Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!dlc From: dlc@lanl.ARPA (Dale Carstensen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Should we support 64K ROMs anymore? Message-ID: <10067@lanl.ARPA> Date: Tue, 2-Dec-86 11:24:24 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.10067 Posted: Tue Dec 2 11:24:24 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 20:15:05 EST References: <385@runx.OZ> <1366@hoptoad.uucp> <342@apple.UUCP> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 52 In rs4u#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes: > I disagree that it's a bad idea to place so much functionality in ROM. > Consider what would happen if the entire OS and Toolbox had to be loaded at > bootup. Besides, the System file would be much much bigger than it is now. > Also, having a user interface toolbox and operating system in ROM makes life > much easier for the user and programmer, by assuring a consistent user > interface and selection of tools to help get the job done. I see I've done it again -- assumed that what is obvious to me is obvious to everyone else. What happens at bootup is exactly what I was considering. The boot file on a boot disk (as distinguished from a Mac system disk) would have the system heap and, for that matter, all memory that defines the start-up state preconfigured. It would have the toolbox, more consistent than the present or any past ROM versions, in a form that results from correcting bugs, not patching bugs (buy MacNosy and read Steve Jasik's comments about Apple's "come from" instructions, if you think ROM patches are clean.) It seems to me that there are only two points to consider about what happens at bootup: how long it takes; and how useful a system environment results. I believe an Appletalk boot could be done in about the same time as a floppy boot is now done with the ROM and System file (around 30 seconds.) A floppy boot would take 5-10 seconds. A SCSI boot would take 1-2 seconds. The environment would be equivalent, even nearly identical if writes to the RAM where the toolbox is copied were disabled after the copy. Maybe there would be alternative systems such as CP/M-68K, OS/9, or FLEX since the Mac would then be more of a generic 68000 machine, but probably not, since such systems could be done with the current ROM Mac and haven't been (maybe they've been done, but they are not widely advertised.) The boot disk would be ejected and set aside, a disk with System resources could be used as is now done. This System file would have no INIT, PTCH, INTL, DRVR (that really is a driver), any resources that are in the 128K ROM, etc., therefore it would be a SMALLER System file. On a single-floppy system, I would like to see such resources as DAs and FONTs accessible from a separate floppy (the Other... DA pretty much does it for DAs, but there is no analog for FONTs), so less disk swapping would be necessary, the user would know when to expect that a disk swap should occur. Also, the System file plus your application wouldn't take your entire disk, so there would be room for data files and the clipboard on the application disk (and a System.) In article <342@apple.UUCP>, dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) writes: > Maintaining and enhancing the ROM is hard because so many applications go > beyond IM in what they do. I really think having the toolbox on a boot disk would have changed the implementation of the toolbox enough in 1984 that the applications would have "straightened up and flown right." I also think Apple brought some of the problem on itself by putting all its documentation "eggs" in the IM "basket." The Apple ][ Reference Manual has a listing of the ROM Monitor, the IBM Technical Reference Manuals have listings of the ROM BIOS, so why didn't Apple publish a listing of the Mac ROM, with comments about what was interface and what was implementation? Why don't they do it now? Of course, they need to include listings of the INITs, PTCHs, etc. too. And why don't they publish schematics?