Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!umbc5.umbc.edu!cs421317
From: cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 32 bit addressing
Summary: A few questions
Keywords: VM, 32bit, 7.0
Message-ID: <1991May12.141345.15983@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Date: 12 May 91 14:13:45 GMT
References: <1991May10.155244.29589@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> <1991May11.190833.18802@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991May11.212231.20977@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (Gary Goldberg)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Lines: 46

I hope what I am about to say isn't too naive, but I'm sure the answers will
correct me. Here goes:

1. I know that Apple reps and techs read this feed. I know that it has been
established in most forums that 'clean' 32 bit ROMS are a good thing. I also
know that this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my
machine. (A IIcx) Wouldn't responsibility on Apple's part dictate that they
respond with a statement on this subject?

I didn't know when I bought my machine that 32 bit ROM capability was 
important or thant this machine didn't have it. But I do know that I want
to have as much memory as possible to do sound processing which will use
everything I can throw at it.

2. In the June, 1989 issue of MacUser, the announcement of the IIcx said
"The unit sports 256K of ROM soldered to the board, as well as an empty ROM
SIMM socket. When ROM updates become available, a jumper on the motherboard
can be altered to knock out the onboard ROM and kick-in new SIMM-mounted ROMs
once they are in place. It was more than merely cost-efficient for Apple to
solder ROMs directly to the motherboard (rather than plug them into the
provided ROM SIMM socket). When a ROM upgrade comes, it will also keep down
potential traffic in 'black-market' ROMs."

If this is true, and speaking only for IIcx's (may be true for other models)
doesn't this render moot the point about returning the old ROMs as an excuse
for not providing new ones?

3. What is Apple's responsibility concerning owners of machines no longer
produced? I purchased my IIcx two months ago through Falcon, a government
reseller. They had an Apple-sponsored sale to clear the IIcx inventory. How
far back should they be required to maintain compatibility of machines.
Should they be required to support all machines they've ever produced? I
think that wouln't be fair and bad business practice to boot, but I'd think
that machines still under warranty (and mine would still be under the 90 day
version) shouldn't be shuffled off into the closet just yet.

I'm inviting comments on these questions, and I wouldn't mind hearing from
an Apple rep, either. In fact, if someone could forward this to someone there
(I haven't figured out how, yet) I'd appreciated an e-mail reply from them.

Thanks.

- Gary Goldberg
Director' Office, Systems Integration and Research Staff
US Census Bureau, Suitland, MD
AOL:OgGreeb