Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!unisoft!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: <7396@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 22 May 89 20:27:58 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> <367@taniwha.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 25

In article <367@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>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).

Heard, probably.  However, I did give a published reference to what I was
talking about -- page 5 of the Developer Conference Q&A document in the
current developer mailing, the section on 32-Bit Addressing....

>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 :-)

That's my hope as well, which is why I referred to a RAM-based OS as
one of the ways Apple could avoid a ROM upgrade.  My guess, though, is
that it would be more than what we usually think of as patching, that
is, a routine here and there.  Entire managers would likely need
replacement.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
"Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor
 of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it
 keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community." -- Oscar Wilde