Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!endor!olson
From: olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Determining Machine Configuration
Message-ID: <2721@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 19:06:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.2721
Posted: Wed Aug 19 19:06:57 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 04:56:13 EDT
References: <8796@ut-sally.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.UUCP
Reply-To: olson@endor.UUCP (Eric Olson)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 28

In article <8796@ut-sally.UUCP> brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) writes:
>
>     I'm trying to discern the difference in my program between the 64K ROMs,
>the 128K ROMs and any newer ROMs.  (e.g., the SE ROMs and the II ROMs.)
>     I don't have the SysEnvirons glue; apparently that's only for MPW 2.0,
>and I'm using LS-C.  I'm not sure I'll be patient enough to wait for Think to
>come out with a new version of LS-C which might support SysEnvirons.  I don't
>think 2.11 does.
>     I had honestly hoped that Apple would live up to their pledge of the way
>they would treat the low-memory global ROM85.  (== FFFF for 64K ROMs, 7FFF for
>128K ROMs, 3FFF for future ROMs, etc.)  My Mac SE says ROM85==7FFF.  Uhh.
>Oops.  Apple goofed on that one.

Philip Borenstein at Think Tech told me that someone had written LSC
SysEnvirons glue and it might be posted to comp.binaries.macintosh soon.
It's pretty easy to gin together the machineType field; I'll post that 
tomorrow.

ROM85 is the same for the Mac+ and the SE because they run virtually the
same Traps (on the plus in patches, on the SE in ROM).  I think this was
a reasonable choice.  In general, the lower the value of ROM85, the greater
the capability of the machine.  This is from IM Vol 5, I think, if not,
some technote. 

-Eric


Eric K. Olson		olson@endor.harvard.edu		harvard!endor!olson