Thread
Levco MonsterMac SCSI for 512K
Does this work with 64K ROMs? It appears to have it's own ROMs. Anybody know if it requires software?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310042654857
Clearly it was priced too high for the market.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310042654857
Clearly it was priced too high for the market.
It wouldn't be REPC online if it wasn't priced too high for the Market. I shop in this store frequently. I should go and see if I find it in their vintage shelf. I don't know exactly how much, but theres gotta be some cut off point where they don't want to bother with shipping on lower priced items.
Personally at that price I'd rather go out and find a Plus. Now if that was $25 I'd probably want to grab it.
You should see the prices on their low capacity SCSI drives.... really, just go look at their other auctions.
Personally at that price I'd rather go out and find a Plus. Now if that was $25 I'd probably want to grab it.
You should see the prices on their low capacity SCSI drives.... really, just go look at their other auctions.
I think you would have a hard time finding chips to populate the board fully. You'd be better off buying a Plus motherboard to upgrade your 128k or 512k machine. The 30 pin SIMMS are much easier to get. This board would be more of a novelty than a working upgrade that you would actually use.
Well I think the key here is that it'd be cool to have this capability and still have the 64K ROMs.
Exactly. And upgrading to a Plus would NOT allow you to retain the 64k ROMs.
Ah... I would love to play guinea pig if I lived in the states. But I'm not about to pay MORE in shipping than the cost of the board to have it shipped over here to Japan.
Mac128, make the seller and offer and let us know if the ROMs are 64k!!! :b&w:
Seriously!
From the my library of clippings:
Full comment about RAM upgrade:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154419&cid=12951397
While that plan was folly for Apple, it worked out pretty well for third
market folks. Back in 1986, I was working at an independent Mac repair
shop in La Mirada called "Computer Quick" that could upgrade a 128K to
512K or even (gasp!) 2 Megabytes.
I absolutely hated the 512K jobs. First, you would take a pair of
cutters and cut the 16 64K x 1 bit RAM chips off the board, leaving the
pins in place and usually making a mess of the thing. Next, you'd use a
desoldering iron (we had an industrial grade one with a pump,
thankfully. None of this squeeze bulb garbage, thank heavens) to remove
the pins and clean out the holes. Inevitably, you'd wind up pulling up a
trace or shorting something out here, so you had to inspect it very
carefully. Finally, you'd solder the new chips (128K x 1 bit) in and
solder in a thumb sized daughter board that would handle all the address
line magic. Then power it up and keep your fingers crossed for "Happy
Mac" to show his face.
In comparison, the 2 Meg upgrades were a piece of cake. We used daughter
boards called "Monster Macs" [mactech.com] from a San Diego company
named Levco. Since there was no expansion slot, you'd cut the 68000 out
and add a socket. Then the daughter board (which had its own 68000)
clipped right on top, neat as can be. Levco also had a controller board
that could clip on top of that for SCSI hard drives - a "grandaughter"
board.
When we had accumlated a stack of clipped 68000 chips, we'd file off the
edges and drill a couple of holes to make keychains. Very cool. I had
mine for a decade before it got stolen. Only worked on the plastic cased
chips, though. The ceramics would crack.
Levco was known for a pretty cool sense of humor. When you powered the
thing up, "Happy Mac" had fangs (since they'd had to hack the Mac ROMS
to make it work anyways). Also, there were four PALs on the board
labeled Harpo, Chico, Groucho, and Zeppo. My boss told me some of the
Levco engineers had wanted to name "Zeppo" "Karl" but he'd warned their
management about the fallout this might've caused. Remember, the Berlin
Wall was still up and Reagan was in office.
I know that these days a megabyte seems absolutely trivial, but back
then it was an absolute phenomenon. You simply never heard the term
"Megabyte" except with hard drives and even that was a pretty new thing.
Kind of like gigabyte drives a few years back. And its utility was
beyond question - Levco let slip that Apple's finance department in
Cuppertino used Monster Macs for their accounting.
