I've been wondering: about how many of the original Macs might be out there which never got a RAM upgrade of some sort? I've heard that 128KB of RAM was considered limiting for the Mac even in 1984, so I'm guessing not many were kept in their original state (similar to how most of the original Lisas were upgraded to Lisa 2 specs). I know that Apple introduced the Macintosh 512K around six months after the initial introduction, relabeling the original as the "Macintosh 128K", and offering 512KB upgrades for the original M0001. I'm mainly referring to the first version that's just labeled "Macintosh", though there might be a case for the relabeled version as well.
-Adam Steve wanted to build a sealed system that precluded hobbyists from having to stick their fingers inside to upgrade things willy-nilly as they did with the Apple II series. Which he pretty much did. Somewhere, I have a torx head screwdriver with a long shaft from back in the day. It took me forever to find one - we used to say "You can't even open it, except with a special tool that they won't sell you". I sure don't recall anyone thinking of 128k as "limiting" at that time. But I don't think I had seen a Mac in person for another 5 or 6 years. Well, for most of the text-based systems of the time, it was plenty. However, the graphical interface of the Mac (and it's predecessor, the Lisa) meant that more code was needed for programs, which meant that the space was used up faster. The Lisa generally came with 1MB of RAM; the Macintosh cost a quarter of its price when new, so they included less RAM with it. The 128KB Mac was shipped in April of 1984; that September, the 512KB version was introduced for a bit more, though the 128KB version continued to be sold. A year or so later, it was gone, and the 1MB Plus came out not too long afterwards.
Which he pretty much did. Somewhere, I have a torx head screwdriver with a long shaft from back in the day. It took me forever to find one - we used to say "You can't even open it, except with a special tool that they won't sell you". Yep, the 6" T15 driver is an invaluable tool for compact Mac owners. I got mine at Home Depot, oddly enough. Need to trim the end of the rubber handle so that it gets to the handle screws better, though it's workable as-it-is.
-Adam Yep, the 6" T15 driver is an invaluable tool for compact Mac owners. I got mine at Home Depot, oddly enough. Need to trim the end of the rubber handle so that it gets to the handle screws better, though it's workable as-it-is. To be fair, I was living in England at the time, where such things were unobtanium. I eventually got mine on a trip to the US, though I can't remember whether it came from Home Despot or Fry's.
I actually bought a handful of them, and gave the spares out to other nerds back in Blighty. It made me quite popular, for a while. I sure don't recall anyone thinking of 128k as "limiting" at that time. But I don't think I had seen a Mac in person for another 5 or 6 years. I've read a few old reviews from magazines like Popular Science and they did point out that once the system had loaded there was not a whole lot of memory left for applications.
I seem to recall another magazine (MacWorld?) said the same when the NeXT Cube came around. 8mb and MO-only storage made NEXTSTEP really really slow. To be fair, I was living in England at the time, where such things were unobtanium. I eventually got mine on a trip to the US, though I can't remember whether it came from Home Despot or Fry's.
I actually bought a handful of them, and gave the spares out to other nerds back in Blighty. It made me quite popular, for a while. Yeah, they still aren't what I'd call common. When I was in high school, the electronics shop made theirs by taking a standard T15 screwdriver, cutting the handle off from the shaft, then took a long-handled screwdriver of some sort, cut the bit off the end of its shaft, and then welded the T15 shaft onto the end of the other screwdriver handle's shaft! Looked extremely crude, but it worked fine for the compact Macs.
I've read a few old reviews from magazines like Popular Science and they did point out that once the system had loaded there was not a whole lot of memory left for applications.
I seem to recall another magazine (MacWorld?) said the same when the NeXT Cube came around. 8mb and MO-only storage made NEXTSTEP really really slow. Glad to see I was right about that. I have yet to do much with this Mac 128K besides boot it up from a system disk, so I haven't run into its limitations first-hand, though I figure it's only a matter of time. Oddly enough, many of the disks that came with it contain fonts, so I'm guessing it was used for some sort of desktop publishing, but I have yet to determine exactly what.
