Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!BILLW@sri-kl.ARPA
From: BILLW@sri-kl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: A proposal for Mac upgrades
Message-ID: <12793@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 21:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12793
Posted: Sun Oct  7 21:38:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 05:46:50 EDT
Lines: 33


    	1) Apple Computer misrepresented the 128k machine as being a
    	   reasonable memory configuration for which there would soon
           be large quantities of software.
    
    	2) Apple Computer knew that the 128k machines would be made
    	   obsolete by the 512k machines without an expensive upgrade.

Are these statments true?  Is a 128K Mac really worthless?  Most of
the complaints that I have seen on this list, and on INFO-MAC, having
to do with memory space limitaions concern things like BASIC, various
compilers, and other DEVELOPMENT tools.  The MAC was never intended
to be a development machine - it was designed for users.  How many
of the applications available or planned are severly handicapped by
having only 128K?  Do not include applications written in a compiler
forced to fit in the same memory - most development these days is
done on a larger computer.

It is neither unreasonable nor uncommon for a "development" system
to cost much more than a "user" system.  I do not think that the
requirement of a LISA or a VAX is a serious flaw - Apple is currently
trying to get the MAJOR applications running on the apple - and the
companies making them can easilly aford a seperate development system.

Of course there are all of those cosortium people who wanted to use
the MAC for teaching programming, and that might be difficult without
the extra memory - good compilers will come in time, though - compare
Turbo Pascal for the IBMPC to the Pascal from IBM...

BillW

PS:  Everybody should go out and read a copy of "Atlas Shrugged"
     By Ayn Rand....  $$