Alas, all good things come to an end. Computer Quick's was surface mount
technology in the Mac Plus. I was ecstatic the first time I saw SIM
memory - no more soldering! Our chief tech tried to fix a trace on the
logic board and it took him twelve hours once he got done repairing the
damage he'd caused. He handed it over to our boss and told him, "That's
it. We're out of business."
I enrolled in a four year school and decided to go into software instead
of continuing as a tech as I'd originally planned. Computer Quick was
out of business by my sophmore year. The era of garage based computer
businesses was over.
Full comment about RAM upgrade:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154419&cid=12951397
While that plan was folly for Apple, it worked out pretty well for third
market folks. Back in 1986, I was working at an independent Mac repair
shop in La Mirada called "Computer Quick" that could upgrade a 128K to
512K or even (gasp!) 2 Megabytes.
I absolutely hated the 512K jobs. First, you would take a pair of
cutters and cut the 16 64K x 1 bit RAM chips off the board, leaving the
pins in place and usually making a mess of the thing. Next, you'd use a
desoldering iron (we had an industrial grade one with a pump,
thankfully. None of this squeeze bulb garbage, thank heavens) to remove
the pins and clean out the holes. Inevitably, you'd wind up pulling up a
trace or shorting something out here, so you had to inspect it very
carefully. Finally, you'd solder the new chips (128K x 1 bit) in and
solder in a thumb sized daughter board that would handle all the address
line magic. Then power it up and keep your fingers crossed for "Happy
Mac" to show his face.
In comparison, the 2 Meg upgrades were a piece of cake. We used daughter
boards called "Monster Macs" [mactech.com] from a San Diego company
named Levco. Since there was no expansion slot, you'd cut the 68000 out
and add a socket. Then the daughter board (which had its own 68000)
clipped right on top, neat as can be. Levco also had a controller board
that could clip on top of that for SCSI hard drives - a "grandaughter"
board.
When we had accumlated a stack of clipped 68000 chips, we'd file off the
edges and drill a couple of holes to make keychains. Very cool. I had
mine for a decade before it got stolen. Only worked on the plastic cased
chips, though. The ceramics would crack.
Levco was known for a pretty cool sense of humor. When you powered the
thing up, "Happy Mac" had fangs (since they'd had to hack the Mac ROMS
to make it work anyways). Also, there were four PALs on the board
labeled Harpo, Chico, Groucho, and Zeppo. My boss told me some of the
Levco engineers had wanted to name "Zeppo" "Karl" but he'd warned their
management about the fallout this might've caused. Remember, the Berlin
Wall was still up and Reagan was in office.
I know that these days a megabyte seems absolutely trivial, but back
then it was an absolute phenomenon. You simply never heard the term
"Megabyte" except with hard drives and even that was a pretty new thing.
Kind of like gigabyte drives a few years back. And its utility was
beyond question - Levco let slip that Apple's finance department in
Cuppertino used Monster Macs for their accounting.
Alas, all good things come to an end. Computer Quick's was surface mount
technology in the Mac Plus. I was ecstatic the first time I saw SIM
memory - no more soldering! Our chief tech tried to fix a trace on the
logic board and it took him twelve hours once he got done repairing the
damage he'd caused. He handed it over to our boss and told him, "That's
it. We're out of business."
I enrolled in a four year school and decided to go into software instead
of continuing as a tech as I'd originally planned. Computer Quick was
out of business by my sophmore year. The era of garage based computer
businesses was over.
I can almost give you a 100% guarantee that the Mac shown in that link has the new ROMs. I know because I once owned that type of battery-door-SCSI-port upgrade -- you had to use newer ROMs.
Evidence that the stock 64k ROMs are not used on the Levco. Thanks for this.
And so, the search continues for an upgrade board (especially one with SCSI) that allowed continued use of the stock 64k ROMs. Was such a beast even made? Will we ever know? :-/
Whoops! 
