Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!farhi
From: farhi@athena.mit.edu (Bill Hoston)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga & Mathematica
Message-ID: <9072@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 3 Feb 89 08:43:59 GMT
References: <876@afit-ab.arpa> <1930@pur-phy> <9059@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <MXuEKhy00Uka02p11I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: farhi@athena.mit.edu (Bill Hoston)
Distribution: na
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 20

In article <MXuEKhy00Uka02p11I@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
>farhi@athena.mit.edu (Bill Hoston) writes:
>> biggest stumbling block for the project was Commodore.  Anyway,  I
>> just wanted to say that I don't think the program will call for lots
>> of extra memory or a hard drive (take my word for what it is worth).  
>
>From what I've heard of people's experience with mathematica on
>mac-ii's, 2 megabytes was a lower limit, and you could start doing
>real work with 4...  [don't trust me either]
>
>-Miles

The main reason for the large memory requirements with the Mac version
is the way memory is handled by the system.  According to Wolfram
it is the horrible.... Supposedly a version of Mathematica was released
in December for I*M 386 machines that could run in < 700K.  I got the
impression that an Amiga version would fall between the two somehow.
Once again, I know nothing and represent no one.
	Bill Hoston
	farhi@athena.mit.edu