Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!dartvax!maxlin!hugo
From: hugo@maxlin.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: LSC 3.0 memory...it's not their fault!
Message-ID: <8980@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 23 Jun 88 00:48:35 GMT
References: <327@ncar.ucar.edu> <730035@hpcilzb.HP.COM> <4771@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: hugo@maxlin (Peter Su)
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 32

Hi folks...

Well, with all the moaning about the memory requirements of LSC and
other things, I thought I would try to say something that's been on my
mind...se, I'm not really mad at THINK, or the Fullwrite people,
because it's not really their fault that their software needs so much
memory to run with Multifinder, in my mind, the problem is Apple's
non-OS.  

Let me explain:  See, on some computers, when you run multiple tasks,
the OS keeps can (gasp!) swap out code and data that are not currently
being referenced, and (gee!) you don't have to allocate like and
entire MB of memory for (say) Excel, when in fact you may actually use
only half of it at any given time, but there is some extreme case where
it will need it all.  See, the OS manages the DYNAMIC memory
requirements of the programs that are running, and so the developer
doesn't have to worry so much.

This business with paritions is just such an incredibly dirty hack
that it's almost sickening.

So when you are moaning about needing 2MB for LSC, reember that Apple
is also to blame, because their OS, well, isn't one.

Disclaimer:

Now, you all are thining, geez, what a UNIX/MSDOS/IBM bigot.  Not so!
I think the mac is great, but I can't stand the thought of programming
the thing,because it is just too painful.

Cheers,
Pete