home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!ucdavis!toadflax!putzolu
- From: putzolu@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (David Putzolu)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Subject: Re: ROM chip (SIMM)
- Keywords: I Have Seen It !
- Message-ID: <19499@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
- Date: 22 Nov 92 02:25:14 GMT
- References: <BxxD82.IEI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
- Sender: usenet@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <BxxD82.IEI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jgraham@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (the End) writes:
- >Is Apple ever going to take advantage of the ROM SIMM arrangement in the
- >Mac II class machine ? If they did, would that be an advantage over the
- >software emulatiuon Mode 32 ? Does this INIT conflict with anything as
- >all Inits I've ever seen do ? Is it slower than the real hardware clean
- >ROM ?
-
- If you are worried that patches are not as reliable as ROM, you had
- better not use a Mac at all! In the Mac OS _many_ parts of the ROM are
- patched over by the System. Mode 32 does the same thing. No
- difference except that Mode 32 is visible as a separate file instead
- of being part of the System file. The same holds true for MANY other
- computers, including the PeeCee (many PC programs do NOT use the BIOS
- for input/output, but use their own routines instead). "Real hardware"
- is not magically clean in any way, just usually a bit more thoroughly
- tested before distribution. Mode 32 is probably about as clean as you are
- going to get.
-
- | David M. A. Putzolu | putzolu@cs.ucdavis.edu |
- | Senior, CS & Psych, U.C. Davis | op disclaimer(opinion : ptr mine) |
- | "Put your hand on the TV screen and repeat after me: I do hereby promise |
- | only to watch the Ren & Stimpy show, to make underleg noises during the |
- | good scenes, to wear unwashed lederhosen every single day of the rest |
- | of my life! That's it! You are in our secret club!" |
-