I mistook them for the same thing.
However, I do think this is a nice clean 512k for a good price(besides the sticker) I've seen other 512ks at this price, but they had bad yellowing.
I mistook them for the same thing.However, I do think this is a nice clean 512k for a good price(besides the sticker) I've seen other 512ks at this price, but they had bad yellowing.
Depending on how you define "stock ROMs" I don't think that such a beast is possible. The stock 64K ROMs do not contain drivers or memory mapping for the SCSI port. So any upgrade which adds SCSI must make some addition to the firmware of the machine.
Now, I was talking with a programmer who did low level Mac stuff wayyyyyy back when, and he said there was a little address space up at the top of the memory map which one could use to hijack the program execution at start up. Apparently this little area gets executed, but usually all it does is send execution back down to the lower addresses. Or something like that. This was a few years ago. The point was, there is a hook in the boot code of the original Mac that a developer can use to gain control of the boot process and add his own code.
So, one method of "modifying" the ROM would be to map that address to a PROM on the expansion card and after loading the necessary code turn execution back over to the 64K ROM.
However, from a software point of view, this would look just like a modified 64K ROM such as the LEVCO uses. The only difference is that one stores the original and modified ROM on one set of chips and the other stores the original code on a different set of chips from the modified code.
What is so important about retaining the 64k ROM's anyway? Wouldn't the 128k ROM's provide more functionality and greater compatibility?
I will let Mac128 answer you in detail on that point, as I have expressed my full opinion on that before in other threads on this site.
But I will summarize by saying this, if we all apply your thinking and cast the 64k ROMs to the wind, there is no meaning whatsoever in buying any Mac other than a Plus. Seriously. I personally am not drawn to a machine simply because its "the first Mac." Some software is incompatible with the new ROMs.
You can retain the old motherboard and ROM's, I am not suggesting they should be discarded, but to say you want to keep it stock for the few pieces of software that won;t run with the newer ROM's (which would likely be impossible to find today, anyway) is like saying you refuse to upgrade from a G3 to an Intel Mac because the Intel Mac doesn't support classic and Leopard doesn't support G3 executable code. You're only hurting yourself because everything you are running on the G3 is obsolete and you will miss out on the later software that is available on newer machines. So what's the problem with putting a Plus motherboard in a 128 or 512k machine and putting the original board in storage to keep it safe? How much software are you realistically missing out on using without the 64k ROM's assuming you can even find it anymore?
Then why bother with old Macs at all? You're trying to apply logic to a hobby, which simply doesn't work. I have a 512K *entirely* because of ChipWits, a game that was given to me for my birthday back in the mid 80s. Never mind that I can play it via an emulator on my G4.
None of this needs to make sense. We do this because we enjoy it - there doesn't have to be a practical application for anything we do.
Megaroids!
(Although I think it will run with 128K ROMs, just not with more than 512K of RAM.)
(Although I think it will run with 128K ROMs, just not with more than 512K of RAM.)
Well said. I was just going to say: "If I have to explain it, why bother."
We all have our reasons. In my case, "because it's there" probably sums up my feelings best. Whether it was just Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field" or not, I really believe that 128K was fine for most people at the time and that there was nothing software could not do utilizing the hardware resources at hand.
JDW, as do I, would like to see the holy grail of SCSI implemented on the 64K ROM, in no small part so that we can run them with modern flash drives, rather than noisy external (or internal) options.
Thank God! Here's an example of software that won't run on MORE RAM. One of the reasons I wanted to preserve the 128K intact was for just this issue. Some software was written for only 128K and did not know what to do with 512K even. Although I am still hard-pressed to name a specific application, I at least remember having the issue come up. Megaroids is clearly a related issue.
One other thing to consider as well: The 64K ROMs and 128K ROMs work differently and ROM patches are implemented differently for each. Despite Apple's efforts to make them fully retro-actively compatible, they weren't and some old software just didn't run correctly on the 128K ROMs and some System versions.
