Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!pascal
From: pascal@CAM.ORG (Pascal Gosselin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Another NEED for 32bit ROM upgrade...
Message-ID: <1991May2.224337.7944@CAM.ORG>
Date: 2 May 91 22:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: CAM.1991May2.224337.7944
References: <233@hermix.UUCP> <836@taniwha.UUCP> <1991May1.160224.4149@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Altitude.CAM.ORG, St-Lambert QC  CANADA
Lines: 26

philip@pescadero.stanford.edu (Philip Machanick) writes:

>In article <836@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>>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??
>This is not necessarily true. A/UX is a different OS, and surely doesn't
>generally use the Mac memory manager. In 32-bit mode, are Mac applications (in
>the "multiFinder environment") able to access any more memory than without A/UX
>on a 32-bit dirty machine? If they are, then you are right. If not, then the
>"bug fix" doesn't exist.

>Philip Machanick

The Mac Toolbox is entirely patched-up and effecively RAM BASED when running
under A/UX.  So yes, it's possible to do it (32bit clean) without a ROM
upgrade.


-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pascal Gosselin          | Internet: P.Gosselin@CAM.ORG Applelink: CDA0585 |
| Gest-Mac Inc. Apple VAR  |   Voice (514) 767-4444   Fax (514) 767-7337     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+