Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:18650 comp.sys.mac.misc:5063 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!world!boris From: boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: ROM in RAM Message-ID: <1990Oct31.234943.29428@world.std.com> Date: 31 Oct 90 23:49:43 GMT References: <1990Oct31.032509.265@bushido.uucp> <1990Oct31.084937.28930@world.std.com> <1990Oct31.171449.26235@midway.uchicago.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 52 francis@arthur.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.084937.28930@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >>kr1@bushido (kahlil rowter) writes: >> >>>I have been using MacMeter for a while now. I've noticed that my SE/30 >>>typically spends 50-70% of the time on ROM accesses (no surprise here >>>right?). So I thought of the ability of 386 (DOS) machines to load its >>>ROM in RAM thereby cutting down access time and improving overall thruput. >>>Now comes the hard question: Has there been attempts to load the Mac ROM >>>onto RAM? If not, why? >> >>The posession of accesible Mac ROMs or a software copy of them (i.e. loadable >>into RAM) is all that stands between someone with a non-Mac 68000-series-based >>machine and Mac emulation. As far as I understand, some owners of the A-Max II >>Mac emulator on the Amiga, which requires either the ROMs or a software copy >>of them, have software copies of the Mac ROMs. I believe Apple's license for >>the ROMs makes it illegal to copy their contents into software... >Now wait a minute. Obviously, I have the right to read the ROMs (one >observes that this is the sole purpose of ROM :-). Obviously, when the >ROMs are read, the data goes *somewhere*. In fact, it goes into other >silicon. This silicon is writeable (the data went there), and readable >(we expect to get the data out of there). Therefore, this silicon is >RAM, whether it's the transient RAM on the CPU or the slightly longer- >term RAM in the dedicated RAM chips. Therefore I have the right to >copy ROM to RAM under some conditions. A reasonable condition here would >be that the RAM is in the same machine as the ROM, & not accessible to >any other machine. (A stronger condition would exclude the RAM chips; >but they are merely extensions of the CPU's internal memory. In a machine >designed to cache slow ROM in very fast, but still external, RAM, there >would be no reasonable distinction.) Thus, if I copy ROM to main RAM >within the same machine, remaining unable to give the data to any other >machine, Apple's rights have been maintained (though, admittedly, perhaps >not their license). >The basic point here is that, if I buy a Mac, I gain the right to use it >as I will. If I attempt to steal Apple's code, I have violated patent; >but copying it into RAM would not infringe that patent, because I have >not gained anything *except* the improved use of the machine I bought. >Surely I have the right to improve my Mac in this way! >The whole thing would be quite straightforward if *Apple* would come >out with a product to do this. Yes, you would be within your moral and possibly even legal rights if you copied your ROM into RAM for your own use. Besides, even if you were in violation of Apple's license by doing this, it would be unenforceable. I was trying to point out why Apple didn't make such copying any easier (besides, the more hardware-knowledgeable people on this group are pointing out that on a Motorola CPU-powered machine, there's no advantage to such copying).