ROMs, ROMs, ROMs!

[macgeek417]

I'm looking for a PB100 ROM and a Mac Classic ROM. The Classic ROM i have found is only the first 256k, its supposed to be 512k

Linky to a download page, please

 

[Dog Cow]

How to get a Mac Classic ROM, the right way.

Step 1: Obtain a Macintosh Classic.

Step 2: Download and run Rommie.

Et voila!

 

[macgeek417]

Um... I meant to download... off the internet... so i can emulate it.

 

[Dog Cow]

I'm afraid that might be a tad bit illegal. :O

 

[macgeek417]

Yes, and the top thing on Apple's mind is arresting people downloading old mac roms for emulation :

 

[superpantoufle]

Hmm, with all respect due and even if Apple certainly won't send a commando to kill you while you sleep for downloading 68k Mac Roms, this topic is still against forum rules. It is generaly accepted on most sites emulation sites I've seen that Roms weren't considered abandonware stricto sensu.

And by the way, what you're asking for can be obtained easily with minimal googling (I've just checked).

May I ask, what's the point of obtaining specific Rom files for emulation? This would be useful in order to use specificaly compiled versions of Mini vMac for 68000 machines. But it's useless for other 68k, since Basilisk II, SheepShaver et al. don't emulate all the hardware. That means using, let's say, Basilisk II under System 7.5.x is exactly the same (in my understanding) wether you use a IIci or a Quadra 605 Rom. But I may be wrong!

Now, with all that said, please check your PMs!

 

[Mac128]

Hmm, with all respect due and even if Apple certainly won't send a commando to kill you while you sleep for downloading 68k Mac Roms, this topic is still against forum rules. It is generaly accepted on most sites emulation sites I've seen that Roms weren't considered abandonware stricto sensu. May I ask, what's the point of obtaining specific Rom files for emulation? This would be useful in order to use specificaly compiled versions of Mini vMac for 68000 machines. But it's useless for other 68k, since Basilisk II, SheepShaver et al. don't emulate all the hardware. That means using, let's say, Basilisk II under System 7.5.x is exactly the same (in my understanding) wether you use a IIci or a Quadra 605 Rom. But I may be wrong!

First, I agree with you with respect to ROMs & Apple. However, technically, this is not against posted forum rules. Since ROMs are just software, and long abandoned software at that, they certainly fall under the abandonware moniker, regardless of how the vintage community has traditionally treated them. So the real issue is not whether this violates the written rules of this forum, but whether our members should be so blatant about flaunting the law. It's one thing to post a link to something (which I mostly frown upon because it only easily highlights to Apple for shutdown a vital resource for vintage enthusiasts), but quite another to openly conspire via a public forum to violate copyright law. The usual response to these concerns is the open disdain shown in this thread. I'm not sure one could expect anything less after a generation of kids have been raised using Napster and Limewire and where 60% of all music today is still downloaded illegally by teenagers rather than legally purchased by legitmate means.

Second, you are wrong about how both Basilisk II and Sheepshaver work. In particular the Classic ROM is required for Basilisk II to support certain software (though you are correct about the IIci/Quadra era ROMs). Sheepshaver also requires specific ROM versions and cannot just use any ROM (but they all run the same way). So all the popular emulators, require specific ROMs and emulating the Classic, requires that ROM in particular (which Sheepshaver doesn't support). As for the PowerBook 100 ROM, I am not sure why anyone would need this, except for Mini vMac which still does not fully support it – unless one wants to contribute to the development of the PB 100 Mini vMac emulator. Nothing else will support it. Also, running a PB 100 or Portable emulator offers nothing over an SE emulation other than system specific power management features, which wouldn't function on an emulated machine anyway because they are hardware supported. However, they do support 640x400 screen size which doesn't really offer much more in compatibility than extra screen real estate (i.e. games that require 640x480 won't work on it).

 

[macgeek417]

Just a note I have gotton 2 corrupt ROMs. The Classic ROM should be 512k, not 256k.

I want both ROMs for mini vmac. (PB100 for when the pb100 emulation is done/usable)

 

[superpantoufle]

Just a note I have gotton 2 corrupt ROMs. The Classic ROM should be 512k, not 256k.I want both ROMs for mini vmac. (PB100 for when the pb100 emulation is done/usable)

We'll continue that discussion privately, I guess…  :

The usual response to these concerns is the open disdain shown in this thread. I'm not sure one could expect anything less after a generation of kids have been raised using Napster and Limewire and where 60% of all music today is still downloaded illegally by teenagers rather than legally purchased by legitmate means.

