Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcilzb!cnc
From: cnc@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC 3.0
Message-ID: <730036@hpcilzb.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Jun 88 03:59:57 GMT
References: <327@ncar.ucar.edu>
Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 34

>         The way you're talking, you're making it sound as if LightspeedC 3.0
> is utterly useless if you do not have two megabytes of memory. I hate to
> disappoint you, but this is not the case. There are two ways to go with
> LightspeedC 3.0:
> 
>         1) Don't use the debugger, and save your pennies to buy a Dove
>                 MacSnap upgrade, or some other inexpensive upgrade.
> 
>         2) Use a Finder replacement under MultiFinder (I've written one
>                 that literally doesn't use any memory - it goes away
>                 when you launch a program) and reduce the partition
>                 sizes for LightspeedC and for the debugger. In a pinch,
>                 you can proceed as in (1) and then set up the debugger
>                 when you're really stuck. This is what I did until
>                 very recently, when I was doing the LighspeedC libraries
>                 on a 1 megabyte Mac Plus.
> 

Rich, 

I did not mean to say that LSC is useless without the 2Meg. I use it now and
love it. I meant that I do not plan to buy the upgrade unless I could use
the symbolic debugger on my Mac (currently a Mac+ with 1 Meg). Informing me
that there is hope will certainly not disappoint me.

It sounds like you are saying that the 2Meg limit is not hard and fast. Can
you give any more details?

> If you don't want the upgrade for free...

I would like it for free. I would take it for cheap. I will buy it if it
seems to be worth the money to me.

Chris