Thread
Mac 512K/512Ke. Same model, or different?
That was me! :lol:
With regard to whether it is a mere revision or a different model, the 512Ke has a different model number. It also had its own user manual and Plus-like packaging. If not for the System 3.1 Finder 5.2 bugs, it would have had its own initial OS as well. While I tend to see it as an upgrade to the 512K and not a watered-down Plus, it was also more than just a "peripheral improvement" (as napabar put it) to the 512K -- Apple knew that future development of the OS would require the Mac Plus ROMs. There's a big difference between the 512K and the 512Ke -- the former was Apple's high-end Macintosh for most of its life, while the latter was always a lower-end alternative to the Mac Plus, primarily for students and the education market. To say they are basically the same model ignores both the dramatic changes in both the machine's outlook with regard to future OS developments and its position within Apple's lineup.
With regard to the 800K-disk-drive expansion kit, it's useful to remember that the 128K was discontinued at the time it was released (1986). This explains why, as far as I know, the 128K is not mentioned in any of the Apple materials, like the installation manual and user's guide. Still, any competent dealer or repair person would have known that it could be used on a 128K. I don't know if we can say Apple actively discouraged doing so, but it might be possible to find evidence that Apple trained dealers to encourage 128K owners to get the Mac Plus upgrade as well -- certainly anyone wanting to run software (increasingly common at the time) designed for at least 512K of RAM on their 128K would need to do that. That's why 128Ke machines are so rare in the wild -- most were upgraded to the Plus if they were upgraded at all.
With regard to the 800K-disk-drive expansion kit, it's useful to remember that the 128K was discontinued at the time it was released (1986). This explains why, as far as I know, the 128K is not mentioned in any of the Apple materials, like the installation manual and user's guide. Still, any competent dealer or repair person would have known that it could be used on a 128K. I don't know if we can say Apple actively discouraged doing so, but it might be possible to find evidence that Apple trained dealers to encourage 128K owners to get the Mac Plus upgrade as well -- certainly anyone wanting to run software (increasingly common at the time) designed for at least 512K of RAM on their 128K would need to do that. That's why 128Ke machines are so rare in the wild -- most were upgraded to the Plus if they were upgraded at all.
As I recall Pina approaches the topic as the "official" upgrade of a 512K to a 512Ke. He then approaches upgrading a 128K in this manner under the heading of "Unofficial" upgrades. He then addresses the 128Ke Mac as a viable option despite the fact it is commonly thought not to be possible. This suggests to me Pina is not aware of any "official" practice of upgrading to a 128Ke. If he acknowledges the prevailing belief was that it was not possible, then there could not have been much documentation from Apple publicizing it, or indeed suggesting it, nor dealers recommending it. If someone has access to the Pina book to check this that may help clarify this.
Also, the Apple service Guides I have mention the ROM compatibility with an 800K disk upgrade for a 512K Mac only. Now this may be as Rasmus suggests, because the 128K had been discontinued 3 months before the drive upgrade kit was available, nevertheless, nothing in the service manual explicitly states the existence of an enhanced 128K. It is interesting to note, the 128K was discontinued just as the first Apple II 800K Unidisk drive was introduced alongside the HD20.
I recall too that the original Mac Bible details the upgrade path and specifically states that the 128K ROMs & 800K drive require a minimum of 512K RAM. Obviously incorrect, but where did that assumption come from if not Apple?
So the general view I have from first hand accounts at the time, it appears as though the 128Ke was neither supported or encouraged by Apple. Again, there does not seem to be any concrete evidence either way, and I honestly don't recall where I remember reading that it was not recommended for 128K Macs. So until something surfaces that suggests otherwise, I have to maintain that it was never "officially" supported by Apple, if for no other reason than it was for a 3 month previously discontinued Mac that was likely never tested internally, and could presumably cause more problems than it would solve for the customer considering the limited RAM. I mean imagine the disk swapping issues alone with 800K considering how trying it was with 400K. There is some precedence for this as Apple released the 3.5" Drive in September '86 which states it is compatible with both the 512K & 512Ke. However, there is a notable bug on the 512K which is it constantly resets unless a disk is inserted. Moreover, it works fine on a 128K, with the notable exception that you cannot format an MFS disk on it, however, it will readily read/write 800K formatted MFS disks made on another Mac. But has no problame with 400K disks. Now considering this was the only external drive option available for the 512K or 128K, one would think Apple would have also included the 128K on the list of compatible Macs, except it was probably more trouble than it was worth considering it's limitations. And frankly, I just don't see Apple encouraging the continued use of the 128K under any circumstances, short of upgrading it to a 512Ke or Plus. Jobs and Sculley made a mistake of limiting it to 128K and by 1986 Apple must have realized that continuing to support it would not help the reputation of the Mac in those early days.
