Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brunix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!omh
From: omh@brunix.UUCP (Owen M. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Disturbing rumor re -- ROM upgrade and RAM/Hyperdrive upgrade
Message-ID: <10423@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 21:49:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.10423
Posted: Sat Apr 27 21:49:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 03:07:13 EDT
References: <1397@bbncca.ARPA> <2019@sdcc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: omh@nancy.UUCP (Owen M. Hartnett)
Organization: Brown University Computer Science
Lines: 21

<>

After thinking about this situation for a while, I can see Apple's
justification in not doing this (upgrading an unofficially modified Mac).
I would think that the main reasons are:
	They intend to reuse the old boards, and they would have to
separate those with do-it-yourself chips from the Apple certified chips.
Here, I think it's a case of "We don't want to guarantee someone else's
parts"
	In the case of a hyperdrive, here the old board is physically
modified to accept the drive.  Wouldn't Apple have to make a modification
to their new board to match the modification done to the old?

	These are conjectures on my part, but I think they're valid   
points.  I don't think it's malice on Apple's part against third party
RAM updates, but merely an attempt to limit their liability and to
insure the functionality of parts they receive/reship.

Owen Hartnett
omh%brown@csnet-relay