cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> nkb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Norman K Bucknor) writes: >I sympathize with those wanting 32-bit clean ROM upgrades but I wonder >about this "Apple promised us" stuff. Does it say anywhere in the documentation >that Apple *will* provide a ROM upgrade path ? Or does it simply say that >there is a *possibility* of an upgrade. Makes a big difference as to Apple's >legal obligations. I don't have a Mac with a ROM slot, so I don't know >what those manuals say but I don't think I've seen in any review or ad that >Apple guarantees replacement of the current ROMs with the latest > and greatest chipset. And before you flame me for picking nits, I would really >like to know if such a guarantee exists. > >Norman I don't think the guarantee exists. I believe the promotional materials and the MacUser review I read says that hardware options have been built on to these machines to 'allow' the placement of new ROMs, should that be necessary. Any attorneys on Internet reading this? If I haven't been provided with all the functionality I purchased, are my remedies limited to returning products for a refund, or can the manufacturer be required to 'cough it up'? Q: Can a CI ROM be plugged into a CX, or does it fry something? (Not that I know where to get one, it's just an idea.) People reading this (and my other messages) may think me rabid anti-Apple, but I remain the ardent Apple booster I've always been. I hope this issue doesn't grow stale too soon; enough pressure and we may move the mountain. I WANT 128 MEG OF RAM IN MY CX PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ... - Gary Goldberg Census Bureau/DIR/SIRS AOL:OgGreeb cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu
Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) (05/21/91)
cs421317@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs421317) writes:
c7> Any attorneys on Internet reading this? If I haven't been provided with
c7> all the functionality I purchased, are my remedies limited to returning
c7> products for a refund, or can the manufacturer be required to 'cough it
c7> up'?
Generally speaking, under the Uniform Commercial Code you are supposed to
inspect the goods upon receipt to see if they are conforming. You have a "reasonable" amount of time to do this, based on the amount of time needed
to evaluate the goods. You could've checked the ROMs for 32-bit cleanliness
when you got your mac, but it would have been an difficult thing to do at the
time.
You could try to argue that there was a "warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose" if Apple had claimed your cx was good for 128Mb. They didn't go that far however, and the question would be whether a "ROM Upgrade Promise" is
definite enough to be legally enforcible.
For example, when is Apple required to make it available? Most posters have
assumed that the release of a 32-bit capable OS (other than A/UX) makes 32-bit
clean ROMs imperative. The manuals only refer to "when higher density RAM
becomes available." How much higher density? How soon afterwards?
What could Apple legally charge for the ROM upgrade? You can upgrade your
cx ROMs right now for $1600: just get the ci upgrade. They never said they'd
provide a *free* upgrade. What if they charged $1600 just for the new ROMs?
* Origin: mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com (1:109/421.4218)weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/22/91)
In article <674822484.3@blkcat.FidoNet> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > What could Apple legally charge for the ROM upgrade? You can upgrade your >cx ROMs right now for $1600: just get the ci upgrade. They never said they'd >provide a *free* upgrade. What if they charged $1600 just for the new ROMs? Your other arguments are valid, but there is a hole in this particular point. See, it works in rebuttal to cx upgrades, but the SE/30 is the end of the line for the compact Macs. There were similar claims in the SE/30 manual. Likewise, going by that logic, they should have made the same claim for the SE, since it has an upgrade path to the SE/30 which they claimed allowed for 32-bit addressing... See? Also, if you think carefully about it, Apple should give these ROMs to the owners for free. Otherwise, it would be like buying a car from a company that claims that the car has 157 horsepower, and you buy it, but find out later that it only has 100 horsepower unless you exchange the 2-barrel carb for an "optional" 4-barrel carb. It's misleading advertising, and is a clear violation of FTC regulations. -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \