Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!cmhgate!p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Adam.Frix From: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: Price cuts on motherboard upgrades ??? Message-ID: <264400.2837F1BA@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Date: 18 May 91 23:34:59 GMT Sender: ufgate@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26) Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/20.18 - cmhGate UF Gateway, Columbus OH Lines: 29 gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes to cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Cowboy): JG> However, the reason that you might not be happy about the reduced JG> price on motherboard swaps is that the Apple policy-makers -seem- JG> to be putting motherboard swaps forward as a solution to the JG> "dirty" ROMs issue rather than supplying a 32-bit Clean ROM upgrade JG> for the Macintoshes in question (II, IIx, IIcx, and SE/30). In JG> addition, the SE/30 upgrade still doesn't include 32-Bit Clean JG> ROMs. JG> $1000-$1500 is a lot to pay when all you want are "Clean" ROMs... Well, he wasn't asking why _you_ aren't happy; he's asking why HE shouldn't be happy. He can now get an SE-->SE/30 upgrade for less money, and it's an extremely attractive proposition for him. He will expand his capabilities greatly, and will be very happy. For an SE owner, dirty ROMs are a small concern in the scheme of things. Because a group of people who see the upgrade price drop issue as Apple's sneaky way of getting around issuing a patch to their dirty ROMs, doesn't mean that someone with an SE (or a IIcx, but the argument works best with an SE owner) shouldn't be happy that Apple dropped their upgrade prices. And for the record, I think the whole issue about a ROM swap is a non-issue. Yes, there's a ROM SIMM in some machines. Yes, Apple has yet to make use of it. Yes, Apple made some statements about using it when the machines were introduced. But just like Connectix, Apple can make the appropriate patches entirely in software and can please a whole bunch of people--and can make future patches even better. And that's what I think will happen. System 7.1, or 7.0.1, or 7.0.2, or whatever, will contain a pat ch for the machines with 32-bit dirty ROMs. And it will be part of the System file. If you doubt this, consider that probably most of my Plus ROM routines--"capability-dirty," if you will--will be replaced by something new in System 7. And that's the whole purpose of the System file--to provide enhancements to the ROM. The IIfx ROMs don't need much enhancing, and so I'll bet that not much of the System file needs to load into RAM on that machine compared to on my Plus. It's my considered opinion that: 1) Apple doesn't want ROM SIMMs floating around; 2) Apple knows damn well that, with the advent of new System software, its users won't be satisfied with machines that can be made capable of taking full advantage of every feature and yet are somehow crippled, crippled in a way that can be fixed in software; and 3) Apple found themselves immensely busy getting System 7 together, and didn't have any time whatsoever to include a patch to clean up the dirty ROMs. The features in Sys7 were frozen before the community made an issue of the 32-bit dirty machines, and I'll bet there are many managers at Apple fighting to let Apple come out with a patch in their own good time. Apple was not, under any circumstances, going to undertake anything like a patch for 32-bit cleanliness that would push back the release of System 7 any great length of time. Someone should keep track of the amount of time between May 13 and the release of the System update which will patch the dirty ROMs. That will be how long System 7 would have to have been pushed back in order to satisfy what amounts to a small number of users (hey, Apple's sold millions of Macs; how many people are clamoring for this fix **right now?** A few thousand, tops?) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG