Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:11301 comp.sys.mac.system:5729
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: A Classic Dead End?
Message-ID: <1991May20.142510.12667@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Keywords: Classic,System 7.0
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at U-C
References: <1991May17.153503.21947@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 14:25:10 GMT
Lines: 25

bgrubb@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
>One Sys 7.0 was stable Apple would come out with a 1 meg ROM chip that
>allow Sys 7.0 to run with only 1 meg of RAM.

Has Apple EVER released a bare ROM upgrade?  Not to my knowledge.  The 512->
512e upgrade came with a floppy drive.  I think Apple doesn't think there's
any profit to be had in ROM-only upgrades.

philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes:
>Do you really want to run lots of big programs simulataneously on a machine
>as slow as a Classic?

Just one big one (HyperCard) and some smaller ones would have been fine.
The right mix of apps could probably fit in 4M, but 5 or 8 would have
been more comfortable.  I think the 68000 is *tolerably* fast for home,
though I agree with the other poster that a 16MHz 68020 would have been a
better choice.

My questions about Classic memory capacity, as well as grave reservations
about the power supplies in the Classic and LC, have made me decide on an
SE/30 to replace my aging 512KE.  That's probably fine by Apple, since the
SE/30 costs more than the Classic.
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu  UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner