HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davey@ux5.lbl.gov (davey hudson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: How to hookup a (?)jet to a Mac; FAQ
Date: 5 Nov 1992 22:34:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov
Keywords: laserjet deskjet

There are several lengthy, detailed FAQ's on this topic.

They can be FTP'd from pit-manager.mit.edu in the pub/usenet
directory, along with FAQ's from all the usenet groups. You
can save time (and bandwidth) by looking there first.

Thanks,
Davey

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: jason@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Jason Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Discussion - Availability of New Power Books
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 00:27:08 GMT

ddruker@agsm.ucla.edu (Daniel Druker) writes:

>I just received my Powerbook 160 4-80 from the UCLA computer store. They
>have recieved lots of 160's, a few duos, but no 180's yet. Alas, no
>expansion memory is ready yet for the 160 though. I order the machine about
>2 weeks ago and bought it through the educational discount program.

They have the 180's, but Apple didn't send them a demo copy, so there are none
on display.  So you have to buy one without seeing one.


-- 
Jason Rosenberg                           Computer Science Department
jason@cs.ucla.edu                         University of California
{uunet,rutgers,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!jason      Los Angeles, CA  90024
From: collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: PB170 ram in PB100....
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:15:40 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

pmather@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Paul mather) writes:

>I'm using PB 170 RAM in my PB 100 (and have been for about two weeks).  
>No problems so far!

So why do the ram mail order companies list a separate PB100 ram module
from the 140/170 module?  (With the PB100 ram $40 more)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: Summary of IIsi 20->25 MHz upgrade log
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.224126.192@physc1.byu.edu> seth@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>The fpu on most cards is in fact clocked off the ][si's clock signal, but not
>because it has to be. The 68030 co-processor interface is entirely asynchronous
>and the cpu and any co-processor can be hooked up to whatever clock they want
>to be. The hardware of the co-processor interface takes care of the necessary
>details of the communication. It is perfectly reasonable to think of hooking up
>a 50 MHz fpu to a 50 MHz clock on a card and have it work just fine (and 2 1/2
>times as fast as the fpu normally works with a IIsi.) The main reason that you
>never see 40 or 50 MHz (or anything besides 20 MHz for that matter..) fpu's 
>for the IIsi is that they would cost more. Companies are out there to make a 
>buck. The amount of people they tgink would buy a card with a faster fpu is
>fairly small, so they don't want to have to go through the trouble of making
>them and having them in stock. The 68882 chips that are rated at 50 MHz are
>much more expensive than 20 MHz chips, so that and the (relatively small) cost
>of adding a clock to the card with the fpu, along with the space that it would
>take up, are the reasons why you just don't see it. I would personall like to
>see someone who has some pc-board experience copy a IIsi pds card with fpu, 
>but instead of having the fpu clock-in pin hooked to the IIsi clock signal line
>put a 50 MHz clock signal chip or whatever is needed. I personally don't have
>any of the resources available for doing such a thing, so I can only dream 
>about it. 

Actually you do see adds for fast FPUs.  Look in the back of any 
MacUser or MacWorld magazine.  I've seen them for the LC/LCII up to
50mhz, and I _think_ I've also seen them for the IIsi.

The ability to run the FPU at a different speed than the CPU seems    
most advantageous when it's the CPU that runs faster than the FPU  
(instead of the other way around, as you described).  Although I'm
sure some people need the extra number-crunching speed of a faster 
FPU, I would think most people would prefer to buy an accelerator
card with a faster CPU, without having to also pay for a faster FPU    
and while still taking advantage of the slower FPU on the motherboard 
(for those Macs that have one).  The DayStar 68030 PowerCaches can do
that.  There was even talk recently of using both the internal FPU in
their new Turbo '040 accelerator *and* a 68882 FPU on the motherboard.
Only the functions which aren't implemented in the '040's internal 
FPU (e.g. trig functions) would be routed to the 68882.
Unfortunately, I think they've decided against doing that for now. 
  
