Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ht!spt!mcp!mdc
From: mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Hey!  What about us, Mac+ users!
Summary: tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow...
Message-ID: <175@mcp.entity.com>
Date: 11 Jun 88 09:16:05 GMT
References: <11388@apple.Apple.Com> <523@sering.cwi.nl> <11507@apple.Apple.Com> <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>
Lines: 72

In article <51259@ti-csl.CSNET>, holland@mips.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes:
> In article <172@mcp.entity.com> mdc@mcp.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes:
> >... This overstuffed operating system and shell stuff ALWAYS happens, but
> >I usually see it quicker when people get hired to add features to
> >something that works (and is selling pretty well), and are getting

> Am I misunderstanding this?  If you're complaining about the size of the
> System growing AND you're satisfied with the features and the way the current
> System works, WHY don't you just continue to use the old System?

Yes, you misunderstood.  I am reasonably satisfied with the current
system software, and I am complaining that the software is overtaking
the hardware TOO QUICKLY.  

Just because I am currently satiated does not mean that I must never
have urges again. (quote that out of context...)

I like sexy features as much as the next guy, but when you tell me "loads
of new features, but too bad if your machine is over 18 months old..."
or "I sure hope you have 2.5meg..."  I have to say:

   Hey!  What about us, Mac+ users!

You see, as someone who wants to develop software for the Mac (this is
comp.sys.mac.programmer), I have to have a machine (HARDWARE +
software) that is current enough to allow meaningful contribution.
Sure, I know a few folks happily running on 512k macs, using the last
stable 64k system, running Word 1.05, and I say more (or less) power
to them.  Of course, they had the chance for a nice $300 ROM and disk
Upgrade to help them some, as I remember...

> There are people who are willing to upgrade their hardware to run more
> capable software.
                           ^^^^^^^ ARGH!!  
            ** NEWS FLASH ** 
WILLINGNESS ALONE DOES NOT UPGRADE MACHINES.

CASH upgrades machines, and I seem to have just
spent loads of it on this Mac+.  That is why I wrote in.  I am trying
to make sure that now that all the developers at Apple are using
Mac-II's that they don't forget TOO SOON about the fact that they
SOLD ALL THOSE MAC+s (which can't be upgraded to Mac-II's) I believe.

What I am asking is that they give a care to the size of things.
{Make it good, Make it fast, make it small.}

> People who are satisfied with the old software shouldn't care if new software
> requires 1Meg or 10Meg.  If they don't want to upgrade, they simply won't buy
> the new software.

Agreed.  Well, perhaps you will sink whatever is a small fortune for
you into a Mac-XX, and then about a year or two later have someone
tell you that you have to spend triple the investment to stay in the
game.  (not just a few hundred for an upgrade, or something easy).
Then you might understand why some poor loser would want to
write in and remind the guys with the Mac-II's and ALL THAT RAM what is
going on.  But hey, why should you care?

I don't see this issue as 1/0, btw;  I agree the system should evolve,
but not without a little self-restraint.  It's easy to forget last
year sometimes...

> Fred Hollander
> Computer Science Center
> Texas Instruments, Inc.
> holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela
> 
> The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
-- 
----------------
Marty Connor
Director of Innovation, The Entity
mdc@mcp.entity.com, ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mcp!mdc