Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!awessels
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: SE/30 -> 32 bit clean ROMS?
Message-ID: <38497@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 20 Oct 90 02:27:41 GMT
References: <3325@orbit.cts.com> <1990Oct16.120133.15666@lth.se> <10744@goofy.Apple.COM> <1990Oct17.225547.7386@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <2892@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 20

In article <2892@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes:

>	Apple also needs to control where its roms go. Allowing dealer
>	upgrades of ROM's could be a real tricky problem. As old roms 
>	would or should perhaps be destroyed to prevent technology theft
>	and people selling them to emulator makers for profits undeserved.

Oh, puhleaze, give me a break.  Upgrading ROMs should be LESS trouble than
upgrading logic boards.  My dealer still offers 512k-512ke, and 512ke to Plus
upgrades.  All that is necessary is that for each upgrade the dealer does the
dealer is required to return a ROM set of the next lower step, i.e. no 64k for
512k ROM swaps.

Apple DESIGNED my machine to accept new ROMs and it is still a supported model.
I don't see what the problem is unless Apple doesn't want to take the trouble.
That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.  ROMs should be that expensive
to maintain in inventory and Apple handles much cheaper items for sale.

It is clear that Apple recognizes that it needs to attend to user feedback.  All
we need do now is let 'em know.