Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: system 7.0 Message-ID: <44532@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 21 Feb 91 16:36:56 GMT References: <12170@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1991Feb20.214745.24001@phri.nyu.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 15 In article <1991Feb20.214745.24001@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Reality check time. You're saying that 6.0 is 250k and 7.0 is >1250k? A factor of 5 difference? Is this possible? It is hard to imagine >even the most rampant orgy of adding features and increasing buffer and >cache sizes resulting in a factor of 5 difference in system size. It isn't hard to imagine at all. I run with 30-40 inits that easily take up a couple of meg. ATM chews up a big hunk, and I'd guess True Type will also. I don't even run a cache, but I wouldn't wonder if 7.0 runs one as the default. I also wouldn't be surprised if 7.0 fixed some of the problems we normally fool with the heap size to deal with. If you plan on moving to 7.0, think about upgrading your RAM to the next increment. If you're maxing out 4 meg on a Plus, SE, or Classic, think about getting a new machine, or foregoing 7.0