Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcrware!jejones
From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Macintosh OS
Message-ID: <1682@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 90 14:12:05 GMT
References: <1990May30.230248.6200@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1935@key.COM> <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <402@newave.UUCP> <1990Jun2.132847.14292@oracle.com> <Y5X3=SB@xds13.ferranti.com> <26437.266ae612@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Reply-To: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Lines: 11

In article <26437.266ae612@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>And those preemptive multitasking systems
>suck RAM like nobody's business...

Gee, that would be news to those who have used OS-9/6809 Level One (designed
to work in a single 64K address space) for years.  (Admittedly, when I composed
a mail reply (which bounced, alas), I was on a Level Two system, but even with
windowing and a 96K RAM disk, 512K is fairly comfortable.)  For that matter, I
wouldn't call OS-9/68K a memory hog...

	James Jones