Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!hplabs!felix!fritz!dennisg
From: dennisg@fritz.UUCP (Dennis Griesser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Should 64K ROMs be supported?
Message-ID: <2927@fritz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Dec-86 20:03:50 EST
Article-I.D.: fritz.2927
Posted: Tue Dec 30 20:03:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Dec-86 03:38:46 EST
References: <476@runx.OZ> <1490@hoptoad.uucp> <907@ur-tut.UUCP> <4939@reed.UUCP> <1986Dec19.114200.23189@utcs.uucp> <531@runx.OZ>
Sender: root@fritz.UUCP
Reply-To: dennisg@fritz.UUCP (Dennis Griesser)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 28

In article <531@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ writes:
>
>I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the
>ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new
>ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K.
> ...
>TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs..........
>		G E T    	R E A L ! ! ! !

OK, sounds like a vanilla flame against people who don't get the latest
everything.

Then he adds
>
><If I had the money, I would get a nice 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM, and lotsa 
>goodies!>

So I would like to pose the following question:
    Should we continue to support machines without 20 MegS SCSI HD,4 Meg RAM,
    and other goodies like 68020, FPU and MMU chips?

And paraphrase baron@runx.OZ's answer:
    Surely most Mac users want the extra power that these new upgrades give
    them over the vanilla machines.
    TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITHOUT THE GOODIES..........
		G E T    	R E A L ! ! ! !

BTW, :-)