Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucbvax!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Another NEED for 32bit ROM upgrade...
Message-ID: <836@taniwha.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 91 02:10:28 GMT
References: <233@hermix.UUCP>
Reply-To: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Lines: 28

In article <233@hermix.UUCP> lance@hermix.UUCP (Lance Ellinghouse) writes:
>>> 	WE CANNOT STATE OUR PRODUCTS ARE 32BIT CLEAN UNLESS WE TRY THEM!!!!
>
>here is what someone at Apple sent me as a reply:
>
>>You can test them under A/UX 2.0.

Aha! .... A/UX runs both 24-bit and 32-bit systems, A/UX does this on
all Mac II class systems, including the ones that Apple claims can not
run 32-bit mode due to ROM bugs therefore Apple must already have a software
patch for the ROM bugs that runs under A/UX, if they can do it for
A/UX they can do it for the MacOS as well ... OK Apple why not??

My system has an A/UX license, I guess I can reverse engineer this code
to use on it under 7.0.

As a rather extreme aside - since we have all been sold systems with bugs in 
them don't we have a defective product? The manufacturer seems reluctant
to repair the acknowledged defect ... Can we fight this in court? How about
a class action suit?

	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
There once was a landlord from Berkeley,Whose apartments were rundown and dirty
He decided to run,			For the rent-board, and won!
Now his tenants are homeless and hurting.