Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!ghoti!cjeff
From: cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 32 bit addressing
Keywords: VM, 32bit, 7.0
Message-ID: <1991May13.144245.4435@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 14:42:45 GMT
References: <1991May11.190833.18802@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1991May11.212231.20977@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991May12.141345.15983@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: BCS*Mac
Lines: 44

cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (Gary Goldberg) asks a few questions about 
Apple and 32-bit ROMs....
>>this 'feature' was advertised as a selling point when I bought my machine<<
  This is really the crux of the matter.  It seems that some in Apple 
management want to take the attitude that those of us who are asking for 
32-bit clean ROM upgrades are just a bunch of cry-babies.  And if Apple had 
not stated in its product literature that these Macs would ultimately be 
able to address up to 128 Mb of RAM, they would be right.  But the fact of
the matter is that Apple did make that statement -- repeatedly.  And that
makes us not cry-babies but potential plaintiffs in a class-action suit.
Of course Apple is well aware of the fact that, merits aside, they would
probably not lose such a suit.  But has it occurred to Apple's management
that offering ROM upgrades could not only help them avoid a suit; it could
also make them a significant profit and, if they were reasonably clever 
about it, they could even make it into a PR coup?
 
>>doesn't this render moot the point about returning the old ROMs....
     This point was moot from day one.  I don't know a single owner of a
'dirty-ROMed' '030-based Mac who wouldn't gladly let Apple have their old
ROMs back.  If I owned a cx, I would be perfectly content if, as part of 
the installation procedure, the Apple certified tech destroyed the old
ROMs that are soldered on (say, by cutting them in half with wire-cutters).
Connectix has announced a software solution for this problem for $179.  
Nobody yet knows how robust that solution will prove to be, but it does
provide a pricing benchmark.  Most of us would gladly pay that amount, plus
labor for a required dealer installation, to get a hardware solution known
to be bug-free.  Apple would make *at least* as much profit this way as they
would from those few people who might be forced to buy new Macs otherwise,
and it would help their customer-relations situation as well.
 
>>Should they be required to support all machines they've ever produced?
>>I think that wouldn't be fair and bad business practice to boot....
     The fact of the matter is that Apple *does* support every machine 
they've ever produced, and it is one of the few areas in which their 
business practice is consistently *good*.  If your II+ croaks, you can
get parts:  support means keeping equipment working, not keeping it 
current.  What we are asking for is support in a sense, I suppose:  we
are asking that Apple make our Macs work in the manner Apple originally 
told us they would work. 
 

--Carl Alexander 
News Editor, The Active Window 
cjeff@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu