Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mts.rpi.edu!Garance_Drosehn
From: Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: New Macintosh Strategy
Message-ID: <B-9%W!+@rpi.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 90 20:12:35 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
Lines: 32
References:<306@cti1.UUCP> <77800049@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

In article <77800049@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> The Mac was introduced in late '84/early '85 (at least, that was the
> first mac commercial, and the special issue of Newsweek with
> Apple-only advertising).  Since that time, the minimum amount of RAM
> necessary to run the latest system software has gone from 128K to
> 2048K (in 6 years).  This is a factor of 16 -- a factor of 2 every 1.5
> years.  Note that these numbers should be doubled if the purpose is
> programming (smalltalk, mathematica, etc).

Two points.  

1) Even when it was introduced, 128K was not enough memory to really 
survive on.  Just about every program that was written was in a bind for 
memory, that's why we still have this nightmare of memory being relocated 
on the fly.  You had to squeeze out every last byte of memory for *every* 
program you wrote.

2) You don't need 2meg to run the current system software in.  You pretty 
much need more than 1 meg, and 2meg is the next plateau.  That doesn't 
mean you're using up every byte of that 2Meg to run the minimum system 
software (certainly not in the same way that 128K was cramped for memory).

When you're computing that magic factor, you should take those points into 
account.  Ignore what Apple is actually selling, and compute it based on 
the minimum amount of memory that the user really *needs*.  Pick a current 
memory size that feels as cramped as 128K felt back when the Mac was first 
released.  2Meg is plenty of room, even today, compared to the cramped 
quarters of a 128K Mac.

Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY.  USA