Incidentally, since we were talking about the IIsi here, when I say
"FPU on the motherboard", that also applies to an FPU on an adaptor
card or on another PDS card in the IIsi.  There are a couple of
different ways you can use a PowerCache without FPU in a IIsi, and    
still make use of a slower FPU on another board.


--
Steve Kanefsky
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Summary of IIsi 20->25 MHz upgrade log
From: seth@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:41:26 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

The fpu on most cards is in fact clocked off the ][si's clock signal, but not
because it has to be. The 68030 co-processor interface is entirely asynchronous
and the cpu and any co-processor can be hooked up to whatever clock they want
to be. The hardware of the co-processor interface takes care of the necessary
details of the communication. It is perfectly reasonable to think of hooking up
a 50 MHz fpu to a 50 MHz clock on a card and have it work just fine (and 2 1/2
times as fast as the fpu normally works with a IIsi.) The main reason that you
never see 40 or 50 MHz (or anything besides 20 MHz for that matter..) fpu's 
for the IIsi is that they would cost more. Companies are out there to make a 
buck. The amount of people they tgink would buy a card with a faster fpu is
fairly small, so they don't want to have to go through the trouble of making
them and having them in stock. The 68882 chips that are rated at 50 MHz are
much more expensive than 20 MHz chips, so that and the (relatively small) cost
of adding a clock to the card with the fpu, along with the space that it would
take up, are the reasons why you just don't see it. I would personall like to
see someone who has some pc-board experience copy a IIsi pds card with fpu, 
but instead of having the fpu clock-in pin hooked to the IIsi clock signal line
put a 50 MHz clock signal chip or whatever is needed. I personally don't have
any of the resources available for doing such a thing, so I can only dream 
about it. 
	For those worrying about whether your fpu can handle the increase for
heat and such from 20 MHz to 25 MHz in "The Upgrade", you can simply buy a
68882 chip from a lot of mail order houses that IS rated at 25 MHz for maybe
$80 or so (just a guess, nobody flame me for having the price wrong.) You 
could probably sell the 20 MHz chip then to someone on the net. I don't know
anything about the NuBus cards, because I have a PDS card, but for the PDS
cards I have seen nothing in my reading of technical stuff about the fpu and
the co-processor interface of the 68030 that would make me think that the fpu
would not function PERFECTLY well under the increase to 25 MHz.
Seth Leigh
BYU Physics Dept.
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Clock doubling
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 10:25:09 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


Joe_D._Ciarcia@fourd.com writes:

> Replying to Eric Re:parallel processing
>     I understand the basics of it but I'm wouldn't be very good at explaining
> it in detail (which of course means I know what I'm talking about and I don't
> know what I'm talking about). Maybe my father will be able to answer some
> questions when he gets on the Internet.  I talked to him yesterday ... he said
> he would have access soon but he can't get on right now .... at least he'd be
> able to explain it in detail.  Joe C

Yes, it sounds like you'd better get your father to do his own talking.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
From: lee5@husc11.harvard.edu (Patrick Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: 25 mHz IIsi--another success story
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:19:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.lee5.721001985

Well, add me to the success story list.. Just finished the upgrade and
things are working just peachy keen... (I can even run Soundtracker
without too much of a perfomance lag now!)..
System Info:
 Mac IIsi, 17megs RAM, Apple Nubus adapter card w/FPU...
 Osc chip ordered from BG Micro....

-Pat
 <lee5@husc8.harvard.edu>
From: t90576ky@sfc.keio.ac.jp (Kenji Yasaka)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: PowerBook Upgrades ??
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:58:11 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus.

Hello! This is my first posting outside Japan:-).

