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.... $$