Mac 512K/512Ke. Same model, or different?

[napabar]

As some of you may know, I like to play around with my Mac 512Ke and get it to work with modern devices. I refer to it broadly as a Mac 512K, and mention the "e" part only in the more technical details. I consider them to be the same models, with a slight revision. It got me thinking about how others in the community think. Is it a revision, or a separate model?

Consider these points:

1. The Apple IIe went though at least 3 revisions in it's life, including a major change with the "Platinum" release. It not only had a new case and keyboard, but more importantly had double the RAM and double hi-res graphics! Despite this, most people refer to it as just an Apple IIe. It doesn't even have it's on Wikipedia article! The 512Ke got no such major additions, yet has it's own Wiki article. :lol:

2. The original Bondi Blue iMac had two versions, the second containing an improved video card with more VRAM. Again, most Mac sources on models merely note the two revisions of the original Bondi Blue iMac.

1. If the 512Ke is a separate model, then shouldn't the 128Ke be as well? It has different capabilities than a stock 128K, namely HD20 support, but there is even hardly a whisper that this thing exists when you do any research on it. Mac sources on models don't even mention it. Yes, I know Apple never shipped a Mac 128Ke, but you could upgrade your stock Mac 512K to an "e" as well.

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I kinda see them as the same model with a different revision.

Thoughts?

 

[Gorgonops]

Hate to say it, but I'd say Apple precident is against you.

Other than a few very minor motherboard revisions (which don't count, since each model underwent revisions of a similar scale within their respective runs) the only difference between an Apple II and a II+ is Integer vs. Applesoft BASIC ROMs. Functionally you can change a II into a Plus just by swapping ROMs, but at the time Apple conidered the change in shipping configuration worthy of a name change.

The 512Ke has different ROMs *and* an 800k vs. 400k disk drive. By the II+ benchmark that seems like a new product to me. (Or at least an "enhanced" one.) If you want to split hairs and insist that your machine is a plain 512K you're free to if you have evidence that it shipped as one, but if you're discussing it in the context of "look what you can run on a 512K Mac" the distinction remains important.

 

[napabar]

The Apple IIe Enhanced (1985) contained new ROMS and a new processor. The Platinum revision (1987) doubled the RAM. All of these are considered an Apple IIe.

Wasn't saying the entire Apple II line was the same, just referring to changes made in the IIe line.

 

[napabar]

Whether the 512Ke shipped as one or was upgraded doesn't matter. Not stating the original shipping condition is what identifies a early compact Mac. A Mac 128K that has been upgraded to a Mac Plus IS a Mac Plus.

 

[bbraun]

I don't see where you are drawing the line. 512Ke was a distinct model with a different badge, as was the ED.

Parts are interchangeable, but think of it this way: if you sold the machine the way your are advertising, would the buyer agree? For example, if you sold a 512K Mac (label on the back is 512K not 512Ke) as a 512Ke because you upgraded the ROMs and FDD, I'd know something was amiss since that was not (afaik) a shipping configuration, and therefore a misrepresentation of the sale. You'd do better calling out what it actually is: a 512K with upgraded ROM and FDD. It gets even more obvious when you use non-original parts to do the upgrade (EPROMs to do the ROM upgrade instead of original PROMs, etc.). Sure, functionally it is equivalent, but it's not the same.

To further confuse matters, people incorrectly refer to 512K's with upgraded ROMs but not FDD's as 512Ke's or 512Ke-upgraded-512K's.

IMO, call it what it is. If it is not stock, call out what you did to it. If it's a casual mention, call it a modified version of the closest conparable stock machine. For I instance, I put upgraded ROMs in my 512K, but nothing else (still looking for an 800k floppy bracket). It's a 512K with upgraded ROMs, or if you prefer, a modified 512K. It isn't a 512Ke and it isn't a 512K. And if I eventually find a floppy bracket and upgrade the floppy drive, it still won't be a 512Ke IMO. It may be a 512Ke-upgraded-512K although I think that's even a bit disingenuous since I burned the ROMs, they aren't stock. My rule of thumb is along the lines of 'if I bought this machine based on the description I'm giving, would I be happy with it?'. And really, why not call out modifications? Not doing so makes people suspicious you have something to gain by the misrepresentation.

There are organizations that sell modified versions of products, and represent them as originals. Various criminal organizations do this, as well as legal ones. For instance walmart is famous for selling 'Walmart versions' of various products, the cost reduced variant that has a slightly different model number that isn't really made explicit. The practice has less than reputable associations that are easily avoided by simple honesty.

 

[napabar]

The Mac 512Ke does not have a different badge. It just says Mac 512K on the back. This was how it was shipped from Apple starting in April of '86. The only difference was the floppies, which had "Macintosh 512K enhached" on them

Also, I wasn't framing this debate around selling or missrepresenting an item. Just a technical debate.

 

[Gorgonops]

The Apple IIe Enhanced (1985) contained new ROMS and a new processor. The Platinum revision (1987) doubled the RAM. All of these are considered an Apple IIe.

You're confusing groupthink with canonical model, here. Yes, Apple didn't change the base name of the "Enhanced" vs. "Standard" IIe, and a non-Apple fan isn't going to know the difference, but:

1: Apple's own literature and to a lesser extent branding referred to the existence of an "Enhanced IIe", IE, it's a different SKU.

2: They sold a kit to convert a "Standard" to an "Enhanced", so the changes clearly have the potential to impact the user. (IE, this change is distinct from examples when, say, when a manufacturer revises a motherboard design to use denser RAM or combines discrete logic into ASICs to make the board more compact and cheaper to produce while remaining 100% compatible with older machines.) Notably, Apple did the same with the Mac 512k: if you bought an internal 800K floppy drive upgrade you got the new ROMs, which were also readily available as an upgrade to allow a 512k to boot from an HD-20.

Even though in (around) 95-99% of cases it doesn't matter whether it's a plain or Enhanced IIe you're sitting in front of there *is* software that will work on one and not the other. (And it goes both ways. Some old software is broken by the 65C02, while some new software requires the ROM changes the Enhanced IIe contained to make it compatible with the IIc.) They're different machines even if the unwashed masses lump them together; Exactly the same way that an original ROM-and-Floppy "Fat Mac" is distinct from a 512Ke, whether the "e" came with stock badging or is implicit via an upgrade. Even though they share the same motherboard a 512Ke is from a software standpoint a hardware-emasculated Plus, not an "original" Macintosh.

 

[napabar]

Didn't mean to imply that there isn't an impact to the user. Revisions can have an impact to a user, without being a new model.

I strongly disagree that a Mac 512Ke is more of a emasculated Plus than a revised 512K.

 

[Gorgonops]

I strongly disagree that a Mac 512Ke is more of a emasculated Plus than a revised 512K.

From a *software* standpoint (which is what I said) what's your justification? Dove (and several other companies) sold snap-on-under-the-CPU SCSI boards which completely lack ROMs yet provide a fully-functional Macintosh Plus Compatible SCSI port when installed in a 512k with Plus ROMs, IE, a 512ke. Likewise, if you provide a board with additional RAM the 512ke will recognize and use it. The exact same ROMs are installed in both machines; therefore, again, from a programming standpoint there is absolutely no difference between the two. If the 512Ke used unique ROMs that provided 800k and HD-20 support without probing for hardware that isn't there you'd have a case, but that's not reality.

From a timeline standpoint the 800k floppy drive (and the support for it) wasn't available until the Plus' debut in 1986. Therefore 800k drives are a feature "backported" to the earlier models, and if your machine has one it's part Plus, period. And again, timelinewise: The Plus debuted before the 512Ke. (IE, complete Plus-es were available before either the complete 512ke machines were being sold or ROM upgrades were available.) If you have a 512ke you therefore have a machine that chronologically is *newer* than an early Plus. The hardware design (and manufacture date) may be older, but the *combination* is newer. Therefore, well... you do functionally lose "original Mac" bragging rights. Not that it's a bad thing, but that's what it adds up to.

 

[napabar]

Because I'm looking at the hardware when I make that statement. The Plus is a major upgrade, with SCSI, Double-Sided/HFS floppy, mini-din 8 serial ports, and SIMMS. The Mac 512Ke was created for one thing, Double-Sided/HFS compatibility with the new Plus. It is essentially a peripheral upgrade. Any increased software compatibily was an accident discovered after the fact. EasyShare (which I use) and System 6 (which I do not) weren't around in 1986 when the Mac 512Ke came out. It was revised soley as a peripheral improvment.

 

[napabar]

Oh, and I've never though of a Mac 512K or Mac 512Ke as "Original Mac" That is exclusively the 128K, branded or otherwise.

