Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!abel!daffy!broome
From: broome@daffy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Should 64K ROMs be supported?
Message-ID: <25@abel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Jan-87 03:40:32 EST
Article-I.D.: abel.25
Posted: Thu Jan 15 03:40:32 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Jan-87 02:12:39 EST
References: <476@runx.OZ> <1490@hoptoad.uucp> <907@ur-tut.UUCP> <4939@reed.UUCP> <581@runx.OZ> <872@uwmacc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@abel.UUCP
Reply-To: broome@daffy.UUCP (Jonathan C. Broome)
Organization: Abel Image Research, Los Angeles
Lines: 19

In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) 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.

Um, where does that put those of us with good old Lisa's (aka Mac XL)?   I
didn't even find out about the XL-to-Mac+ upgrade until it was a month too
late. So it looks like I'm stuck with Finder 5.0 running under System 2.0,
unless someone has managed to get newer versions to work on the Lisa (as 
you may have already guessed, the Apple dealer around here is pretty pathetic.)
While I'm at it, has anyone heard if HFS will ever work on the Lisa?

==============================================================================
Jonathan C. Broome                         Abel Image Research, Hollywood, Ca.

        {cogsci.berkeley.edu, randvax, styx} \
                                              !abel!{broome,root,uucp,etc ...}
          {celerit, culler, omnilax, vortex} /
==============================================================================