Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!amanda@mermaid.intercon.com
From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Is the Mac 512 still a semi-viable system?
Message-ID: <1616@intercon.com>
Date: 11 Dec 89 23:27:35 GMT
References: <272@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> <5690@internal.Apple.COM> <2779@ethz.UUCP> <37168@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@intercon.com
Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Lines: 29

In article <37168@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes:
> 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!

Indeed.

I occasionally get the feeling that people want Apple & third party developers
to upgrade their products retroactively.  But surely no one could actually
be that dense ... especially not on the net ... :-).

Sigh.  I'm getting tired of the perennial whining of "I want the best and
I want it for free."  Look, Apple didn't marry you; they sold you a computer.
It's still a good computer.  The fact that Apple is making better computers
than they used to is a good thing, not evil profiteering.  The fact that
things like outline fonts, the line layout manager, and so on take up memory
and disk space is just one of the facts of life.  Like Keith says, they
do have to go somewhere, after all.

I'd rather have to upgrade a Mac Plus to 2 or 4 megs than to try and run
OS/2 on an IBM XT...

Grumph.

Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
--