Does anybody have any information or rumors whether there will be an
upgrade kit for PowerBook 140,145,170 to PowerBook 160,180? I've seen
some articles on MacWeek about it, but I haven't heard anything since
the release of new PowerBooks.
---
Kenji Yasaka                              
Keio University Shounan Fujisawa Campus   t90576ky@sfc.keio.ac.jp
Faculty of Environmental Information      yasaka@cmlab.sfc.keio.ac.jp
Computer Music Major
--
Kenji Yasaka                              
Keio University Shounan Fujisawa Campus   t90576ky@sfc.keio.ac.jp
Faculty of Environmental Information      yasaka@cmlab.sfc.keio.ac.jp
Computer Music Major
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: lahtinen@gideon.fmi.fi (Kimmo Lahtinen)
Subject: Re: More memory to OLD Mac Plus??
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:32:55 GMT

lahtinen@gideon.fmi.fi (Kimmo Lahtinen) writes:

>I tried to help a friend of mine to upgrade the memory of his Mac Plus.
>I bought 4 pcs of 1M x 8 SIMMs (80 ns) and plugged them in. To my 
>suprice I got only 2 MB out of them. Is there something else to do?

I must thank you all very much as I got Many replys. For the benefit to
others here is the solution:

	You must also remove (or cut) resistor R8.


>May I ask that you email the aswer to me, as I do not have time
>to follow this group very often.

Now I really understand why people like Mac so much, there is
plenty of nice people using Mac's and they are ready to share their
knowledge.

Kimmo

PS. In some replys there was something about technical notes,
can someone tell me how to get those?
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kimmo Lahtinen                      E-Mail : lahtinen@gideon.fmi.fi       
Finnish Meteorological Institute    Phone  : +358 0 758 1322
Possessed by a Spirit               G3 Fax : +358 0 758 1396
From: stan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Stan Twiefel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Theory on IIsi upgrade failure
Keywords: IIsi, 25mhz, upgrade
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:19:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Nov6.060708.5264@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wrast@nyx.cs.du.edu (Winston MacKenzie Rast) writes:
>I've heard a few people mention their failures in upgrading their IIsi to
>25Mhz. Now, I haven't done this upgrade myself, but I have been following the
>discussion ever since the thread began. I have an opinion on why some IIsi's
>might be failing. Here goes:
>
>Alright, it's pretty well understood that the IIsi motherboard is quite similar
>to that of the IIci. If this is true, it helps to know what the differences    
>are. So what is different? Well, the first thing that popped into my mind was
>that the SIMMs in the IIci are 80ns chips while the SIMMs in the IIsi are 100ns.
>So, to me it would seem that if your IIsi did NOT have 80ns or faster simms
>installed in it, the upgrade would not work. 
>
>--Winston Rast
>wrast@nyx.cs.du.edu


I don't have a IIsi (actually, i'm waiting semi-patiently for my IIvx to
come in that I ordered on Oct 22 :((( ), but I've been reading most of this
thread just to see how many people manage to fry their motherboard by
soldering on it..(:-).

Anyway, does anyone know how fast the 1 meg of soldered on RAM on the mother-
board is?  If that's 100ns, and doing this upgrade would require 80ns memory,
they you're all basically screwed.  

Also, on one of the IIvx threads, they're discussing how the IIvx only 
requires 100ns memory.  Someone commented that they would just simply put
faster memory in their IIvx, and it would run faster, but that was shot
down real quickly because RAM access speed is not deteremined by how fast
your RAM is.  If you put 80ns RAM in a computer only requiring 100ns RAM,
the computer is still only designed for 100ns, so you're not going to gain
anything.  NOW... my next question is:  what determines how fast the memory
needs to be?  Is it this oscillator you guys are bumping up -> 50Mhz?  IF
so, then it would stand to reason that you might need faster RAM.  If not, 
then speeding up your coomputer will only make the '030 wait faster for
the RAM.  But it will still take the same amount of time to do a memory access.

This make any sense?


-- 
=============================================================================
Stan Twiefel	 			    The University of Texas at Austin 
stan@ccwf.cc.utexs.edu			    -=-=-=-=Computer Science=-=-=-=-=
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Subject: Re: II vx Vs Ci
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:09:17 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14g by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <92315.125423IO91748@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO91748@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Jon Carr) writes:
>In article <hwa-061192121416@jones.jhuapl.edu>, hwa@fassm.jhuapl.edu (Hani W.
>Akhras) says:
>>
>>I am currently debating on whether to buy a ci or vx. It seems to me from
>>all that I've read that they are basically the same with some small
>>differences. Can someone summarize these differences and recommend which
>>one I should go for. Currently, I fell that the ci is a better buy. Any
>>help would be appreciated.

