Developing Software

You will probably want to grab MPW from Apple, as well as any documentation for the Macintosh toolbox that you can find.

If you have a little money to burn, a product like CodeWarrior Gold 9 will include the compilers, debuggers, and some getting-started books all on CD. The IDE is also easier to use than MPW, albeit less powerful IMHO. I'm guessing that a second-hand copy is rather cheap these days.

I looked a little at MPW, but it seems very modern. I need to develop both for, and on a Mac SE. Would it be a misconception to think that it's not even worth trying to get MPW running on an SE? I've found that Think Pascal is freely available. I remember using that on a plus at one point. I just don't know if it has any internet/socket programming abilities.

Are there any mailing lists or forums for 68k programming? I haven't found any.

Thanks for your reply.

Nathan

The version of MPW on Apple's website requires System 7.5.5, which would chew up the RAM on an SE. Though it does run on a 68k. There are older versions that will run in System 6, but I haven't seen those versions in circulation. (Though I do have a copy for System 7.)

Technically, Think Pascal was never freely available. Somebody just discovered that the updater on Symantec's FTP site was essentially the whole deal. Unfortunately it was also pulled a while back.

The old Info-Mac archive used to have a section with lots of frameworks and programming samples. Think C should run fine on an SE, and programming examples are definitely available.

Just wondering, is it worth using a high level language on a 68000 based machine with 4 megs or less RAM? Wouldn't an assembler be better for speed?

It depends upon the coder. A proficient programmer who has extensive knowledge of both algorithms and the system architecture should be able to beat a compiler in terms of optimized code any day. A middle of the road programmer with a middle of the road knowledge of algorithms should just stick to compilers since a compiler (even an old one with poor optimization) should be able to outdo that programmer. And a poor programmer with no knowledge of algorithms will end up with faster interpreted code if the interpreter provides a more extensive library. Choose where you fit in.

If you value your time, higher level languages are most definitely worth it. (4MB RAM is a huge amount of RAM for most System 6 programming.) And to the OP, find a copy of THINK C 5 or THINK Pascal 4 to use. There is heaps of sample code on the net - for internet/TCP/Sockets type stuff look at things like Peter Lewis's sample code (Stairways Software) and the NewsWatcher source. Old USENET articles are worth checking (google groups) and also the MacTech archives. Another thing is any info-mac archives have various bits of source code you can check - especially the old comp.sys.mac.programmer archives.

Ken

And if you're looking for something to write, consider a system-6 text-only browser, like wannabe. Heck, even if it were a port of (mac)lynx, it would represent a revolution for system 6!

If you value your time, higher level languages are most definitely worth it. (4MB RAM is a huge amount of RAM for most System 6 programming.) And to the OP, find a copy of THINK C 5 or THINK Pascal 4 to use. There is heaps of sample code on the net - for internet/TCP/Sockets type stuff look at things like Peter Lewis's sample code (Stairways Software) and the NewsWatcher source. Old USENET articles are worth checking (google groups) and also the MacTech archives. Another thing is any info-mac archives have various bits of source code you can check - especially the old comp.sys.mac.programmer archives.
Ken

Click to expand...

You're making an assumption that every compact out there has been fully upgraded. Coders have to write for the lowest common denominator. I have three Pluses and one SE and none of them has more than the standard 1 meg. So is 1 meg sufficient RAM to hold the OS, plus the high level language with any extensions that may be needed plus the code plus any data that may be required by the code??

1 MB is a fair bit of RAM to deal with, and compilers tend to be fairly efficient (particularly if your code lacks structure, as many assembly programs would).

I tend to disagree with the "if you value your time" bit though. Programmers tend to create things for other people, not just themselves. So any programmer who values their time above mine leaves me in dismay. After all, 10 seconds here, 10 seconds there, and soon enough it amounts to real man seconds of lost time. Well, maybe Job's mantra for the original Macintosh doesn't work when there are only a few hundred classic Mac users left.

If you value your time, higher level languages are most definitely worth it. (4MB RAM is a huge amount of RAM for most System 6 programming.) And to the OP, find a copy of THINK C 5 or THINK Pascal 4 to use. There is heaps of sample code on the net - for internet/TCP/Sockets type stuff look at things like Peter Lewis's sample code (Stairways Software) and the NewsWatcher source. Old USENET articles are worth checking (google groups) and also the MacTech archives. Another thing is any info-mac archives have various bits of source code you can check - especially the old comp.sys.mac.programmer archives.
Ken

Click to expand...

