Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: 'Dirty' ROMs - A Partial Answer <-- NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Message-ID: <49917@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 3 Jun 91 18:53:29 GMT
References: <54183@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Jun3.171100.684@ssd.kodak.com>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun3.171100.684@ssd.kodak.com> ph@ssd.kodak.com (Pete Hoch) writes:

>First of all Connectix has had the know how to patch the OS and then reboot
>the system since Virtual was released.  Next why do you think that a patch
>of the ROM that works for 7.0 will break under 7.0.1 or anything else.  Are
>your ROM routines going to change?  This in fact should be one of the most
>stable inits ever released because the object that is acts on is cast in
>silicon.  Probably the most difficult part is making sure the init is run
>in front of a lot of others.

Well, Gee, what OTHER piece of software that you know of patches the ROMs?  Hmm,
could it be.....the System software?  What happens if the MODE32 patches are
sitting where Apple decides it wants a patch?  There are lots of stable inits
out there that have had problems with System upgrades.  Having MODE32 as a part
of your operating system gives you another ball to juggle.

Nobody is saying that MODE32 isn't a solution for some people, and maybe it will
work for many.  I do know that it really isn't the solution I would like.