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 CaplingerI'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.