1 Nov
1998
1 Nov
'98
1:50 p.m.
"D. Peschel" <dpeschel(a)u.washington.edu> wrote:
Also, your claim is totally opposite from the previous
claim
(that's what I meant by "degree").
No. Totally opposite and equal in degree from the original claim that
all Apple computers have a ROM debugger would be the claim that no Apple
computers have a ROM debugger (or equivalently, all Apple computers do not
have a ROM debugger). Both are universal claims.
The claim that some X have Y is a much weaker claim, not at all of the
same degree. It does not assert any common property for the entire class
X.
No. Many of the older models had a plastic switch
that snapped into the
ventilation slots; it would reset the machine or bring up a debugger.
Which has nothing to do with whether the machine has a ROM-based debugger.
So you're right about the 128, 512, and XL, but
wrong about the Plus, SE, II,
IIx, and IIcx.
I'll concede your point on the latter machines. However, I only needed one
counterexample to prove my assertion.
I didn't say anything about the XL. Actually, *you* are wrong about the XL;
I deliberately omitted the Lisa, Lisa 2, Lisa 2/5, Lisa 2/10, and Macintosh XL
because they do have a ROM-based debugger. I've used it a lot lately.
I know many newer machines have Open Firmware (hold
down Cmd-Opt-O-F when
turning on -- the letter O, not zero) which could be used for debugging, if
you're evil and know FORTH. :)
Which is one reason why I didn't mention them. The others being:
1. I stated that I was only listing machines relevant to the list charter.
2. It is not clear that FORTH can be considered a debugger/monitor, any
more than BASIC can.