Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!izimbra!dsc
From: dsc@izimbra.CSS.GOV (David S. Comay)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Should 64K ROMs be supported?
Message-ID: <43505@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Wed, 24-Dec-86 09:24:03 EST
Article-I.D.: seismo.43505
Posted: Wed Dec 24 09:24:03 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Dec-86 20:45:41 EST
References: <476@runx.OZ> <1490@hoptoad.uucp> <907@ur-tut.UUCP> <4939@reed.UUCP> <1986Dec19.114200.23189@utcs.uucp> <531@runx.OZ>
Sender: usenet@seismo.CSS.GOV
Reply-To: dsc@izimbra.UUCP (David S. Comay)
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 13

In article <531@runx.OZ> baron@runx.OZ (James Tiberius Kirk @ The Mutara Nebula) 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.
>

well, my personal excuse for not getting one is that they are very
difficult to find here in the d.c. area.  with the exception of
replacement power supplies, the most out of stock item at d.c. apple
dealers seems to be the upgrade (when i last checked about three weeks
ago, most dealers told me to wait until sometime in january or february
before asking them again if the upgrades have come in.)