Finally, not everyone is interested in bigger, better, faster, more powerful, like QUADRA-man. His screen name says it all! ;-)
:lol:
By the way, I did once own a Q650 (I paid US$1,000 to upgrade the 030 logic board in my IIvx to the 650). I loved that machine. So I fully understand what QuadraMan means! Go Quadras!
But at the same time, I also like the original 128k/512k because of the 64k ROMs. I think it's therefore silly to buy a 512ke, which is just a stripped down version of a Plus, with the same newer 128k ROMs. (And no, I do NOT consider the 128k or 512k to be "stripped" down because, in my mind, they are a different class of machine because of their 64k ROMs.) And in some respects, it's silly to buy the Plus since the SE is a better "68000" machine, offering you essentially the same software compatibility as the Plus, and the SE is also upgradeable too (upgradeable while allowing you to still retain that 68000). And no, I don't think you should cast aside the SE for the SE/30 because the SE/30 has an 030 CPU whereas the SE has a 68000.
So what I am saying is, if you want the original Mac with 64k ROMs, get a 128k or the original 512k. If you want a higher end 68000 CPU machine than that, get an SE. And if you want the fastest compact Mac available, get an SE/30 and max it out (with a DiiMO 50MHz 030 or 40MHz Daystar board, keeping in mind the DiiMO is more compatible and truer to what the SE/30 is -- an 030 compact Mac). If you want the fastest "68k" Mac possible, get a Q840AV. And if you want the fastest PPC Mac, get a G5 -- seriously, I see no other benefit to going with a 601 or 604e or G3 or even G4 (unless you, like me, love the beauty of the G4 Cube), since PPC is PPC and the fastest PPC rules (which is not true of 68k Macs, since 68000 machines are a different breed of Mac than 68020, 68030 or 68040 in terms of software compatibility). And before you call me nuts for my logic, consider what is sold on EBAY. Certain 68k Macs fetch high prices on EBAY. Many older PPC Macs, especially G3 machines, are next to worthless.
But getting back to the originally point... I, like Mac128k, want to see if there is a way to get SCSI going on the 64k ROMs, perhaps in conjunction with the HD20 init or similar "software hack." And if we could get extra memory too, without sacrificing software compatibility inherent to the 64k ROMs, then of course that would be nice as well (although any memory above 512k would be used as a RAM disk in conjunction with the 64k ROMs and no ROM hack). I think its fun to try to max out an older Mac while at the same time retain it's true nature (in other words, add SCSI to a Mac128k with 64k ROMs, rather than gut the machine and put in a Mac Mini and LCD screen).
In this house, there is no Mac newer than a 1GHz eMac and a 600MHz 14" iBook. Both of them run Panther, and they are my wife's machines for her academic work. They do 'just work', and that is the totality of her interest in and need for them. I do my 'work' on a bunch of 500MHz iMac CRTs running Jaguar to Tiger.
The other however-many Macs in the house include about 30 68K Macs and 20-odd 'G2' and G3 Macs. Every one of them is upgraded within its capacity to be so without turning it into an even mildly FrankenMac. To those who ask 'Why have so many?' I answer 'Because I can'. bigD accurately fingered the difference between a hobby and a home factory.
Were Quadraman to preface his pronouncements with 'I think that ...', or 'In my opinion ...', or 'It seems to me ...', his alternative take would be as unexceptionable as the 'I don't need to justify the Macs that I have or what I do with them' school of thought. Hobby, fixation, pastime, escape, business or pathology are all equally valid in a value-free context. Chacun a son goût.
de
The other however-many Macs in the house include about 30 68K Macs and 20-odd 'G2' and G3 Macs. Every one of them is upgraded within its capacity to be so without turning it into an even mildly FrankenMac. To those who ask 'Why have so many?' I answer 'Because I can'. bigD accurately fingered the difference between a hobby and a home factory.