Feature                 IIvx:           IIci:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model                   4/80            5/80
Processor Speed         32 MHz          25 MHz
Processor               68030           68030
FPU                     68882           68882
External Cache          32K             128K
External Bus Width      16 bits         32 bits
Soldered RAM            4M              0M
RAM SIMM slots          4 (1 bank)      8 (2 banks)
Included RAM            0M              5M
ROM                     ?               512K
32-bit clean ROM?       Yes             Yes
NuBUS slots             2?              3
Built-in video res      832x624         640x480 (or portrait at 4bits)
Built-in video depth    16 bits *       8 bits
HD access time          ?               20 ms
Sound input             Mic +IIci ->    44.1 kHz stereo 8-bit sampling
Software sampling       same as IIci -> 22kHz, 8 bit, stereo
Sound output            Sound jack      Sound jack
Cost                    $2355           $2155

IIvx: 4/80 512K VRAM    $2355 13" monitor at 8 bits per pixel (256 colors)
IIvx: 5/80CD 1M VRAM    $2570 16" at 16
IIvx: 4/230 512K VRAM   $2650 13" at 8
IIci: 5/80 20ms         $2155 13" at 8
IIci: 5/0               $2015 "
IIci: 5/230             $2450 "

*: requires extra VRAM


There are currently a lot of accelerator cards out there, and if you
decide to upgrade, the ci's 32-bit external bus will pull it ahead.  And
if you add in 24-bit support for a 16" or larger monitor, the built-in
video advantage of the IIvx goes away.  I am considering both options, so
the IIci looks like a better deal to me.  16" monitors run around $1000
(Apple's is $1090), and I WANT ONE! :)
Systems above with Stylewriter, Extended Keyboard, 13" monitor, & ThinkC 5.0:
                        $3329           $3129

All prices are edu prices.  Street prices will be higher, but the
relative levels should follow.

These views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Southwick
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Distribution: world
From: David_A._Schnider@bmug.org
Organization: BMUG, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:03:43 PST
Subject: Re: PowerBooks - 210 v. 160 as Midrange champ

I think the couple of punds saved on the 210 are negligible.  The battery stuff
is a definite benefit.  I think the attachable drive is an annoyance.  Think
that if you want the dock for its expandability, you either have to buy a second
drive to carry around or just never have a drive on the go.  While the duo is
a better sdystem, it taakes a lot more money to get it.  For the same kinds of
abilities you need ot spend about $1500 more than a 160.  It's not worth it
for me (especially since I don't have the extra $1500).

-David
***************************************************************************
             From Planet BMUG, the FirstClass BBS of BMUG, Inc.
              The above message was gatewayed via PostalUnion
***************************************************************************
The message contained in this posting is entirely the poster's personal
opinion.  Any possible, real or perceived, (dis)similarities with the
views held by BMUG, are purely coincidental.
***************************************************************************
From: dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:47:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Monitor size and resolution
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware

In comp.sys.mac.hardware, hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:

> dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) writes:
> 
> >In comp.sys.mac.hardware, guiyu@spectra (Kui Yu Chang) writes:
> 
> >> MON size	resolution	hori. freq(Khz)
> >> --------	----------	---------------
> >> 12"		 512 x  384	24.15
> >> 13" or 14"	 640 x  480	35.0
> >> 16"		 832 x  624	50	(approx.)	
> >> 19"		1024 x  768	60	(approx.)
> >> 21"		1152 x  870	68.24
> >> 
> >>Above are the STANDARD resolutions used on the respective SIZE of the
> >>monitor.  True, you can display 1152 x 870 on a 14", but a 14" is not a
> >>STANDARD to display it. Thus, when people say 16" resolution, they mean
> >>832 x 624.
> 
> >  Hmmm, I am running a SuperMac Spectrum 8 card with a Sony 16" at 1024x768 -
> >it is NOT WYSIWYG however, but it is nice.
> 
>     The person above was not talking about multi-synch monitors that can
> display other resolutions than the "standard" resolution for the
> monitor's size. 16" standard resolution is 832x624.

