Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!ucselx!maxc1158
From: maxc1158@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Greg Penetrante)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: 'Dirty' ROMs - A Partial Answer <-- NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Message-ID: <1991May22.044334.2308@ucselx.sdsu.edu>
Date: 22 May 91 04:43:34 GMT
References: <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <170@eclectic.COM>
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services
Lines: 28

In article <170@eclectic.COM> kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) writes:
>Net.experts didn't really know what they were talking about.
>Note that someone pointed out that A/UX runs just dandy in 32bit
>mode.  There's absolutely NO reason that software can't patch
>the problem.  This could be a very viable solution that Apple could
>choose to support if they so choose to.
> [...]
>>This scenario STINKS.  It reeks of the extended vs. expanded vs. pretended
>>memory configuration kludges for DOS and Windows.  Sure, alot of us will
>>go for the MODE32 init even if we have to pay for it.  My Macintosh
>>cost me twice as much as my car;  and yes, I'll probably decide to invest
>>another nickel if it helps me get more out of the damn thing.
>>
>This is another example of people talking about what they know nothing
>about.  Do you have ANY idea about what Connectix is doing and how
>they are doing it?  I doubt it.
>
>>Forget I said anything, Apple.  Go ahead and screw things up.  Your 
>>customers will hate you for it, but "experts" will make a killing.
>
>With an attitude like that, if I were Apple, I'd tell you to take a
>flying leap.  Fortunately, they have infinitely more patience with
>your type than I do.
>
>Ken


... So what was your point, Ken?