Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!pyramid!prls!gardner
From: gardner@prls.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: When will SE/II version of Inside M
Message-ID: <6555@prls.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Oct-87 13:01:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: prls.6555
Posted: Fri Oct  2 13:01:01 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Oct-87 10:29:12 EDT
References: <5263@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <76000024@uiucdcsp> <2918@husc6.UUCP> <3998@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Reply-To: gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner)
Organization: Philips Research Labs, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 25

In article <3998@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes:
>
>the 512 is dead and new software is and should be
>written for a 512Ke minimum.

Just how true is this statement? I know this was hashed out on the net
before regarding 128K RAM Macs, but I'm curious about 128K ROM vs. 64K ROM
machines. (The claim was that there are no more than 20,000 128K RAM
machines left.) We're trying to convince people that coding for old ROMs
is no longer necessary, but we can't get enough info to be pursuasive.
Our simple surveys suggest that there are a lot more than 20,000 128K RAM
machines, let alone old ROM machines. Where did this figure come from?
I would guess that virtually all old ROM machines are in homes rather
than businesses.
It seems that Apple has enough info to answer this conclusively, since
they should know how many old ROM machines they sold and how many new
ROM upgrades they've sold. They may not want to release sales figures,
but they could at least tell us percentages. I think this would provide
a great service to developers. What fraction of our potential market
do we lose if our applications can't run on 64K ROMs?

Robert Gardner
P.S. I keep a 64K ROM Mac at home just to test software on to make sure
it runs (usually agonizingly slowly! You tend to forget how snail-like
the original Macs were!). I'd sure like to upgrade that Mac!