Were Quadraman to preface his pronouncements with 'I think that ...', or 'In my opinion ...', or 'It seems to me ...', his alternative take would be as unexceptionable as the 'I don't need to justify the Macs that I have or what I do with them' school of thought. Hobby, fixation, pastime, escape, business or pathology are all equally valid in a value-free context. Chacun a son goût.
de
Amen to that. I have an Apple //e fully loaded in my workshop and enjoy playing Short Circuits on it every now and again. I enjoy tinkering with my Mac Plus's and SE/30's because that's what I used in grad school to write my technical thesis. I also used an SE/30 to spend WAY too much time playing on MUDs... The Plus was my first Mac, so I'll always have a soft spot for it.
Personally, I think the last of the G4s is a better option. The G5 may be faster, but I don't think it lasted long enough for Apple to engineer out the last few kinks. Plus the liquid cooling systems on the high performance models are booby traps with ticking clocks. And Apple kept changing the type of PCI slot included. That kind of architectural change means they never settled enough to really iron out the last of the kinks.
On the other hand, the MDD machines are at the pinnacle of G4 development. They are preceeded by four or five earlier revisions of G4 computer. By the time of the MDD, Apple knew what it was doing with the G4.
In much the same way that the SE is at a pinnacle of 68000 development, although some might put the Classic there. Personally, I think the Classic is on the downward side of that mountain. They reached the top, then looked around for ways to economize and headed back down the hill at that point.
Actually now that I am exploring the Portable, I think the backlit Portable represents the top of the mountain. It is the same specs as the SE FDHD but with a 16MHz data bus and 8MB RAM, or 4MB with similar PDS expansion options (not to mention dedicated video out for using a larger monitor and internal modem). As many have said, the Classic at a minimum should have been the Portable in a compact case, in which instance it would have been the crowing achievement of the 68000 line. But instead the Classic was Apple's last effort to squeeze the last profit out of the original 128K tools while not competing with more profitable models which needed to be recouped (along with the Classic II which was no replacement for the SE/30 either). Had Apple kept the Portable in production, but positioned it as a desktop model now that the price was dropping, they would have essentially had the first iMac. A relatively powerful consumer desktop with a great looking LCD. Truly they were 15 years ahead of their time with that one. Instead they did the same thing and started back down the hill with the PowerBook 100.
The Portable was a cool design and I sometimes wonder if its ROM couldn't be adapted to something like the Plus or SE, mainly because it would nice to allocate 8 MB of the 16M memory space to RAM, instead of only 4M.
One of these days I'm going to have break down and learn 68K assembly code....
One of these days I'm going to have break down and learn 68K assembly code....
I like almost every aspect of the Portable, except that silly battery design. Why in the world did Apple make you HAVE TO keep that enormous battery in there at all times. And without it, unless you have a PB100 adapter hack, you cannot use the Portable. And even if you buy a refreshed battery pack, you have to be very careful because it's easy to make those kind of batteries go brain dead in short order. But even if you care for the new battery, all batteries die over time. And since the Portable is to heavy to be truly portable, it means you would normally use a power adapter most of the time.
So if the Portable could be rewired to safely use an AC adapter, I think it would be a great machine, even if you wanted to keep it in storage for long periods of time like other classic Macs.
So if the Portable could be rewired to safely use an AC adapter, I think it would be a great machine, even if you wanted to keep it in storage for long periods of time like other classic Macs.
I think the lack of 16MHz data bus on the SE would limit your performance. And like the Portable, if you intended to use the PDS slot, you'd be back to the stock SE configuration. You could theoretically fit a PB 100 in the SE case, but not the Portable, without which you'd lose your SE PDS (unless you were using it for a modem in which case the 100 would arguably be an improvement). It should be possible to convert the 100's a simple 1-bit digital video signal for the SE's CRT.
