🚀 go-pugleaf

In <MS.V3.18.rs4u.80020c10.mcmurray.ibm032.4598.15@andrew.cmu.edu>
rs4u#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes:
> I disagree that it's a bad idea to place so much functionality in ROM.
> Consider what would happen if the entire OS and Toolbox had to be loaded at
> bootup. Besides, the System file would be much much bigger than it is now.
> Also, having a user interface toolbox and operating system in ROM makes life
> much easier for the user and programmer, by assuring a consistent user
> interface and selection of tools to help get the job done.
I see I've done it again -- assumed that what is obvious to me is obvious to
everyone else.  What happens at bootup is exactly what I was considering.
The boot file on a boot disk (as distinguished from a Mac system disk) would
have the system heap and, for that matter, all memory that defines the
start-up state preconfigured.  It would have the toolbox, more consistent than
the present or any past ROM versions, in a form that results from correcting
bugs, not patching bugs (buy MacNosy and read Steve Jasik's comments about
Apple's "come from" instructions, if you think ROM patches are clean.)

It seems to me that there are only two points to consider about what happens
at bootup:  how long it takes;  and how useful a system environment results.
 I believe an Appletalk boot could be done in about the same time as a floppy
  boot is now done with the ROM and System file (around 30 seconds.)  A floppy
  boot would take 5-10 seconds.  A SCSI boot would take 1-2 seconds.
 The environment would be equivalent, even nearly identical if writes to the
  RAM where the toolbox is copied were disabled after the copy.  Maybe there
  would be alternative systems such as CP/M-68K, OS/9, or FLEX since the Mac
  would then be more of a generic 68000 machine, but probably not, since
  such systems could be done with the current ROM Mac and haven't been (maybe
  they've been done, but they are not widely advertised.)
The boot disk would be ejected and set aside, a disk with System resources
could be used as is now done.  This System file would have no INIT, PTCH, INTL,
DRVR (that really is a driver), any resources that are in the 128K ROM, etc.,
therefore it would be a SMALLER System file.  On a single-floppy system, I
would like to see such resources as DAs and FONTs accessible from a separate
floppy (the Other... DA pretty much does it for DAs, but there is no analog
for FONTs), so less disk swapping would be necessary, the user would know when
to expect that a disk swap should occur.  Also, the System file plus your
application wouldn't take your entire disk, so there would be room for data
files and the clipboard on the application disk (and a System.)

In article <342@apple.UUCP>, dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) writes:
> Maintaining and enhancing the ROM is hard because so many applications go
> beyond IM in what they do.
I really think having the toolbox on a boot disk would have changed the
implementation of the toolbox enough in 1984 that the applications would have
"straightened up and flown right."  I also think Apple brought some of the
problem on itself by putting all its documentation "eggs" in the IM "basket."
The Apple ][ Reference Manual has a listing of the ROM Monitor, the IBM
Technical Reference Manuals have listings of the ROM BIOS, so why didn't
Apple publish a listing of the Mac ROM, with comments about what was
interface and what was implementation?  Why don't they do it now?  Of course,
they need to include listings of the INITs, PTCHs, etc. too.  And why don't
they publish schematics?