> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:05:07 -0400 > From: Hermann Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:13:46 -0700 > > From: David Klaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The ROM DIMM exists in all Apple computers from 3+ years ago. It is > > there so that if a ROM update was required, the computer could be > > updated. RAM prices crashed after the MB designs were finalized, so > > an update was never released, as everyone had enough memory so that > > patches could be incorporated into the system using RAM. > > > I am not sure whether I understand this. > > Let's assume the RAM prices did not crash and a ROM update > was issued, requiring to either increase the ROM or the RAM > (because of increased size of the MAC OS). Why would it be > cheaper to increase the ROM than the RAM? > > It probably has nothing to do with the price of RAM, it > probably was caused by a change in policy - doing the ROM > upgrades with software gave Apple more flexibility.
George (NickUtah) replied: > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 01:11:30 -0600 > From: Riffes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Well Herman, as I understand it, a later rom module is not an INCREASE > in rom, it's just a change in instructions the computer gets in how to > operate. I have a Mac G3 Gossamer (beige desktop) and these did have updated > roms in later versions- they were sold with 3 different rom module versions. > I dont think the rom modules were every sold directly by Apple though. > The 1st, which I have, is mostly distinguished from the later ones by > its' inability to run a 2nd IDE hard drive as slave. The later rom modules > sell on eBay for a good price because some want this ability, and change the > rom module. There is a particular brand of Rom module-I forget the name- > that causes havoc when some put faster processor chips in these macs. > With cheap RAM, the OS's were just made larger to handle the processing > using the original rom (system 8 bigger than 7, 9 bigger than 8) - their > increased memory requirements could be accommodated more inexpensively. > George (NickUtah) Well, George, you completely missed the issue: David's argument for Apple not having issued hardware based ROM updates was that after the RAM prices fell it became cheaper to do the ROM updates by incorporating them into the operating system. Go back and read David's message and see whether you agree with this. To this I replied that the lower RAM prices wasn't the cause for Apple's change in policy because OS based ROM update would have been cheaper also before the RAM prices fell (at any given time, compare the price of, say a 2 MB ROM module to 2 MB of RAM). You are probably also wrong writing, "a later rom module is not an INCREASE rom." As I remember, the newer ROM modules were always larger. But that is not the issue here. Finally, the rest of your message (the vast majority of it) is probably correct, but what you say there is not relevant. -- StarMax is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... / Buy books, CDs, videos, and more from Amazon.com \ / <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/lowendmac> \ Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> StarMax list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/starmax.html> Send list messages to: <mailto:starmax@;mail.maclaunch.com> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:starmax-off@;mail.maclaunch.com> For digest mode, email: <mailto:starmax-digest@;mail.maclaunch.com> Subscription questions: <mailto:listmom@;lowendmac.com> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/starmax%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
