Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!emmayche
From: emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: MacII owners. LEFT OUT IN THE COLD??
Message-ID: <1991May6.034156.26078@dhw68k.cts.com>
Date: 6 May 91 03:41:56 GMT
References: <1991May3.155249.15781@cfa203.harvard.edu> <52403@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)
Lines: 31

In article <52403@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach, only here for the beer) writes:
>bruce@cfa.harvard.edu (Bruce Sams) writes:
>
>>But, I am anxious
>>that with "dirty" ROMs running system 7 there will be more system
>> crashes than with the clean ones.  Is this paranoia?
>
>This is total paranoia. Comes from listening to uninformed folks spreading
>half-thought-out rumors.

I'd like to second this.  Many of us, myself included, have been agitating 
for Apple to get the "32-bit clean" ROMs for the IIcx and SE/30 out.

HOWEVER!  This in no way means that our Macs are useless, or otherwise likely
not to work for any application except those that take up tens of megabytes
of memory (such as animation - REAL animation, not that Director idiocy).

Many have taken to referring to the extant ROMs as "dirty" - and they are no
dirtier today, even in relation to System 7, than they were when first shipped.

Since the terminology we use tends to influence the way we think, may I suggest
to the other denizens of this topic that we use the term "24-bit ROMs" instead
of anything that suggests a lack of hygiene.

They're NOT dirty - they're just not everything we paid for (check your owner's
manual!).
-- 
Mark Hartman, N6BMO           "What are you just standing there for?  Where
Applelink: N1083 or BINARY.TREE      do you think you are, DIS-ney World??"
Internet: emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com                -- General Knowledge, from
uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!emmayche                CRANIUM COMMAND