 

[Dog Cow]

The standard IIe and Enhanced IIe have a differing CPU, ROM, and Video ROM.

 

[Gorgonops]

Uhm, actually, you're saying contradictory things. You say the reason the 512ke configuration/upgrade exists is to provide "Double Sided/HFS compatibility with the new Plus", and then immediately follow with "Any increased software compatibily was an accident discovered after the fact". So you're saying an intentionally sold and widely used upgrade explicitly designed to make older machines compatible with the new "from this point forward" hardware and software standards (HFS is *software*) had the unintentional effect of making those machines more compatible with future software? That logic makes my head hurt.

I'm completely granting that the motherboard of the 512ke is identical to that of the 512k (and mostly identical to that of the 128k) while the Plus has a completely different one. But, again, if you're out to say "look what I can do with software running on a Mac 512k" it *does matter* that what you're working with adds up to being a floppy-only Plus with a partial lobotomy. Create a 512K RAM disk on a 1MB Mac Plus (or otherwise figure out some way of disabling the extra RAM) and your software constraints will be the same.

 

[napabar]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Pretty standard stuff, really.

The 128K ROM was designed for extended peripheral support: Double-Sided Drives, native HD20 support, SCSI support.

System 6 (which works on a Mac 512Ke but not a Mac 512K) was released well over 2 years later. I highly doubt they were thinking System 6 when the revised this ROM. It was for peripheral support only.

 

[tt]

I would tend to declare a system based on its maximum capability. So if it is the enhanced version, why not just say it's a 512Ke? It's just one more letter. I found a 512Ke on a sidewalk during a city-wide clean-up and it came with the box and it clearly says "enhanced". The 512Ke being able to use 800k floppies sounds like it would have a big impact on the end user.

 

[Gorgonops]

It was for peripheral support only.

There are actually several significant bugs in items completely unrelated to "peripheral support" that the 128k ROM fixes. I don't have the list in front of me but I remember in particular several issues with QuickDraw were either fixed or significantly accelerated. (Code optimized for compactness was replaced with code optimized for speed.) Google around and you'll find citations.

Really, like tt says, what's your problem with calling it what it is, a 512keNHANCED? It clearly is.

 

[napabar]

I've never said I have a problem calling it a Mac 512Ke!!!! Read the documentation on my web page.

http://web.me.com/nilesmitchell/Mac512k/The_Details.html

I have always pointed in my techincal articles that I'm using a Mac 512Ke, and that EasyShare seems to require it.

I was just picking people's brains to see if they thought these were fundementally different models, or just a minor revision. I'm support the latter.

 

[Gorgonops]

I'm support the latter.

Clearly.

And clearly there are two answers. From a hardware standpoint, it's a small, practically nill change, on the system board combined with a new floppy drive unit. From that perspective it's a revision, though "minor" is a judgement call. The new drive doubles the storage capacity of the base unit, which seems pretty big.

From a software standpoint: If you oversimplify it the Plus' ROMs are basically a bugfix release that also includes several new hardware drivers and software tweaks. But if you dive into the details those "little tweaks" basically are what enabled the Mac to scale from a cute yet limited exclusively floppy-disk centered machine to a system capable of handling multi-mega (and ultimately giga)byte hard drives and (by 1986 standards) fairly vast quantities of RAM. From that point basically any significant internal upgrade (double sided drive, SCSI card, combo RAM/SCSI/accelerators, etc.) applied to a machine with the original 128k/512k circuit boards required them to be retrofitted with a Mac Plus ROM. Which makes the 512ke a significant model: Whether its configuration was reached via upgrades or shipped from the factory it's the least powerful* "Modern" Mac.

(* Edit: I originally said "oldest", but that's not strictly true. From a total-package standpoint a debut-day Plus is.)

Is it an all-new model? No. But if you were intending to use your pre-512ke Mac past 1989 or so it was going to end up transforming into either a 512ke or a Plus at some point along the way. So I'd say "Major Revision".

 

[napabar]

I'd say that's a fair assesment.

Interestingly, Apple's model indentifier for the Mac 512Ke is 3, and the Mac Plus is 4. Clearly, despite the 4 month delay in getting the 512Ke out, Apple considered it to be chronoloically first. Perhaps the delay was a marketing decision by Sculley. Maybe he wanted the Plus to shine for a bit before giving customers a cheaper alternative.