Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner
From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Should we support 64K ROMs anymore?
Message-ID: <4372@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Dec-86 03:42:15 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.4372
Posted: Tue Dec  2 03:42:15 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 06:38:16 EST
References: <385@runx.OZ> <1366@hoptoad.uucp> <342@apple.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 17
Summary: was it possible to rely on just IM?

In article <342@apple.UUCP>, dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) writes:
> In article <1366@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
> > [ gripes about various things - possibly justified 
> You are welcome to try this; however, you will find that 50% of the existing
> applications break, because they rely on features of the ROM above and
> beyond those documented in IM, including those which are not "features"
> but actually implementation details.  Many commercial applications:
>	[ mostly interesting and probably valid points ]

when I first saw IM I threw it into a corner and decided that it was suicidal
to even try to develop software based on "that mess" - anyone who did has
my deepest admiration (and sympathies).  For many types of applications I
suspect that it was nearly impossible to get things done without going beyond
what IM told the developer about.  I think it is unfair to make it sound as
if all developers had to do was to "follow the IM-guidelines", I suspect.

am I terribly off the track with such "heresy"?