I'm not a big fan of the Portable's design or the Snow White stylings in general. But I do like the Portable's LCD screen and advanced 68000 features. With the screen folded down, it makes for clean desktop storage when not in use and an external monitor and keyboard/mouse make it about the same setup as an LC (and probably more powerful). Plus I love trackballs. However, I would miss the quaintness of the sing-song 400K drives which are not compatible and the early MFS Systems, but I wouldn't miss the fans introduced with the SE & Classic. As a desktop I would prefer it to be closer to the Apple //c form factor with an external mouse, but if I had to transport it a lot, I would definitely prefer it as is, rather than shoving the separate parts in a bag like the SE.
But let's compare them anyway:
_____________SE____|_PORTABLE_|_CLASSIC__|__PB 100__________
CPU_________8MHz______16MHz______8MHz_____16MHz
Bus_________8MHz______16MHz______8MHz_____16MHz
Display_____512x342____640x400____512x342___640x400
Type________CRT______Active Mtrx____CRT_____Passive Mtrx
Ext. Disp._____PDS______Dedicated____NO________NO
PDS___________1_________1_________NO________NO
ROM EXP._____NO________YES________NO________NO
RAM (MAX)____4MB_______9MB*______4MB_______8MB
MODEM_______PDS_____Dedicated_____NO______Dedicated (no Ext. Modem port)
Ethernet______PDS_______PDS________NO________NO
SOUND OUT__Mono______Stereo______Mono______Mono
BATTERY______NO_______YES_________NO_______YES
FAN__________YES_______NO________YES________NO
*5MB if PDS used (8MB & 4MB respectively on M5126), with or without backlight upgrade.
All other ports are the same.
Clearly the Portable wins hands down and the Classic & PB were indeed poor stepchildren and the SE suddenly doesn't seem so much better than the Classic. The Portable had dedicated internal connections for everything but Ethernet which could be installed in lieu of additional RAM and still have 1MB over the SE. With the SE, this choice was nonexistent. Moreover, while the SE provided for all of the functionality of the Portable via its PDS slot, it only allowed one of the options otherwise native to the Portable.
The reality is that Apple did not pursue either the external video or PDS expansion, leaving both to third parties. Therefore, external video adapters are rare and the only PDS cards available are RAM cards (which oddly Apple attempted to discourage). So the practical reality is the SE wins in external expansion options, but the Portable wins in speed and RAM. The ultimate winner depends on which is more important. But it cannot be discounted that both options are there if one is industrious enough to exploit them. The video adapter should be easy enough to make. The PDS is a little more involved and with SCSI Ethernet options, probably not worth the RAM sacrifice. However, I can't help wondering if the SE PDS cards could be adapted for use in the Portable.
JDW, you need to get on this guy to produce a few more of these things:
http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://artmix.com/CF_powermon.html
Once we get the 64K ROMs working with SCSI it'd be nice to have this up and running on an MacSnap SCSI upgraded 512Ke or better and simply switch it over. I get the feeling it has to be formatted under System 7 anyway.
He's got the IDE versions for sale on eBay pretty reasonably. Shipping from Japan is a bit steep but not prohibitively expensive for such a miraculous device. Almost makes me want to buy one and try it with a SCSI to IDE adapter, but I would be concerned it wouldn't "just work" on an older Mac in that configuration. I'm all about plug and play.
The Outbound Laptop Model 125 which uses Mac Plus or SE ROMs has four extra SIMM sockets, so eight total. The extra four are totally devoted to a RAM disk--up to 16 MB. And it's maintained even when the machine is powered off, so one can keep the OS and apps on the RAM disk to make the machine super fast.
Examining an Outbound Laptop might lead to some interesting add-on card possibilities for the pre-Plus and Plus and SE models.
Actually, I've only ever tried 4 MB SIMMs in the RAM Disk slots. One of these days I've got to try 16 MB SIMMs in there. But even a 16 MB RAM disk kills the time that the battery stays charged if the machine is unplugged. Been thinking about building some SIMMs with SRAM...
I've commented on Manabu Sakai and his CF card solution before:
Ruffled Feathers
Money Back Guarantee
No Performance Guarantee
And if memory serves me correctly, I wrote other things too on this site, prior to the hard drive crash. Specifically, I had so many problems with him over email concerning that CF card product that I decided to telephone him, since I speak Japanese. His mother (he lives with her) answered the phone and refused to put him on the line because he apparently told her not to! It was at that point in time I threw up my hands and gave up. The man is far too eccentric for me to deal with. But if one of you out there can massage Manabu Sakai in the right way, perhaps you can get the answers you seek. In the end though, you may just have to buy the item, not knowing completely what you will get, and hope for the best.
Ruffled Feathers
Money Back Guarantee
No Performance Guarantee
And if memory serves me correctly, I wrote other things too on this site, prior to the hard drive crash. Specifically, I had so many problems with him over email concerning that CF card product that I decided to telephone him, since I speak Japanese. His mother (he lives with her) answered the phone and refused to put him on the line because he apparently told her not to! It was at that point in time I threw up my hands and gave up. The man is far too eccentric for me to deal with. But if one of you out there can massage Manabu Sakai in the right way, perhaps you can get the answers you seek. In the end though, you may just have to buy the item, not knowing completely what you will get, and hope for the best.
Ah, I had forgotten about that PowerBook thread and did not realize you had acted on it.
Thanks to Bunsen's post I found the article that discusses performance:
http://lowendmac.com/mail/0801mb/0118.html#4
However, it may be moot as my e-mail to him bounced and the SCSI adapter is "Out of Stock". I might go ahead and get one of the IDE drives to try with a SCSI to IDE adapter, since if it doesn't work out, I can always throw it into my aging (and complaining) IDE drive in my old PowerBook G4. Though if I go that route, I might as well go with something a little less suspect like this reasonably priced product: http://www.addonics.com/products/flash_memory_reader/ad44midecf.asp discussed here: http://lowendmac.com/reviews/07/flash.html ... the only thing that gives me pause is that it says it requires OS 8.6 and above.
JDW, this thread seems to indicate that the Levo Monster Mac board did not implement standard SCSI, but rather required specific drivers to access drives. Any drive you inteded to use would have to have a formatting utility that worked with Levco's custom configuration.
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.info-mac/browse_thread/thread/5ac295eaacaa56eb
This is actually an interesting observation following on the heels of the Dr. Dobbs article that indicates special drivers would be needed to work with specific drives on Bass' SCSI implementation as well.
Mac128, thanks for the insightful article. The for lazy among us (no doubt there are many), here is the relevant paragraph from that article:
Next, I am assuming their use of "new Apple file system" actually means "Hierarchical File System" (HFS). If so, that would imply compliance with the 128k ROMs, rather than the 64k ROMs. :-/ It is also interesting to note that Apple introduced HFS in September 1985, and this visit to Levco was made on October 6th, 1985.
But again, this is talking about a LEVCO product I've never seen. I see a memory upgrade board on EBAY right now, made by LEVCO. But through the years, I've not seen the LEVCO 20MB internal hard drive spoken of in that article.
I agree that it is interesting about the part of about drive-specific drivers. And again, that means that even if we were to follow that Dr. Dobb's article and build MacSCSI, how could we expect to find a "compatible" hard drive that would work with the driver they include?
Next, I am assuming their use of "new Apple file system" actually means "Hierarchical File System" (HFS). If so, that would imply compliance with the 128k ROMs, rather than the 64k ROMs. :-/ It is also interesting to note that Apple introduced HFS in September 1985, and this visit to Levco was made on October 6th, 1985.
But again, this is talking about a LEVCO product I've never seen. I see a memory upgrade board on EBAY right now, made by LEVCO. But through the years, I've not seen the LEVCO 20MB internal hard drive spoken of in that article.