Re: ROM 1 better than ROM 3?

[mjensen2@wpo.uwsuper.edu (MATTHEW L. JENSEN)]

In article <3arc02$l1d@news.service.uci.edu> thoang@orion.oac.uci.edu (Trangdaithi Hoang) writes:
>From: thoang@orion.oac.uci.edu (Trangdaithi Hoang)
>Subject: ROM 1 better than ROM 3?
>Date: 21 Nov 1994 23:54:42 GMT
>I thought everyone with a ROM 1 might be happy to hear this.  I've got
>a ROM 3 and took it for granted that it's better than a ROM 1.  The
>other day I dug out a ROM 3 system from my roommate's closet.  I
>plucked out the CVRam ram card, RamFast Rev. D, and 15 MHz 64k Zip
>from the ROM 3 and stuck it in the ROM 1.  Not only does the ROM 1
>runs at 15 MHz, but also at 16 MHz.
>
>ROM 1                           ROM 3
>motherboard markings:           motherboard markings:
>P8709                           Z8946
>R
>607-0173-A
>607-0170-
>ROM 342-0077-B                  ROM 341-0737/341-0748
>VGC 344S0046-2                  VGC 344S0046-4
>MEGA II 344S0047-A              MEGA II
>FPI 344S0050-1                  CYA (FPI) 344S0066-01
>SOUND GLU 344S0052-1            SOUND GLU 343S0052B
>SOUND 343-0051-A                SOUND 343-0051-A

I still believe ROM 03 is better--more tools in ROM mean faster operation, 
and there's less static in the sound.  Maybe the 01 has this one advantage, 
but 03 still gets my vote as the ideal machine.

I'm not trying to start a ROM 1/ROM 3 war here--they're both much better 
than, say, the Pentium I have now. That thing really sucks. No personality.
               ^^^^^^^-> :-(

All just a 2-bit opinion!
Matt