I couldn't have said this better, I completely agree.

Regarding the forum rules (that I completely read for the first time today, shame on me…), I was refering to that sentence: "We relax the rules for software considered "abandonware" (see below), but will still lock or remove topics at the request of the author or publisher. The 68kMLA will never condone software piracy." Actually most software editors won't enforce their copyright on abandonware, that's why the Macintosh Garden and the like are still online. But I've read several times that Apple was indeed enforcing its copyright on its Roms, and that's why they're harder to find. I can't remember what site was threatened; is it Low End Mac, or Mac512? Doesn't matter. But my point was, I think it ok that Roms float around on the web (and can easily be foung via Google), but I would suggest macgeek417 a little more discretion when he/she asks for such things. But by the way, he/she got what he/she wanted (half of it) in PMs.

Second, you are wrong about how both Basilisk II and Sheepshaver work. In particular the Classic ROM is required for Basilisk II to support certain software (though you are correct about the IIci/Quadra era ROMs). Sheepshaver also requires specific ROM versions and cannot just use any ROM (but they all run the same way). So all the popular emulators, require specific ROMs and emulating the Classic, requires that ROM in particular (which Sheepshaver doesn't support). As for the PowerBook 100 ROM, I am not sure why anyone would need this, except for Mini vMac which still does not fully support it – unless one wants to contribute to the development of the PB 100 Mini vMac emulator. Nothing else will support it. Also, running a PB 100 or Portable emulator offers nothing over an SE emulation other than system specific power management features, which wouldn't function on an emulated machine anyway because they are hardware supported. However, they do support 640x400 screen size which doesn't really offer much more in compatibility than extra screen real estate (i.e. games that require 640x480 won't work on it).

I stand corrected, thanks for the details.

But my question remains (and it is a real question, no sarcasm or anything intended!): besides the coolness of displaying, let's say, "Macintosh Portable" in the "About this Mac" window , what's the point of emulating a specific machine? Is there any real difference, in speed or in emulation behavior? I've dumped most of my Macs' Roms and tried them for emulation, without noticing any real difference.

So again, without any sarcasm, my advice to macgeek would be to try and start liberating one or two Macs, and start from there!

 

[Mac128]

I want both ROMs for mini vmac. (PB100 for when the pb100 emulation is done/usable)

Don't hold your breath. There is very little reason for Paul to finish PB 100 emulator. That actually began as a research project when I asked him to verify the differences between the Portable ROMs and PB100s, mainly to validate Apple's claim that they were the same (which is not the case) and whether the Portable ROM had SCSI disk mode built in but not implemented. Per superpantoufle's question below, the PB 100 ROM offers very little in terms of running Mini vMac.

But my question remains (and it is a real question, no sarcasm or anything intended!): besides the coolness of displaying, let's say, "Macintosh Portable" in the "About this Mac" window , what's the point of emulating a specific machine? Is there any real difference, in speed or in emulation behavior?

In general you are correct. The Mac Plus through the Classic basically all work the same way, with each improved ROM incorporating the earlier. The only thing the Classic ads is access to the built-in system disk (pretty cool to boot into), but otherwise offers nothing of substance. The Portable and PB100 ROMs do allow for 8MB RAM. However, the Mac II port (which will be the next thing finished) will also do that and run all the same software and allow for a 640x480 color display – a much more useful development. There are enough differences in the 64K ROMs that they will not run some later software and vice-versa with the 128K ROMs. As far as emulators go, the specific hardware enabled by the various ROMs is moot. There are no SCSI ports, no expansion cards, no floppy disks, or any other hardware a specific ROM would take advantage of. The only advantage of a specific ROM is in the software emulation. Newer software is not likely to work with older ROMs and some older software will not run under newer ROMs. That means, depending on the software you want to run, having a ROM that is contemporary with it, or at least incorporates the code necessary to support features of the software.

 

[slomacuser]

However, the Mac II port (which will be the next thing finished) will also do that and run all the same software and allow for a 640x480 color display – a much more useful development. There are enough differences in the 64K ROMs that they will not run some later software and vice-versa with the 128K ROMs. As far as emulators go, the specific hardware enabled by the various ROMs is moot. There are no SCSI ports, no expansion cards, no floppy disks, or any other hardware a specific ROM would take advantage of. The only advantage of a specific ROM is in the software emulation. Newer software is not likely to work with older ROMs and some older software will not run under newer ROMs. That means, depending on the software you want to run, having a ROM that is contemporary with it, or at least incorporates the code necessary to support features of the software.

I wonder why was the Mac II ROM chosen to be emulated as I know Apple emulated Mac LC on PPC, and other companies used LC ROMS too, like Daydream that made Mac emulator fo Next Computers

etc and as LC's are more easy to find (dead or a live), there would be no problem having actually physically the ROM so it wouldn't be so called "illegal" having a emulator?

 

[superpantoufle]

Mac128, Thanks a lot for those details!

 

[Kallikak]

I wonder why was the Mac II ROM chosen to be emulated

Presumably to avoid the 030.

 

[Charlieman]

That actually began as a research project when I asked him to verify the differences between the Portable ROMs and PB100s, mainly to validate Apple's claim that they were the same (which is not the case) and whether the Portable ROM had SCSI disk mode built in but not implemented.

Wandering way off topic, but possibly helpful to Mac128...

Around about the time of the Portable launch, Apple and Outbound Systems settled their legal differences privately. Apple was provided access to Outbound's technology for portable Mac computers and Outbound were allowed to buy Mac ROMs directly. This information is all from the trade and legal press of that time. And the best Outbound technology was, arguably, SCSI Disk Target Mode.

Given that the Portable would have been close to completion when Apple and Outbound were agreeing terms, it is unlikely that any Outbound technology was incorporated in the Portable. I consider it unlikely that the Portable ROM was modified at such a late stage -- it would have required far too much regression testing. I'm happy to be contradicted by anyone capable of a disassembly. It is more likely that the Disk Mode feature was added to the PB100 ROM along with the other essential functionality changes: for an external floppy drive only, no PDS slot, different RAM timings, different power management for a different battery.

I guess that Apple's statement that the ROM in the Portable and PB100 is "identical" was not intended to be taken literally. For high level programs running on System 6 or System 7, the ROMs are the same. For low level programs (eg a RAM tester or battery rejuvenator), there are significant differences.

 

[Mac128]

I wonder why was the Mac II ROM chosen to be emulated

Presumably to avoid the 030.

The LC was an '020 as well. Presumably the Mac II is an easier step up from the SE than the LC to get his bearings on the hardware with a ROM size of 256K compared to the LC's 512K. It also supports System 4.0, whereas the LC requires 6.0.7. Read Paul's development notes FAQ to get a better understanding of his thought process. The LC would be the next likely step as a gateway to the '030 with the addition of the LC PDS slot.

Given that the Portable would have been close to completion when Apple and Outbound were agreeing terms, it is unlikely that any Outbound technology was incorporated in the Portable. I consider it unlikely that the Portable ROM was modified at such a late stage -- it would have required far too much regression testing....I guess that Apple's statement that the ROM in the Portable and PB100 is "identical" was not intended to be taken literally.

I would agree. However, consider that the Backlit Portable required a further revision to the ROM, as did the backlight upgrade kit, suggesting SCSI disk mode could have been added at that time as well. Paul Pratt did a disassembly with software freely available on the Mini vMac site and determined that there were two specific differences which did not appear to have anything to do with SCSI, suggesting that the two ROMs may be identical in that respect, though he has not done a thorough investigation into it yet. I have a 1st gen Portable ROM to send him for comparison as well, though he has been unresponsive as of late.

 

[Kallikak]

I wonder why was the Mac II ROM chosen to be emulated

Presumably to avoid the 030.

The LC was an '020 as well.

Ha! Of course it was. Time to sneak away and get over my embarrassment I think... }

 

[superpantoufle]

ROMs, ROMs, ROMs...

Let's get back on topic: THIS IS CHRISTMAS!

Tonight I wandered around my vinatge Macs bookmarks, and found that site I had completely forgotten about. It's in french, but hopefuly it won't be too difficult for you guys to understand what it's all about!

 

[Dog Cow]

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that site, though I had raided a few months ago.

 

[macgeek417]

C'mon... I'm still looking for that Portable/PB100 ROM!