Regarding the discussion about the desirability of the Mac Plus vs. The SE: at the time when both were "real computers" the SE is clearly a superior machine. HOWEVER in a collecting context if I had any interest in owning a compact Mac I'd personally much rather have a Plus for one reason: it's the newest model that (800k drive aside) is 100% hardware compatible with the original Mac. As noted earlier, a Mac Plus is basically capable of running even the oldest (non-copy protected) software in circulation. I'm *pretty sure* with the SE its ADB keyboard and mouse trips up some things. However, as an owner of neither I can't say that definitely. The Plus also has the advantage of *looking* like the original Mac. I'm sure there is room for debate as to which is "better" but the SE is obviously newer.
As for the 128ke question, I seem to recall that the Plus rom's leave about 1.5k less free memory (regardless of System version) available. That's not a big deal with 512k but if you read Folklore's recollections of just how tightly constrained programs like MacWrite were on the 128k it could well make the difference between something running or not.
I have to wonder actually if most "128ke" machines in the wild are they way the are because they were at some point fitted with combo memory/SCSI/accelerator cards that were subsequently removed and sold separately.
As for the 128ke question, I seem to recall that the Plus rom's leave about 1.5k less free memory (regardless of System version) available. That's not a big deal with 512k but if you read Folklore's recollections of just how tightly constrained programs like MacWrite were on the 128k it could well make the difference between something running or not.
I have to wonder actually if most "128ke" machines in the wild are they way the are because they were at some point fitted with combo memory/SCSI/accelerator cards that were subsequently removed and sold separately.
Looks do play a role in my vintage Mac ideology, which is why I've never lusted after a Color Classic. It may sound silly, but had Apple come out with a color "SE" or color "Plus" I might have found it more appealing. It's something about that protruding part on the front above the CRT that never sat well with me.
As to the Plus vs. SE in terms of "software compatibility," the key to that discussion is what you just said: "Plus is basically capable of running even the oldest NON-PROTECTED software." So if we exclude the protected software, what are we talking about in terms of overall percentages? And if that excluded software is a sizable percentage, what advantage then does a Plus really have over the SE (other than looks in some people's minds, or for "collector's value")? To determine that, it would be good for us to research how much software is and isn't compatible with the Plus, and then do the same for the SE. If the results are largely the same in terms of "percent incompatible" for either model, then the nod would go to the SE for (a) marginally higher performance, ( B) a better power supply and analog board, © expandability. There is of course "fan noise" in the SE which is not present in the Plus. However, I would do an upgrade on the SE just like I did on my SE/30, and swap out the stock fan for a near silent cooling fan.
Pina actually makes this point when debunking the popular notion that the 128K could not be ROM upgraded. He indicates that following the 800K drive upgrade, a 128Ke can then be easily upgraded to a 512Ke or greater with a clip on SCSI combo board, rather than go through the physical memory upgrade he previously details in the book.
But like you, when I mentioned earlier that I didn't think the 128K could truly support the upgraded ROMs, I was thinking of this tight RAM constraint u mention as discussed on Folklore. While this might not affect every program run on the 128Ke, surely it must affect some. And I just don't see Apple running the risk of selling it for this purpose when potential untested problems loomed out there ...
As for the SE, there is a lot of vintage software that makes it a minimum requirement or some reason. The Zip Tools software comes to mind. It still supplies a PWM for a 400K drive, so I hadn't really considered that the ADB keyboard and mouse might otherwise trip things up. There's also new video and SCSI hardware implementation. I don't recall what the earliest software you can run on the SE, but I seem to recall it will not run System 1.0, possibly even 1.1, while the Plus is only restricted from running System .85 on the demo.
Still, considering how many overall improvements the SE offers, how much does one really sacrifice running earlier software? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Frogdesign's retooled Mac, and prefer the Plus any day. It just seems that if you have one Compact, the SE provides a much wider bridge of compatibility with a broader range of software than the plus.
Regarding preferring a Plus over a 512KE:
The 512KE will run Megaroids. The Plus won't. This is the one reason I can see to prefer a 512KE.
Apparently it's something to do with the memory installed and not the ROMs. I've never tried Megaroids on a Plus with two 256K SIMMs installed though. That would be an interesting experiment.
Megaroids also doesn't run on my 512KE with NewLife upgrade installed. All the NewLife upgrade does is up the memory and provide a SCSI port. It uses a 68000 CPU at the original clock speed. So again, it's probably either the greater memory, or maybe the presence of the SCSI port -- although that seems a little unlikely.
