Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:7946 comp.sys.mac.system:2889 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!zaphod!francis From: francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: IIcx ROM Question Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 91 15:47:56 GMT References: <11707@goofy.Apple.COM> <1991Jan15.133603.9346@cbnews.att.com> <13076@spt.entity.com> <1991Jan17.180702.9923@pyro.ei.dupont.com> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: Mathematics Department, University of Chicago Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com's message of 17 Jan 91 18:07:02 GMT In article <1991Jan17.180702.9923@pyro.ei.dupont.com> bell@pyro.ei.dupont.com (Mike Bell) writes: In article <13076@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I have received mail from a number of people including Apple employees >about the IIcx ROM question. > >The general concensus is: > > - A ROM swap will be needed and is the cleanest way to make 32 bit > mode possible for Mac IIcx owners. [...] LAst year at the developers conference, someone from Apple mentioned that a IIcx could run just fine with IIci roms. I have not tried this yet, but does raise a problem of how to get the IIci roms anyhow....... There's also the fact (rumor?) that IIci roms seem to be less compatible than most--at least, you hear about people having compatibility problems with a ci more often. Or is that mainly because of the on-board video? -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/