Interesting on the NExT stuff. I'm guessing that much of the slowdown was due to the MO drive, but I could be wrong. Not particularly familiar with that style of media, or the sort of speeds attained by conventional hard drives of the era, so who knows.
-Adam Yeah, they still aren't what I'd call common. When I was in high school, the electronics shop made theirs by taking a standard T15 screwdriver, cutting the handle off from the shaft, then took a long-handled screwdriver of some sort, cut the bit off the end of its shaft, and then welded the T15 shaft onto the end of the other screwdriver handle's shaft! Looked extremely crude, but it worked fine for the compact Macs. That was pretty much what I did, before I found the proper ones. Except I didn't have a welder, so I just cut a slot in the T15 shaft, ground the regular screwdriver down to fit and crimped them together. Glad to see I was right about that. I have yet to do much with this Mac 128K besides boot it up from a system disk, so I haven't run into its limitations first-hand, though I figure it's only a matter of time. Oddly enough, many of the disks that came with it contain fonts, so I'm guessing it was used for some sort of desktop publishing, but I have yet to determine exactly what.
Interesting on the NExT stuff. I'm guessing that much of the slowdown was due to the MO drive, but I could be wrong. Not particularly familiar with that style of media, or the sort of speeds attained by conventional hard drives of the era, so who knows. Most people I know with a 128 either never use it or run it to show off MacWrite, MacPaint and the TestDrive floppies. While having almost 80K free in some instances was more than enough on the Apple II it was almost nothing on a GUI machine of the time so you were forced to be as efficient as you could and use the routines and assets in ROM as much as possible.
8mb with a Unix machine is to be honest pretty low. The OS tries to make up for this by using the disk swapfile which on MO took all system performance and threw it off a cliff. Later 030 cubes had a small SCSI disk reserved for /swap before eventually they had to admit that the MO drive was not going to pan out for them and began shipping machines with NeXTSTEP on a hard disk. Most people I know with a 128 either never use it or run it to show off MacWrite, MacPaint and the TestDrive floppies. While having almost 80K free in some instances was more than enough on the Apple II it was almost nothing on a GUI machine of the time so you were forced to be as efficient as you could and use the routines and assets in ROM as much as possible. Yeah, I don't think these things were used a whole lot in their original form. Someone used this one for something back in the day, though. It came with several disks, some of them the original system/app floppies, but also several containing fonts, which makes me think that it was used for some form of graphic design. Some of the disks contain numerous games, like Lode Runner and "The Quest".
I found one very cheap recently but it had been upgraded to 512k by the (only) owner in 1985. I'd say they aren't common but this hobby is all either an expense or waiting game. [I just assumed I'd never find one in my range so in theory I've been waiting for 16-17 years.] (I expect I'll never really use mine. I already don't...) As mentioned above, mine apparently got some use, though for exactly what I'm not entirely sure. As for how I found mine, I played the waiting game, as I often tend to do. I was roaming around at a local swapmeet, when I spotted it for sale in its carrying bag . I wasn't sure if it was an original 128KB model or not, but it looked the part, and I figured I couldn't go too far wrong for $80. As it happens, I found a 512Ke at the same swapmeet for free a bit later on, so that offset the cost a bit. :D
Mine was also cheap but was essentially a 512ke inside. I suspect this was a common upgrade, either through a motherboard swap, third party RAM board, or soldering in new chips as seems to have been the case with mine.
Also, my (vague) understanding is that the 128k RAM configuration was something of a last minute downgrade to keep the price of the machine within reason. As was mentioned, RAM was expensive and the Lisa had just failed because it cost too much. Yes, I think that was typical. A Mac 128K could be upgraded to a 512K or 512Ke by simply replacing the logic board. It could even be upgraded to a Mac Plus, though that also required that the back half of the case also be replaced, since the original didn't have space for the SCSI port or whatnot. I'm pretty sure that most of the Lisa 2s were upgraded from Lisa 1s in this sort of way.