The 512KE will run Megaroids. The Plus won't. This is the one reason I can see to prefer a 512KE.
Apparently it's something to do with the memory installed and not the ROMs. I've never tried Megaroids on a Plus with two 256K SIMMs installed though. That would be an interesting experiment.
Megaroids also doesn't run on my 512KE with NewLife upgrade installed. All the NewLife upgrade does is up the memory and provide a SCSI port. It uses a 68000 CPU at the original clock speed. So again, it's probably either the greater memory, or maybe the presence of the SCSI port -- although that seems a little unlikely.
And although I've long forgotten which 64k-ROM compatible programs became incompatible under the 128k ROMs, that is my reason for liking the original Mac512 over the 512ke!
It certainly would be nice if we had a comprehensive list of software incompatibilities between among the 128k/512k and 512ke and Plus and SE (all the 8MHz 68000 CPU compact Macs).
"Mac128 wrote:
"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."
Well, I can't say that I have a 128Ke, but I can say that for my humble purposes System 1.1 Finder 1.1g with MacWrite 1.5 and MacPaint 2.2 is everything I need it to be, and the only reason why I wanted an external floppy drive for it was to prevent the 400KB original drive from wearing out. I couldn't tell any real wear on my arms from disk swapping, and if there was any, I could use the exercise anyway.
And this is with the 64KB ROMs that it originally shipped with, and the 128k version of the 128k/512k combo board, and with the stock 400KB internal floppy drive and stock amount of memory-but to be completely fair and brutally honest it DOES have the optional 400KB external floppy drive, which was bought as I said more to prevent the internal drive from wearing out than to save any effort (aside from otherwise having to risk having to buy a replacement floppy drive) on my part.
The 128k may be what some would call ridiculously spartan with MacWrite 1.5 and MacPaint 2.2 and TeachText running on System 1.1 Finder 1.1g with the 64KB ROMs, 128k of RAM (checked it using System 2.0 Finder 4.1, and even dual 400KB floppy drives, but with one floppy holding the system and the three applications I might really want to use, and the other to save my documents too, I never really can complain that I run out of space. At least until all the available floppy disks for document storage have been filled up.)
Apple really did an amazing thing with the 128k ifeyou care to use it as intended or give it a Plus or Plus-equivalency upgrade if you want real performance. I had simple tasks I needed a Compact Mac to do, and a 128k with my given software and hardware does it all.
Not to say that you are wrong at all, but my perception of the 128k (at least with what I do with it, and given that I don't have a 128Ke) is just what it is, and from my perspective you were proven wrong at least in regard to a truly stock 128k.
I do agree wholeheartedly that a 128Ke might be nice for experiments, but why kill a Plus, 512Ke, etc. to get the necessary ROM chips?
Just an observation based on listening and personal experience.
"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."
Well, I can't say that I have a 128Ke, but I can say that for my humble purposes System 1.1 Finder 1.1g with MacWrite 1.5 and MacPaint 2.2 is everything I need it to be, and the only reason why I wanted an external floppy drive for it was to prevent the 400KB original drive from wearing out. I couldn't tell any real wear on my arms from disk swapping, and if there was any, I could use the exercise anyway.
And this is with the 64KB ROMs that it originally shipped with, and the 128k version of the 128k/512k combo board, and with the stock 400KB internal floppy drive and stock amount of memory-but to be completely fair and brutally honest it DOES have the optional 400KB external floppy drive, which was bought as I said more to prevent the internal drive from wearing out than to save any effort (aside from otherwise having to risk having to buy a replacement floppy drive) on my part.
The 128k may be what some would call ridiculously spartan with MacWrite 1.5 and MacPaint 2.2 and TeachText running on System 1.1 Finder 1.1g with the 64KB ROMs, 128k of RAM (checked it using System 2.0 Finder 4.1, and even dual 400KB floppy drives, but with one floppy holding the system and the three applications I might really want to use, and the other to save my documents too, I never really can complain that I run out of space. At least until all the available floppy disks for document storage have been filled up.)
Apple really did an amazing thing with the 128k ifeyou care to use it as intended or give it a Plus or Plus-equivalency upgrade if you want real performance. I had simple tasks I needed a Compact Mac to do, and a 128k with my given software and hardware does it all.
Not to say that you are wrong at all, but my perception of the 128k (at least with what I do with it, and given that I don't have a 128Ke) is just what it is, and from my perspective you were proven wrong at least in regard to a truly stock 128k.
I do agree wholeheartedly that a 128Ke might be nice for experiments, but why kill a Plus, 512Ke, etc. to get the necessary ROM chips?
Just an observation based on listening and personal experience.