You're making an assumption that every compact out there has been fully upgraded. Coders have to write for the lowest common denominator. I have three Pluses and one SE and none of them has more than the standard 1 meg. So is 1 meg sufficient RAM to hold the OS, plus the high level language with any extensions that may be needed plus the code plus any data that may be required by the code??

Click to expand...

No assumptions - just knowledge and experience. I've written heaps of code for system 6 - in C, Pascal and assembly, and none of this code was ever seriously constrained by RAM. Now speed on the other hand...

I tend to disagree with the "if you value your time" bit though.

Click to expand...

Doesn't take away the simple fact that it takes far longer to write something in assembly than C or Pascal, so you pretty much only use assembly where and when you have good reason.

Could I ask why System 7? Goodness knows we could use some more, fun assembly-written apps for System 6! Even on a fast 68k Mac, System 6 makes it all the faster, and hence, more fun! And in many cases, the code you write for a System 6 app can also work without problem under System 7 (and faster too).

I did some searching a while ago and found that the maclynx code had been released, but it does not seem to be available anywhere now, and the only archive.org links I could find for it were broken. Now maclynx only works for System 7 and higher, but porting it down to System 6 would certainly be easier than starting from scratch.

Ken

*Kallikak* waves to JDW from Tokyo

Doesn't take away the simple fact that it takes far longer to write something in assembly than C or Pascal, so you pretty much only use assembly where and when you have good reason.

Click to expand...

It will take longer because the code that you write is less dense, but I don't see why it has to take that much longer. After all, anything that you can do in a high level language can be mapped into assembler. In a lot of cases the mapping can be fairly direct. You even have things like function calls, can create object oriented code, and so forth, without too much effort.

Most people like to dis assembler because it is hard and because it is time consuming. Well, it is neither. It is just a very unfamiliar language that takes time to learn, and you have to put yourself in a different mindset (you have to think much more discretely).

Developing for C or Pascal using any of the THINK environments would be easy on an SE with 4 megs of RAM. No need to worry about doing assembly unless it's something that interests you, and if you do end up programming something that requires the extra speed, the inline assembler in THINK works fine. Lots of examples and tutorials out there on the web too.

MPW is very powerful, but I haven't been able to find any earlier versions that don't require 7.5.x, which as someone has mentioned is a hefty OS for an SE.

No need to worry about doing assembly unless it's something that interests you...

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the benefits of properly written assembly code on an old Mac is worth making yourself interested! Seriously, it is THAT much faster! And on a slow Mac, speed is of critical importance. Plus, you can lower the RAM requirements too. Why do you think System 6 is so much faster than 7? No, it's not simply "the bloat of 7" that is the cause. System 6 is mostly assembly code, well written and compacted!

Let the assembly code roll off those programming fingers!

In Mac development, a large part of the code is related to handling the interface elements, and there is not much bloat or speed penalty for coding that up in a high level language. If you really need speed, the THINK C inline assembler is a very good choice - since you can refer directly to your variables etc, and it makes managing the stack much easier etc. Most of my coding was related to mathematical problems, so speed was certainly an issue, but a good knowledge of the compiler being used and the features of the language (C or Fortran mostly for my examples) meant tight loops could be very efficiently compiled and optimised. That being said, coding it in assembly would probably have roughly doubled the speed, but it was generally floating point code, and I always found floating point assembly hard to work with - largely because of the representation of the values and the associated difficulty debugging.

On the other hand, on my Apple 1 clone I never do anything in BASIC, but write everything in 6502 assembly. But I'm biased, since I wrote the assembler. [] ]'>

I want to quickly thank everyone for their input. I'm now doing further research based on leads from this thread.

I'll have more questions shortly I'm sure.

Nathan

Kallikak -- the link to MacLynx source from archive.org exists, but the download always hangs at about 50%. Frustrating.

The developer, Olivier (often misspelled Oliver) Gutknecht, is still very much around, however, and might be willing to send it to you. I would've contacted him, except that I wouldn't be able to do anything with the source myself.

I've been looking into writing some MacTCP apps in C, and for me, the streams interface to MacTCP has been the hardest part. I'm not real keen on learning a new interface that isn't connect().

there are a few libraries that emulate a socket interface to MacTCP. Simple Sockets and GUSI (Grand Unified Socket Interface) both come to mind, but I didn't ever get anywhere with them.

Just learning to use the silly MacTCP streams is probably better than using a socket layer.

Someone earlier mentioned supporting system 6. Something I hadn't given much thought to, but am now convinced I should do so.

