Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!vlsi.cs.cmu.edu!blh From: blh@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Bruce Horn) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Stupid Question on Disk Space Message-ID: <1013@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 10:25:14 EDT Article-I.D.: vlsi.1013 Posted: Mon Oct 13 10:25:14 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 05:20:38 EDT References: <818@ur-valhalla.UUCP> <310@joevax.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 29 The way the Finder initially calculated disk space available was not a bug, but a "feature" (some of you have heard this before!) Steve Jobs said that people wanted to see 400K available on blank disks, and that I should make it so that was the case in the Finder. Since the original single-sided floppies held about 410,000 bytes, dividing by 1024 left exactly 400K; subtracting a few K for the DeskTop file made it less than 400K free. Dividing by 1000 instead of 1024 was basically a marketing decision, and an apparently defendable one: most naive users understood a K to be 1000, not some power of two near 1000. I imagine that Apple would have gotten more phone calls from naive users who wanted to know why they didn't have 400K available on a disk than from computer-sophisticates who wanted to know why the Finder was "wrong". Debatable, to be sure. On something entirely different: given the latest version of LightspeedC, why would anyone want to use MPW? MacApp is the only reason I can think of, but someday LSC will have support for objects. (MacApp is a very nice package, by the way, and I would probably be using it if I could.) It seems to me that MPW will never be able to be as fast as LSC, but that LSC could well end up with all the features of MPW that you wanted (e.g. tight code optimization, maybe as a compiler option, and support for the object-oriented programming style). -- Bruce Horn, Carnegie Mellon CSD uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!cmu-cs-vlsi!blh ARPA: blh@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu