Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Should 64K ROMs be supported? Message-ID: <764@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Dec-86 09:03:35 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.764 Posted: Wed Dec 24 09:03:35 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 22:10:01 EST References: <476@runx.OZ> <1490@hoptoad.uucp> <907@ur-tut.UUCP> <4939@reed.UUCP> <531@runx.OZ> Organization: Flat Egg Software, Ltd. Lines: 34 In article <531@runx.OZ>, baron@runx.OZ (Jason Haines) writes: > I have yet to see one good reason why people with Macs are not getting the > ROM/Drive upgrade. Surely most Mac users want that extra power that the new > ROMs and new 800K drive give them over the vanilla 512K. Suppose you're a company or a university or some such thing, and you bought dozens or hundreds of Macs before the Plus became a reality. (This was mentioned before, but I'll repeat it. I don't think it will do any good, since you seem to have had your mind made up before you asked the question.) Suppose you have a Mac, and would really like to upgrade but such mundane things food, rent, clothes for the kids keep getting in the way. People actually find themselves in this situation. > TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WITH PLAIN 512K Macs.......... > > G E T R E A L ! ! ! ! I have just such a machine. I don't appreciate your arrogance. If you want to write programs that don't work on a 64K ROM, go ahead. Please do not tell us to upgrade our machines to suit your taste, particularly in the absence of compelling reasons why we should do so, other than that you don't like them. Perhaps I should make my programs detect 128K ROMs and refuse to run on them. :-) And distribute binary only. --- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- dubois@rhesus | | "What is lacking cannot be counted." - Solomon the cladist (Ecclesiastes 1:15)