This is sort of a round-a-bout question, hopefully someone can help me figure out what it is I want to ask, and the answer as well...

I have two versions of Think Pascal. 4.5 and 3.?. 3 doesn't have any TCP libraries and 4.5 has MacTCP.p.

As Kallikak suggested, I looked at some of Peter Lewis's code, which uses some included tcp libraries (TCPStuff.unit, TCPConnections.unit, TCPTypes.unit) but does not use MacTCP.p.

So, if I want to write an internet app that runs on system 6 through system 9, is it even possible? Should I use the pre-MacTCP.p code as a starting point, or should I use MacTCP.p?

If MacTCP.p is what I should be using, does anyone know of any simple sample code? Something along the lines of Peter Lewis's examples?

Thanks,

Nathan

I don't know anything about using Pascal, but it's not too hard to support System 6: Just use the raw MacTCP interface (MacTCP.p, if that's what that is) and use calls that are documented in Inside Macintosh Volumes 1-5.

Alternately, don't do any gestalt checking and code your code. See where it crashes on Sys6 to identify calls that require System 7. ;-)

If someone here is developing a web browser for System 6, it would be nice to see one with as many modern technologies incorporated as possible. I know a lot of things just won't be possible given the hardware, but it would likely turn out better than anything System 6'ers are currently using.

But is a browser really feasible? Sure, a text only browser might; but I'm talking about a real browser that let's you see graphics and forms too.

iCab once supported older 68k Macs, but they haven't released a version for System 7 in ages. I've even written to them multiple times about this, but my words have fallen on deaf ears. iCab is so buggy though that I can't use it on my SE/30.

After comparing every single browser (including the text only ones) on my SE/30, the best I've found is Netscape 2.0. It doesn't support some features that 3.0 does, but Netscape 2.0 is "wicked fast" on my SE/30.

So if a browser is indeed in the works, it would be nice to see something on order of Netscape 2.0 for System 6, especially in terms of speed. But I think that a browser of that magnitude on System 6 may not be possible. If it was, then why didn't Netscape make it compatible with 6 & 7? And again, there would be hundreds if not thousands of man-hours involved. True, it would be one of a kind and truly "wicked fast" because System 6 is so much faster than 7. But again, the effort required to bring it to the light of day may be overwhelming.

Well, I'm not developing a browser.

Sorry.

I *am* looking into writing an m68k mpd client so I can use my Mac SE (since it's such a pretty hip thing) to control my home stereo system. Actually, the genesis for this comes from the timing between a $10 Mac SE I found at a thrift store, and not being to run the Mac OSX mpd client on my wife's laptop because 10.3.9 is "too old". :?:

Bah! I'll show you too old!!

So, back to reality... My Mac programming skills are rusty, and were never that good to begin with, but I think this is a reasonable task for me.

Anyone here running mpd that would be willing to beta test for me (in apx. 900 years)?

Nathan

I won't be able to, unfortunately. Please keep up the good work, though.

A browser would be very hard to develop indeed. Maybe starting with a port of KHTML, like Safari, but it would be SO SLOW...

I have a 48MHz 68040 in my SE/30, and Netscape 2 is not as fast as Safari on my 1000MHz G4 or FireFox on my P3 500 OpenBSD box. Netscape 2 is also by far the fastest browser I have ever seen on 68k Mac. You do the math...

Another programming suggestion for you...

If you want a real challenge and create a tsunami of interest from System 6 community, how about a 32-bit clean version of MultiFinder? This is perhaps one of the single largest benefits any programmer could offer the world of System 6!

Ah yes, giving us the ability to use all of that RAM that we freed up by using efficient software *and* by obtaining cheap SIMMs in today's market.

As for a web browser, I wouldn't bother working from a modern rendering engine like KHTML. CSS, JavaScript, and tables would tax a 68030 -- never mind a 68000. As for parsing the HTML, that in itself wouldn't be too bad (assuming that the HTML is well formed).

Ah yes, giving us the ability to use all of that RAM that we freed up by using efficient software *and* by obtaining cheap SIMMs in today's market.

Click to expand...

While there is some merit to what you say, there are still benefits to a 32-bit clean MultiFinder. MultiFinder itself allows you to run multiple apps simultaneously and switch between them. More RAM allows you to run more of those apps. And some of those apps can eat a lot of RAM, such as Deneba Canvas 3.5.x.

So even though my SE/30 is loaded with RAM, I could still make use of more of that RAM while in System 6 if MultiFinder was 32-bit clean. But again, it would be a real programming challenge, I'm sure!

