Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!apple!keith
From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Is the Mac 512 still a semi-viable system?
Message-ID: <37168@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 10 Dec 89 03:02:53 GMT
References: <272@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> <5690@internal.Apple.COM> <2779@ethz.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 57

In article <2779@ethz.UUCP> marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) writes:
>In article <5690@internal.Apple.COM>, alan@goofy.Apple.COM (Alan Mimms) writes:
>> [ ... ]  System 7.0 WILL RUN JUST FINE on Macintoshes with >= 2MB of
>> memory -- even the "lowly" MacPlus.
>
>I never doubted that.  I assume it even works well on Macintoshes
>with >= 8MByte of main memory ;-)  The problem is that last time
>I checked, my MacPlus had only 1MByte of main memory.

But Mac Plus's can be upgraded to more than 1 megabyte of memory.

>
>|=~ ON
>Even if you tell me that System 7.0 will run in 1MByte, I won't be
>convinced that the MacPlus isn't dead:  I doubt people will be happy
>if all you can run on your machine is an operating system!  And with
>the rate of frills added in previous new system/finder releases
>(moving hands in clock, bulging trash can, information messages like
>"updating desktop" etc), I doubt that 7.0 will even walk with less
>than 4MByte.  At least you'll be in good company with Big Blue and
>their OS/2.
>|=~ OFF

OK, we'll stop adding features to our system software.

("Hey, guys? Can you stop what you're doing? Yeah, stop writing 7.0. Seems 
that there's a guy out there who still has a 1 meg Mac, and he doesn't want us 
to come out with 7.0.  Yeah, I know he can still run 6.0.x if he needs to, but 
he still objects. So that's right, we're calling 7.0 off. And throw all your 
sources in the trash while you're at it. That's it. Thanks!").

There...it's done. But all kidding aside, am curious as to what you think we
should do. Here is my way of thinking. Either we keep the system software the
way it is, or we enhance it. If we stay still, then we get beat up for not
doing anything to keep up with computer technology. So we enhance our software.
Now how do you expect us to do that without taking up more memory? All that
code we write has to go SOMEWHERE! Where do you propose we put it?

As for those frills you mention, those are very low impact items in terms of
memory, but are very nice for the user. Spinning the watch? Takes a few lines
of code, a few more cursor resources, and the result for the user is 
tremendous. All told, probably about 100 bytes of code and 476 bytes of 
PURGEABLE resources. Trash can? About 20 bytes of code, and an additional 256 
bytes of resources that will reside only on disk; no memory impact at all, as 
only one will be in memory at a time. Updating desktop? The string takes about 
15 bytes of disk space, and has minimal impact to memory. Drawing it takes only 
the code to get the resource and call DrawText. So...about 20 bytes? All told, 
maybe about 150 bytes of extra code to add those "nice little touches" that 
make the Macintosh have a good user interface. It is not features like these 
that require one to add a megabyte of memory to their computers.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin  ---  Apple Computer, Inc.  ---  Developer Technical Support
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
    UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions