Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: How to write to Apple
Message-ID: <1991Jun13.174925.28873@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 Jun 91 17:49:25 GMT
References: <53924@apple.Apple.COM>,<3634@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1991Jun13.142124.465@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 28

In article <1991Jun13.142124.465@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes:
|> In article <3634@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, icapon@registry.adelaide.edu.au (Nick Capon) writes:
|> >In article <53924@apple.Apple.COM> bc@apple.com (bill coderre) writes:
|> >>  Remember that a ROM upgrade
|> >> ....... might cause compatibility or configuration hassles
|> >> for people that manage networks of Macs.
|> >
|> >Comparable, say, to upgrading to System 7 in the absence of  Apple 
|> >peripheral drivers        :-)
|> >
|> >Seriously, how can more memory capability be a significant hassle??
|> 
|> More memory won't be a hassle.  But 32-bit Cleanliness, when many
|> major programs still aren't 32-bit Clean, can cause headaches.  Think
|> of the guy who manages a network of Macs in an office...
[Lots of reasons 32-bit cleanliness might break things]
Don't forget, the 32-bit clean machines also support 24-bit
mode (this is a switch in the Memory Control Panel on machines
that support 32-bit mode). There should be no compatibility
problem strictly related to 32-bitness if SE/30, IIx, IIcx
machines were given ROMs essentially equivalent to the latest
models. Of course there may be other compatibility problems,
but surely no worse than adding an si or LC to the network...

Maybe I should include this in my letter to Apple.
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu