Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Re: 512K Mac and RAM disk driver
Message-ID: <1841@uw-beaver>
Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 01:48:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1841
Posted: Tue Oct  9 01:48:12 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 04:03:29 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 16

From: Mike Caplinger 
I'm glad that RAM disk results are so nice, but RAM disks are a massive
hack.  If you have more memory, your system should be able to utilize
it in a much nicer way than just pretending it's secondary storage.  So
my question is, will the Fat Mac try and keep things in memory more?
How about leaving an application or the Finder in unused core so that
the second time I start it, it's already loaded?  After all, even with
a RAM disk I have to read RAM contents off a disk sometime!

RAM disks are for people who either don't understand the memory
hierarchy, or have 64K machines and bank-switching.  Mac owners
shouldn't fall into either catagory...

	- Mike

ps.  If Mac code isn't relocatable, it should be.