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.