a lifespan of 1 year, 5 months (approximate), and while some computers did receive badging for variations (such as the SE FDHD/SuperDrive), many did not (just by looking at them, it's impossible to tell some models of iMac apart).
The 512Ke is obviously far less powerful and is limited by its fixed RAM and lack of SCSI. Still, it is, as others have pointed out, far less common than a Plus. That's not to say interesting things can't be done with 512Kes; someone recently used one to receive a message from Siri. Still, it's considered more of a "historical" machine than the Plus due to its old-fashioned case design and inability to be expanded or run newer software packages. It may not receive as much attention as the original 128K and 512K, but from a hobbyist's point of view, it's actually quite desirable--it's the ultimate original Mac (by original, I mean non-SCSI) and has the far more reliable 800K drive, perfect for those who aren't up for restoring the trouble-prone 400K drives.
The 512Ke also has one of the most rare variants--the platinum edition. These were made in 1987 and appear to be extremely uncommon.
Apple probably didn't update the 512Ke badging because they felt the model wouldn't stick around for long. They knew by April 1986 that they would be releasing two new models within the next year. (In fact, I remember reading they had originally wanted to use the 68020 in the SE). They essentially released the 512Ke as a temporary stopgap model until the Plus could become the low-end machine, but kept it around for another six months afterward, perhaps for educational customers and others on a budget. The IIe Enhanced, meanwhile, was a computer Apple probably felt would be kept around for some time (which it was). Still, the 512Ke had a lifespan of 1 year, 5 months (approximate), and while some computers did receive badging for variations (such as the SE FDHD/SuperDrive), many did not (just by looking at them, it's impossible to tell some models of iMac apart).
Yes, but as I said in my previous post, if you want something like the Plus (68000 CPU, 128k ROMs, SCSI, lots of RAM, etc.), why buy a Plus over an SE? The SE is the better choice, hands down. It's marginally faster, more expandable, and generally more reliable as well. Back in the day, the Plus was the clear choice because it was CHEAPER than the SE (until they discontinued the Plus), but for us today, I would give more value to the SE.
In my opinion, the only good reason for having a 512ke and/or a Plus would be if you were a collector committed to collecting one of every single "Compact Mac" model Apple ever produced. You would need those models to have a complete set. But other than that, I see value in the 128k because it was the first, value in the 512k because it is the "usable edition" of the 128k memorywise (with the same 64k ROMs), and the SE (for reasons already stated). Of course, the love of my Compact Mac life is the SE/30, but that is in somewhat of a different category because it doesn't have a 68000 CPU.
The funny thing is I have never seen ANYTHING that said the ROM upgrade was appropriate for the 128K so I would ask you the same question. The ROM upgrade kit was part of the 800K floppy drive upgrade, afaik, it was not available as a mere ROM upgrade as that would dearest the purpose of Apple offering it - they wanted to get rid of MFS. It also makes no sense to keep offering a 128K with 64K ROMs and 400K drive 6 months after the 512Ke was introduced, since it means maintaining an obsolete file system and an additional set of parts rather than minimizing costs with economy of scale. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it. Also, while an 800K disk will work on a 128K, Apple never officially supported it. I have never seen any documentation indicating compatibility with a 128K which would be odd if they encouraged the ROM upgrade to a 128Ke. Also, the 128K has enough Troy le with the 400K disk directory in the Finder, so eating into the available RAM with the added code from the 128K ROM, plus 800K of data to keep track of (potentially 1600K with an external drive, or 21MB with an HD20, which is also not officially supported by Apple in that configuration).
That said, I believe I recall first reading Apple did not recommend the upgrade in a TIL. I believe it is also absent from the TIL upgrade chart. I may have also seen it in a service manual. I think Pina also mentions this and explains that it can in fact be done in His first repair book. I would check, but all my reference materials are I'm storage at the moment.
Again, I may have inferred this from text, but I can assure you, I have NEVER seen anything recommending this, nor any evidence that it was done. One would think the advantages would be so enticing that stock 128Ks would be non-existent. the 800K drive upgrade was an amazingly reasonable price because Apple was trying to get everybody onto HFS, and e enducement for the consumer was that it was a cheap way to improve performance over original investment with a continued upgrade path for the 512K upgrade, or even the Plus which required the drive kit. Bottom line is, I nor anyone I have ever talked to has ever come across a 128Ke in the wild. This suggests that it was never supported, encouraged or otherwise acted upon, more than it was simply unpopular. After all, anyone who has ever used a 128K will bemoan the lack of disk space over RAM.
But happy to be proven wrong.
Oh, wow!
Well, I can tell you they do exist because I had one back in the late 90's! There was a time when I was collecting Mac 128K's, and I had three of them at one time. The last one I bought had been upgraded to a Mac 128Ke. I remember being disappointed at the time when I bought it, because it wasn't in it's original configuration. It had the 800K drive and 128K ROM. Still had only 128K of RAM. HD20 worked fine with it, and it could boot from the HD20.
After awhile, I got out of collecting classic Macs, and I got rid of them. I could kill myself for doing that, because finding another 128Ke is going to be hard.
I have Pina's first book, and he details upgrading a 128K or 512K with the Disk Drive/ROM kit.
Well, I can tell you they do exist because I had one back in the late 90's! There was a time when I was collecting Mac 128K's, and I had three of them at one time. The last one I bought had been upgraded to a Mac 128Ke. I remember being disappointed at the time when I bought it, because it wasn't in it's original configuration. It had the 800K drive and 128K ROM. Still had only 128K of RAM. HD20 worked fine with it, and it could boot from the HD20.
After awhile, I got out of collecting classic Macs, and I got rid of them. I could kill myself for doing that, because finding another 128Ke is going to be hard.
I have Pina's first book, and he details upgrading a 128K or 512K with the Disk Drive/ROM kit.