As for the engineered RAM limitation, it's not quite like that. According to this article , the original intended RAM capability of the Macintosh was 64KB. Of course, this was when it was still intended as a text-based machine, as Jef Raskin originally envisioned. At the time, its intended processor was not the 68000, but the 6809!
Once a graphical interface was decided on, the amount of RAM was soon increased to 128KB, which was more than most computers of the time. However, as this article states, as the Mac came closer to fruition, it became clear that 256kb RAM chips would soon be available, so the ability to use them instead of the existing 64kb chips was surrepticiously added to the logic board. Steve Jobs objected, but the change was kept in, which allowed for the eventual introduction of a 512KB model (as well as the ability for users to upgrade the 128KB version to 512KB if they were good with a soldering iron).
-Adam Yes, I think that was typical. A Mac 128K could be upgraded to a 512K or 512Ke by simply replacing the logic board. It could even be upgraded to a Mac Plus, though that also required that the back half of the case also be replaced, since the original didn't have space for the SCSI port or whatnot. I'm pretty sure that most of the Lisa 2s were upgraded from Lisa 1s in this sort of way.
As for the engineered RAM limitation, it's not quite like that. According to this article , the original intended RAM capability of the Macintosh was 64KB. Of course, this was when it was still intended as a text-based machine, as Jef Raskin originally envisioned. At the time, its intended processor was not the 68000, but the 6809!
Once a graphical interface was decided on, the amount of RAM was soon increased to 128KB, which was more than most computers of the time. However, as this article states, as the Mac came closer to fruition, it became clear that 256kb RAM chips would soon be available, so the ability to use them instead of the existing 64kb chips was surrepticiously added to the logic board. Steve Jobs objected, but the change was kept in, which allowed for the eventual introduction of a 512KB model (as well as the ability for users to upgrade the 128KB version to 512KB if they were good with a soldering iron).
-Adam Ah, I stand corrected. I knew it was something like that but had forgotten the details. Interesting that it's something very much like happened with the Apple II, which was designed for 16kb chips but first shipped with far cheaper and plentiful 4kb chips. The 128k Mac always reminded me of a more powerful Apple II with a bitmap screen. It certainly operated that way. You inserted and booted from a floppy to run your apps. It wasn't until you started getting relatively affordable hard drives for the Macintosh and desktop publishing apps with PostScript fonts that people finally decided that, yeah, the Mac was significantly more powerful than the Apple II line. Sounds about right. Of course, floppy-only Macs persisted up to the SE and LC series of machines (even the Classic I was available without a hard drive, and it didn't even have provisions to add a second floppy drive!), though I'm guessing far more of them were purchased with internal hard drives, since the capability was there (and there was more RAM, of course). That being said, at least some of the original 128KB Macs avoided being upgraded, as mine proves; my questions are how many, and why..........
Also, there were several upgrades for the 128k and 512k that put it on par with a Plus without replacing the bucket. You took the ROMs out, stuck the board in, put in Plus ROMs, added up to 4MBs of RAM, and then ran the SCSI connector through the battery slot on the back. Interesting. I know I've seen various upgrades which basically 'piggybacked' on top of the existing board, likely using the CPU socket as a connection point. Do you have any pictures of this variety of upgrade?
I think even when it came out, the 128K Mac was a bad mistake, it just had too little free RAM for anything but minimal applications. I remember reading the Byte article at introduction, which already complained about this as a real handicap for an otherwise brilliant machine. I'm not surprised. It's occurred to me that the 128K Mac is at least quasi-similar to the original 16KB version of the IBM PC, or the standard 1KB Sinclair ZX-81, except that you couldn't (easily) upgrade the RAM. In spite of its limitations, the original Mac managed to sell many thousand units, though I'm guessing most of them were upgraded shortly after purchase, particularly since $2,500 was a lot of money back then...
Oh. Leaving out the cursor keys also was just incomprehensibly bad. Same mistake all over again with the iPad... mouse or touch screen do not render cursor keys obsolete. Don't forget the original iMac keyboard . :roll: Okay, it had cursor keys, but it was missing several others, like forward-delete. And that goofy round mouse ..........
-Adam