Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!sun!amdcad!ames!hc!beta!cmcl2!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!shap
From: shap@sfsup.UUCP (J.S.Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: When will SE/II version of Inside M
Message-ID: <2217@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 23:04:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfsup.2217
Posted: Mon Oct 19 23:04:35 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 07:11:16 EDT
References: <5263@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <76000024@uiucdcsp> <2918@husc6.UUCP> <6555@prls.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS, Summit N.J. USA
Lines: 21
Summary: 128 and 512 appear obsolete

In article <6555@prls.UUCP>, gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes:
> 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 emphasis in apple's documentation seems to be on coding for 128k rom
and up machines, although both the Mac Plus and the 512ke are being payed
some (minimal) attention.

If I were beginning an application right now, I would code it for the 128k
ROMS and up. Not having a working version of HFS is a severe handicap for
most of the things I would be interested in doing, and the kinds of
applications I am likely to write aren't likely to fit gracefully on a 512k
or smaller machine in any case.

Jon Shapiro