Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0 Q & A -- memory protection (none)
Message-ID: <367@taniwha.UUCP>
Date: 22 May 89 16:39:29 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> <7392@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland
Lines: 26

In article <7392@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>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

I know this - all I was saying was that the only mention I had heard
from Apple about ROMs was that systems with 64K ROMs wouldn't be able
to run System 7.0 (not VM just 7.0).

I'm sure that there are some 24-bittedness in the current ROMs (or otherwise
why would you need a new set at the moment in order to run the 32-bit system
with 6.0. Then again maybe they can patch around it ..... since they must
have been doing it for a while I'm sure that they have a good handle on it
(hopefully one without flags in the top bits :-)

	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell
Taniwha Systems Design			UUCP:		..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul 
Oakland CA				AppleLink:	D3213
Achtung! Ve are from ze Interface Police! Ve vant to look und feel!