Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!orstcs!beasley!wangh
From: wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 32 bit addressing
Keywords: VM, 32bit, 7.0
Message-ID: <1991May12.171226.3799@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 12 May 91 17:12:26 GMT
References: <1991May11.190833.18802@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991May11.212231.20977@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991May12.141345.15983@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Sender: @lynx.CS.ORST.EDU
Organization: Oregon State University - Computing Services
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu

In article <1991May12.141345.15983@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes:
>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.

As a netter posted, Apple now has more important thing to do than let those
OLD mac owner (myself included, a sad SE/30 owner) to have a 32 bit clean
machine. :-(. 

If I were Apple, I probably will do the same. Because your $$ is already in
my pocket, why should I care about 32bit clean IIcx, SE/30? :-( 

>
>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

Guangliang He
ghe@physics.orst.edu