But is a browser really feasible? Sure, a text only browser might; but I'm talking about a real browser that let's you see graphics and forms too.

Click to expand...

Given what a large undertaking it would be for someone to write a full-featured browser, my wishes are much more modest. I'd be perfectly happy just to have a port of wannabe to system 6 (or a tweak to allow 68000s to run it -- I mean true 68000-based macs, not "68k family"). Or to mod MacLynx to run under 6. Why? A couple of reasons:

1) There is only one browser of any kind that runs under 6. Samba is historically interesting, but unusable. It can't get to most modern sites (because they are virtually hosted). And even for the ones it can access, you can't download files! Can't use this browser to get to our favorite classic mac software sites, can't use it to download s/w.

2) MacLynx is a bit slow under 7. Maybe it could be sped up some at the same time it's made to run under 6. MacLynx does support the HOSTS extension, allowing access to all those virtually hosted sites. So if it could be made to run in 6, it would at least solve the problem of connecting to sites that have software we're interested in downloading.

Finally, the more you want the browser to do, the less likely it is that someone will undertake and complete the project.

Ok, one more question. Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series? I can't find them anywhere on Apple's site.

Thanks,

Nathan

If I may comment, MacLynx should be regarded as a dead end.

First and foremost, Lynx is already accessible to vintage computing enthusiasts via Unix shell accounts. This was also how Lynx was originally intended to run. Running it locally is a bit of a quirk that became common because Unix systems became common.

It is also worth noting that remote access also gives you access to other web browsers, like elinks.

The second reason is that Lynx does not exploit many of the features of the Macintosh. Even though Lynx is, in many ways, a much more powerful web browser, I consider Wannabe to be a much better browser. That is because Wannabe has the capabilities to emphasize things like headers and links, thus making documents easier to read.

Well, I have a different view. "It should be considered a dead end" is an opinion from the perspective of "what software should do." Mine comes from an acknowledgment of limiitations imposed by "what is available." These are quite different things (I wish it were not so!).

For 68000 machines like the Plus, there really are very few options. I contacted the author of wannabe a couple of years ago. Suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that we will be given sufficient access to the source to turn it into what we'd like. Maybe he would reconsider now, but that was his polite turndown then (and he is most polite).

I managed to track down the author of Samba (not an easy task), who was surprised and delighted that there remains interest in what he did so long ago. Alas, he's changed jobs and machines enough that he no longer has the source code, and has no idea where it might be.

That really leaves only MacLynx, whose source was once available freely. And not everyone has access to shell accounts (and having to run a terminal program adds a further level of remoteness and unfamiliarity).

But given that no one wants to undertake this project anyway, this is all for naught. Just adding to global warming to irritate Al Gore...

Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series?

Click to expand...

You will need to use HyperCard to view them. And the archive I have is about 20MB in size, compressed.

Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series?

Click to expand...

You will need to use HyperCard to view them. And the archive I have is about 20MB in size, compressed.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I guess I assumed they were out there as pdfs. Well, I've ordered the hard copies, so I'll just be patient and wait for the mail. Thanks for the offer.

Nathan

The benefit of having them in book form is that you can curl up in bed or on the couch to read them, at your ease. Even if you had a laptop, it wouldn't be the same as with the book. However, the Hypercard stacks can be searched, which is something you cannot do quickly with a book.

I suppose it would have been nice to have them in PDF form. But Apple put them in HyperCard format long before PDF became popular.

Are these Hypercard versions for the early volumes of Inside Mac?

I ask because I have a CD for the versions released for System 7 and later.

The Hypercard edition includes the early versions of Inside Macintosh, including Volume I, yes. But I don't know how many of the volumes are included (which would tell you if it includes System 7 era information or not).

If they are organized in "volumes 1-5" then they're the older versions. Later versions were reorganized into the different "managers" instead of being organized by ROM size.

The hypercard ones are just 1-5. There are also electronic versions of voume 6 (System 7 additions) and all the New Inside Macintosh volumes (the ones organised by topic). My recommendation (and indeed my approach) is to use Inside Macintosh as books and THINK Reference online.

Well, just to follow up, I've actually got my first release...

http://www.retards.org/projects/m68kmpc/index.php

... It's pretty basic, and only useful to those of us with older networked macs *and* mpd running on a server. Runs on 6.0.5.

Thanks to whoever said I should support system 6. You were right.

Thanks for everyone's help.

