Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!goldman
From: goldman@apple.UUCP (Phil Goldman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Multifinder woes. DA's
Message-ID: <7332@apple.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 88 06:57:54 GMT
References: <7965@j.ms.uky.edu> <174400093@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> <940@usfvax2.UUCP> <941@usfvax2.UUCP> <7276@apple.UUCP> <947@usfvax2.UUCP>
Reply-To: goldman@apple.UUCP (Phil Goldman)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 29

In article <947@usfvax2.UUCP> pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (Wayne Pollock) writes:
>I think you misunderstand me; by small computer I mean that there are
>many people using 128K and 512K and 512KE Macintoshes (hard to believe,
>but true).  These people can not run multifinder, regardless of how much
>memory you can squeeze out of finder.  These people will run switcher
>(unless they're  so strapped for memory they just run finder).  So SIZE
>resources do matter.

I can understand just running the Finder, but I believe that the intelligent
512KE user can run MultiFinder and have more memory available for
applications than they would using Switcher.  Of course, MultiFinder will
not run on machines with old ROMs, but those people really should buy the ROM
upgrade pretty soon if they ever intend to; I hear they're getting scarce.

Anyway, it may turn out that Switcher will let you run 1 "big" app that is
larger in size than that possible w/ MF (but I'm not sure even that is true).
However, the big win with MultiFinder is that it shares those large system
resources such as fonts, so that each app does not need its own copy.
Therefore, the SIZE resources for apps running with MultiFinder can be a lot
smaller than with Switcher.

The confusion is probably that many people tried the apps with the SIZEs
set for Switcher, when they really didn't need to be that big (just wasting
memory).

Of course, to do all this it is necessary to have a very small Finder
replacement.

-Phil Goldman
Apple Computer