On 2 Nov 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
> > 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.
And I think you are wrong about the Mac 512K.
I can't guarantee that the debugger is at all useful, or even that it's in
ROM (how can I check?), but my Mac 512K does have the INT button on the
side which brings up the little window which lets me examine and change
registers. Whether or not I can play with memory, I don't know... I
haven't played with the debugger very much.
I would check to see if I could bring up the debugger without having put
in a system disk, but that would involve waking up my mother, within who's
room the Mac 512K currently lives. But even if that doesn't work, that
wouldn't prove that the debugger isn't in ROM.
Old Amigas, at least, had ROM debuggers that could be accessed via a
terminal connected to the serial port at 9600bps, but you would never know
it was there without reading some of the thicker manuals. (The debugger
activates upon a system crash, or via certain system calls, or by
selecting a menu item from the hidden menu on old versions of Workbench.)
(But of course, the original Amiga model didn't have a ROM debugger,
because Kickstart was loaded into the WOM from disk. Does anyone know if
it's possible to find the Amiga 1000's actual ROM in memory?)
--
Doug Spence
ds_spenc_at_alcor.concordia.ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/
Received on Sat Nov 07 1998 - 04:54:31 GMT