Nathan

Oh, and if anyone can tell me why my custom icon isn't showing up, I'll be in your debt. I can't figure it out, and have spent way too much time on it. If you have ResEdit and know what you're doing, would you DL the app and take a look?

http://www.retards.org/projects/m68kmpc/downloads/m68kmpc-0.0.6.sit

Thanks again.

Oh, and if anyone can tell me why my custom icon isn't showing up, I'll be in your debt. I can't figure it out, and have spent way too much time on it. If you have ResEdit and know what you're doing, would you DL the app and take a look?
http://www.retards.org/projects/m68kmpc/downloads/m68kmpc-0.0.6.sit

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

The creator of the app is ???? instead of XMPC, that's why the icon doesn't show.

I have an old copy of FutureBASIC v1.03.

The whole program is only 168K and it is copyrighted 1994.

I'm not sure how much you could do with it. It will compile programs that run on a Mac Plus with 1 MB. The language is more BASIC like but you can still call the toolbox and do all that stuff so you can build full programs with it. It might be easier than using C or Pascal.

The creator of the app is ???? instead of XMPC, that's why the icon doesn't show.

Click to expand...

Thanks Zydeco, that did it.

Nathan

I have an old copy of FutureBASIC v1.03.
The whole program is only 168K and it is copyrighted 1994.

I'm not sure how much you could do with it. It will compile programs that run on a Mac Plus with 1 MB. The language is more BASIC like but you can still call the toolbox and do all that stuff so you can build full programs with it. It might be easier than using C or Pascal.

Click to expand...

Mike, assuming Future Basic can do TCP, I'm sure it would have been much easier. At this point though, I'm have a lot of fun learning the Mac toolbox and pascal. Re-learning really. Hopefully the code will be faster for it, but with my skills, I can't guarantee it

Thanks for the offer. I still wouldn't mind a copy for S's&G's if it's painless.

Nathan

Hi,

I'd like to write an app for my Mac 512k / System 6 as a learning exercise. While it would be the most fun to use the 512k or a Plus, I also have systems running OS 7.5, 8.6, and 10.3.9. I've never coded for a Mac before.

From what I understand of this thread, I would need "Inside Macintosh" volumes 1-4... as well as a programming environment.

Where might I obtain hardcopies of IM like Nathan is using?

What would you recommend as a simple programming environment? Future Basic, Think Pascal / C, and MPW were mentioned.

Thank you very much,

~ J

If you already know C, get THINK C. If you already know Pascal, get THINK Pascal. If you don't know either, the Mac is quite a difficult environment to learn on. I'd recommend THINK Pascal in that case and writing simple apps that use it's console window and drawing window rather than Mac applications.

Also, don't worry about Inside Macintosh - use THINK Reference instead. Basically, learn to walk before you try to run. Inside Macintosh is much more complicated.

I'd suggest finding a second hand copy of the books by Dave Mark and Cartwright Reed.

Ken

Thanks for your reply, Kallikak.

To clarify, I'm mainly looking to learn how to create an early Mac app... as I already am versed in C, Pascal, Basic, Assembly, others.

So you suggest Think C and Think Reference? Do you know of any sources where I can obtain this stuff?

Thanks much!

~ J

Hi,From what I understand of this thread, I would need "Inside Macintosh" volumes 1-4... as well as a programming environment.

Where might I obtain hardcopies of IM like Nathan is using?

Click to expand...

Inside Macintosh Volumes I-III are very useful. I'd recommend them since you can get them cheap. Search for them on Amazon. Volumes I-III can be found combined in one large hardback. I think it cost me less than $7 including shipping, so you might as well get it.

The other book I would look for would be either of the "Macintosh Programming Primers" written by Dave Mark and Cartwright Reed. There's one for Pascal and one for C.

What would you recommend as a simple programming environment? Future Basic, Think Pascal / C, and MPW were mentioned.

~ J

Click to expand...

For early macs, pascal was the language of choice. Inside Macintosh has it's code examples in pascal. That doesn't mean you have to go with it.

I agree that Think Pascal and Think C are the way to go.

So your target is a 512k mac right? What will you be developing on? I develop on a System 9.x iBook, and use Think Pascal 4.x. It works pretty well. I find a few differences when I run the app on the iBook vs the System 6 SE, but I apple-talk the two when I'm at home, and it's easy to test on each.

If you're developing on the 512k, I don't know if that will work. Maybe you'll have to use version 3.

I've found Think Pascal 4.x on the web. I forget where, but it's around.

Ok, that's enough rambling. If you need anything, ask. I'm no pro, but I love developing for these old macs.

Nathan

Inside Macintosh Volumes I-III are very useful. I'd recommend them since you can get them cheap. Search for them on Amazon. Volumes I-III can be found combined in one large hardback. I think it cost me less than $7 including shipping, so you might as well get it.

Click to expand...

I had a harder time locating, but I think I found one. We'll see when it gets here.

The other book I would look for would be either of the "Macintosh Programming Primers" written by Dave Mark and Cartwright Reed. There's one for Pascal and one for C..

Click to expand...

I'm seeing quite a number of books by D. Mark, and a few by both authors as well, on these subjects. Do you have an EXACT full book title or better, an ISBN number?

For early macs, pascal was the language of choice. Inside Macintosh has it's code examples in pascal. That doesn't mean you have to go with it... I agree that Think Pascal and Think C are the way to go..

Click to expand...

Does Inside Macintosh also presume MPW?

So your target is a 512k mac right? What will you be developing on? ..

Click to expand...

It'd be nice if I could target the 512k, but I also have an 8mb Plus.

I'd like to either develop on my System 6 Plus, or System 8.1 040 Quadra 650, or System 9 PPC G4 Cube.

If you're developing on the 512k, I don't know if that will work. Maybe you'll have to use version 3...

Click to expand...

I'm not up for that much punishment.

Thank you very much, Nathan.

~ J

Do you have an EXACT full book title or better, an ISBN number?

Click to expand...

"Macintosh Pascal Programming Primer Volume I"

ISBN 0-201-57084-X

s/Pascal/C/ if you want the C version. That ISBN is for the one I have. There may be a couple versions with updates etc.

The pascal version I have knows nothing of System 7, whereas the C version I have has been updated with System 7 info. I code for System 6, but it's nice to have your programs run on System 7-9, especially if you're going to be developing on them.

*I* think it's a good primer, but I'm not guaranteeing you'll like it. I have 3 different pascal for mac books, and it's by far the best of the three. Not a huge sample though.

I have all of the sample code on a CD if you want it. The code isn't exactly as it is in the book, it's been updated a bit, with compiler options that sometimes break things for Think Pascal. Maybe the exact source is available online; I haven't looked.

Does Inside Macintosh also presume MPW?

Click to expand...

If it does, it doesn't matter. I've never found it to be an issue.

Nathan

You'll have a very hard time developing on the 512K. Would need to use a very old version of the dev environments and you'd not have the use of a debugger (LightSpeed C 3 and THINK Pascal 2 both need at least System 4.2). The MacPlus will be much better - but I don't know how you got 8mb in there...

(Actually I just checked, and LightSpeed Pascal 1.11 has an integrated debugger and will run on a 512K mac with 64 ROMs.)

I've probably said it before in this thread, and certainly in others, but I'm going to repeat myself. You do not need Inside Macintosh to learn to program a Mac, and indeed it is hard to learn from. You do need it to program a Mac really well, but THINK Reference plus the Mark and Reed books provide an excellent basis for a wide variety of applications.

Ken

As to Inside Macintosh presuming MPW, yes it does. This matters for some things like header file organisation and accessing QuickDraw globals and some methods in the runtime, but it is only a slight nuisance.

You'll have a very hard time developing on the 512K. ...need at least System 4.2

Click to expand...

As far as RAM goes, I haven't the faintest idea what would work when developing software on a 512. But as far as System Software goes, even on a 64k ROM 512, you can run all flavors of System 5. You simply cannot run System 6 or higher (despite what Apple's own web pages say on the matter).

I thought System Software 2 (System 4 and Finder 5.5) was the best you could manage on a 512K with 64K ROM. I will have a try on mine tonight.

On my 64k-ROM 512, I can run any flavor of System software, from 1.0 through the last revision prior to 6. I can even run Finder 6.0 with a System 5.x or 4.x version! But I can't get System 6 and Finder 6 to run (maybe due to lack of memory?). Despite this, Apple's website gives specs on the Mac 512 and 512ke which say these machines can both run Systems 6 and 7, which is a flat out lie.

So while you can run System 5.x, you cannot run 6.x or higher on a 512 with the original 64k ROMs.

I've probably said it before in this thread, and certainly in others, but I'm going to repeat myself. You do not need Inside Macintosh to learn to program a Mac, and indeed it is hard to learn from.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree completely. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

I got my copy so cheaply and easily off of amazon - and it's such a nice reference to have - I don't see why someone developing classic mac apps shouldn't just go out and get it if they can.

Sure. There's no denying they are fantastic books to have.