Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:11331 comp.sys.mac.system:5796
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bc
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: A Classic Dead End?
Keywords: Classic,System 7.0
Message-ID: <53113@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 20 May 91 18:32:00 GMT
References: <1991May17.162934.29993@midway.uchicago.edu> <24530@oolong.la.locus.com> <53050@apple.Apple.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 20

I made a typo:
|The Classic does have room to grow for quite some time. With a fairly
|inexpensive upgrade, you can put 5 megs in the machine, and run System
|7 and two or three medium-large apps all at once, and still have room
|for the Finder, DAs, and background printing.

Classic, SE, and Plus are all upgradable to just 4M of memory.
This does not change the jist of the argument. All will continue to be viable
platforms for quite some time.

Some people have written to ask if they should "upgrade" to a Classic.
Frankly, I don't see much need to, since the three machines are pretty
similar in power and features, and nearly indifferentiable by software.
Assuming all three were running the latest systems, software should be
very close to totally intercompatible.

The main "draw" of the Classic, therefore, is the incredibly low price,
not the "newness" or "betterness" than the earlier low-price Macs.

bill coderre
trying to keep his facts straight.