  Neither am I, this is a standard SONY 16" Trinitron monitor, not a multi-
sync.  It is a 60HZ monitor and a standard in the unix market.

DLC
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: bcek1@cus.cam.ac.uk (B.C.E. Khoo)
Subject: Enclosures for Powerbook Internal Drives
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:45:52 GMT

Dear all

Well, I took the plunge and invested in a 120MB hard drive for my PB170. So, now
I have a 40MB spare which I would like encased for use as a portable drive.

This is definitely an FAQ, but please send me leads as to where I can find
these enclosures, what power supply they require (ADB? power adaptor?
batteries?), and how much they cost.

Thanks lots.
 
Bernard Khoo                            |  1985-1992: 
Wellcome/CRC Institute                  |    Mac 128K -> 512K -> Plus 
University of Cambridge, UK.            |    Mac SE
                                        |    Mac SE/30
bcek1@cus.cam.ac.uk, @phx.cam.ac.uk     |    PB 100 & PB 170...
  or @mbuk.bio.cam.ac.uk                |         ... it's a monochrome world.

Disclaimer: My opinions only, not those of my employer or of my school.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Distribution: world
From: David_A._Schnider@bmug.org
Organization: BMUG, Inc.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 13:51:59 PST
Subject: Re: New 14" vs. Performa Display+ ???

Honestly, this is a foolish comparison for one reason.  There is a better,
cheaper monitor.  The Sony CPD-1320 has a better dot pitch and sells for $425
(out the door after S&H).  There's no reason to spend $100 more on the Apple
14" which is the same thing.

-David
***************************************************************************
             From Planet BMUG, the FirstClass BBS of BMUG, Inc.
              The above message was gatewayed via PostalUnion
***************************************************************************
The message contained in this posting is entirely the poster's personal
opinion.  Any possible, real or perceived, (dis)similarities with the
views held by BMUG, are purely coincidental.
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: juskiw@ee.ualberta.ca (Scott Juskiw)
Subject: PowerBook/Duo Hard Drives
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:56:09 GMT

Who makes the 80 and 120 Meg hard drives shipping with the new PowerBooks/Duos? 
Anybody care to check with SCSIProbe or something similar. Is Apple using 
Quantums now or are we still stuck with IBM/Conner mechanisms?

-- 
Scott Juskiw
Electrical Engineering
juskiw@ee.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
From: tsirbasc@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Tsirbas Christos)
Subject: Re: Sound chip in IIvx is a drawback to machine 
Organization: Universite de Montreal
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:55:29 GMT

Richard Straka writes:
__________________________
(concerning non-stereo sound of IIvx sound-chip but stereo sound on CD)

Perhaps Apple wanted to make sure that they would not be named in any
copyright suits, (E.g. someone lifting digital music right off of some
artist's CD, and then doing whatever to it with no theoretical loss in
sound quality), sort of like the hassles with DAT decks.  Making the
stereo from the CDROM drive "pass through" to the sound output, but not
give you the ability to digitize it (or output it? through the Mac
internals) would ensure enough crippling of the sound to fail the
transparency test while still providing high-quality sound directly
from the CDROM.
__________________________________
Richard, you are partly right.  If Apple were to make equipment that
were capable of high-quality digital recording they would be sued, but
not by the record company, but by the former members of the Beatles and
their lawyers.  Apparently, Apple Computer Inc., in order to have the right to use the name, made an agreement with the Beatles' lawyers (as you recall, the 
Beatles founded a company (primarily a record company) called Apple Corps in the lates sixties) that they would not in any way produce a product that could in
any way be considered as a musical impliment or instrument (by this I mean a 
product that, in itself was capable of creating or recording broadcast or   
distribution quality audio performances).  This, apparently is one of the
reasons why Apple never produced a CD-quality soundchip, and this, perhaps,
is the reason why the system is set up in such a way as one would not be able
to sample CD-Quality sound or to create such sound.

Chris Tsirbas
tsirbasc@brise.ere.umontreal.ca

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware