Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!eos!aurora!wiedmann
From: wiedmann@aurora.uucp (Christian Wiedmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional
Keywords: Fullwrite memory
Message-ID: <807@eos.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 88 19:17:54 GMT
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> <53610@sun.uucp> <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <537@aplcomm.UUCP> <416@esquire.UUCP> <2904@polyslo.UUCP> <418@esquire.UUCP> <2979@polyslo.UUCP>
Sender: news@eos.UUCP
Reply-To: wiedmann@aurora.UUCP (Christian Wiedmann)
Distribution: na
Organization: myself
Lines: 33

In article <2979@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes:
>   You can use FWP on a standard machine.  But are you saying that you should
>be able to everything a 2 meg or 2.5 meg Macintosh can do on a 1 meg Machine.

Most definitely! I think one of the tenets of the Macintosh is configuration
independence. I don't think memory size should limit the things you can do,
just how fast they are done.

>If you could do this then why have memory upgrades?  If you want to be able to
>do really big stuff it requires memory, even if the memory required isn't the
>standard size.

Why buy a floating point processor? The situation is the same. I want to be
able to do anything I can do on a 5 meg mac with FWP on a 1 meg mac. I don't
care if it accesses the disk drive every time I scroll a line, as long as I
can at least look at the document.

>
>-- 
>David M. O'Rourke
>
>Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!

I can't think of any convincing reason to limit any user size because of
lack of memory. Such things should be hidden from the user. Why is it my
responsibility to adjust the chapter size when the program has much more
information about the problem, and could do it in such a way that I don't
have to worry about it?
	-Christian
net address: wiedmann@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax,nike,lll-crg}!ames!aurora!wiedmann
disclaimer: Any resemblance of this opinion to anybody else's is purely co-
incidental.