Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0 Q & A -- memory protection (none)
Message-ID: <7392@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 22 May 89 06:08:02 GMT
References: <1838@internal.Apple.COM> <7320@hoptoad.uucp> <1906@internal.Apple.COM> <7350@hoptoad.uucp> <364@taniwha.UUCP> <7357@hoptoad.uucp> <31132@apple.Apple.COM> <7383@hoptoad.uucp> <366@taniwha.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 24

In article <7383@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>Then why does the seventh question and answer under "32-Bit Addressing"
>in the "Developer Conference Q&A" in the current developer mailing say
>that a ROM upgrade will likely be required to run in 32-bit mode?  Also,

In article <366@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>The only mention I remember of a ROM upgrade was for those people still running
>on the 64k ROMs .... (oops that includes me :-(

Eh?  The 64K ROM was before the Mac Plus, which introduced the 128K
ROM.  Machines of this category will always run in 24-bit mode, because
they have no MMU capability and no capacity to upgrade memory past 4M
(and that only through third-party upgrades; the 64K ROM was also
pre-SIMM).  If you mean the 128K ROM, I'm still not sure what you mean,
since the Mac Plus also will be confined to 24-bit mode for all
eternity, as will the Mac SE.  This is spelled out in the answer to the
eighth question under 32-Bit Addressing in the Developer Conference
Q&A.  I'm sure the 64K and 128K ROM are both very non-32-bit-clean,
but given the RAM and PMMU limits of the computers using them, it
doesn't matter.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
If you vote for clowns, you have no right to complain that only clowns
make it to the ballot.