Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!munnari!moncskermit!basser!metro!ipso!runx!baron
From: baron@runx.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Should we support 64K ROMs anymore?
Message-ID: <385@runx.OZ>
Date: Fri, 28-Nov-86 11:21:13 EST
Article-I.D.: runx.385
Posted: Fri Nov 28 11:21:13 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Dec-86 01:42:57 EST
Distribution: net.micro.mac
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 39


Should we support 64K ROMs anymore?
===================================

First, a few details...

A few months ago I bought my ROM/Drive upgrade through the Australian
Apple University Consortium for A$570 installed.

A couple of weeks later I bought LightspeedC v1.02.

I have Inside Mac Volume 4 plus Technotes, and am very pleased with the
128K ROMS and their new routines (like ZoomWindow,>32K resources & HFS).

The Apple ROM/Drive upgrade is reasonably priced.

A friend of mine is currently writing a program that would be great using
128K ROMs and less great on 64K ROMs

Now, my questions...

1) How should we treat the new features of the 128K ROMs that have
*NO* 64K ROM counterpart (e.g. QuickDraw(CalcMask,etc), List Manager,
Time Manager) ?
2) Do you think new programs should support 64K ROMs at all?

*Please* reply in this newsgroup - I have to pay for Overseas mail.

				"...New York must be the
				friendliest place on earth"
					
					Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee


/* Jason Haines            ACSnet: baron@runx
 * Sydney, Australia       CSNET:  baron@runx.oz
 *                         ARPA:   baron%runx.oz@seismo.css.gov
 * UUCP:
 *   {enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,seismo,ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!runx.oz!baron
 */