Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!cmcl2!esquire!sbb
From: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Word Processor (and Mac) statistics....
Message-ID: <895@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 88 20:30:57 GMT
References: <81009@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 22

In article <81009@sun.uucp> chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>And that, if you think about it, is why companies don't worry so much about
>fitting in 128K or dealing with the old ROM's -- or even, to a great extent,
>fitting in 512. There just aren't enough machines of that type to make
>spending a lot of money on it cost effective. If you don't have a megabyte,
>you don't count in the market anymore.....

This was obviously the assumption the FullWrite folks made, and it was
a valid one before Multifinder (i.e., when it didn't matter that a 
program used all your memory).  But one of the things that makes Word
such a win is that you really *can* run it and another program in 1 meg,
simply because it doesn't require 1 meg all for itself.

And since the majority of Mac owners still have 1 meg of memory, this
is still an important consideration when designing an application.
Smaller is still better.

-- 
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   cmcl2!esquire!sbb            | 
   esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu    |                           - David Letterman