Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: ROM's & 7.0, what good are they???
Message-ID: <11315@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 29 May 89 18:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 18


  Over the years I've noticed that apple is moving more & more of the Mac's
OS from the ROM's to RAM installed routines.  I don't know what the figures
are but you'd be hard pressed to find a manager that doesn't have patches
installed in RAM.  And with system 7.0 coming out it might even be that there's
more OS in RAM than in the ROM's.  I realize there are advantages to RAM vs.
ROM routines and this posting wasn't intended to start that sort of discussion.
I just wonder what the point is about those "magical macintosh ROM's" when
most of the OS is being installed into RAM.  It seems all the ROM's are good
for these days is booting the system.

  Anyone at Apple care to comment??  Are there any figures on what percentage
of the ROM's are still used in system 6.0, or the up and coming system 7.0??
-- 
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|/////////////////////////////////////////
David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu
|       It's only 1's & 0's, so how difficult can Computer Science be?        |
|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|