Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 32 bit roms
Message-ID: <48894@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 13 May 91 05:27:25 GMT
References: <1991May12.220920.18749@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 26

In article <1991May12.220920.18749@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> curfmanm@cas.orst.edu (Matthew Curfmanm) writes:

>To those who share the opinion that there is a conspiracy because Apple hasn't
>formally recognized the need for an upgrade for non-32 bit clean machines,
>may I suggest that perhaps Apple has their mind on other things, like
>actualy getting System 7 out the door. and shipping.

Apple already has 32-bit clean ROMs.  It shouldn't take that much development
time to produce an actual product.  The effort to get 7.0 out and a hypothetical
upgrade shouldn't have to compete much for the same resources.

>Perhaps after 7 has been released, Apple will address the other housekeeping
>tasks, such as a ROM upgrade.  

Until that time, I'll feel free to gripe.  It is loose ends like the 32-bit
clean question that makes Apple management look unfocused.  If I've got
a bunch of Mac II-class machines lined up for 7.0 installation, I'm going to
be rather annoyed that some of them don't seem to have accessto the memory that
7.0 was going to open up.

>I for one don't understand what all the fuss is about at this point in the
>game :)
>
>24-bit happy with 7.0fc2

Good for you...