Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:8011 comp.sys.mac.system:2934 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!woods From: woods@convex.com (Darrin Woods) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: IIcx ROM Question Message-ID: <1991Jan22.221741.27605@convex.com> Date: 22 Jan 91 22:17:41 GMT References: <11707@goofy.Apple.COM> <1991Jan15.133603.9346@cbnews.att.com> <13076@spt.entity.com> <1991Jan17.180702.9923@pyro.ei.dupont.com> Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX Lines: 22 Nntp-Posting-Host: convex1.convex.com > [..] >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? > [..] It was more a problem of software and some third party add on hardware not being 32 bit clean or rather 24bit dirty. Some applications used calls to addresses that the ci ROM's didn't like. Basically it was the mentality on the developers side that they could use those last 8 addressing bits for whatever they chose, since Apple wasn't using them. Again, this was only a select few developers. And since the IIci was the first end-user available mac with 32bit clean ROM, it was the first one to hit those developers up side the head and say 'Hey, stop using those bits, I need them.' Blacksheep -- Senior Systems Engineer woods@convex.com Convex is not my employer-Therefore they are not responsible for what I say.