Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cmcl2!esquire!sbb From: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac II recommendation Message-ID: <842@esquire.UUCP> Date: 29 Nov 88 15:35:04 GMT References: <595@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> <71934@felix.UUCP> Reply-To: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) Organization: DP&W, New York, NY Lines: 26 In article <71934@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >Since I'm probably at the end of the line with my 512, I'm trying to decide >whether to buy a Mac II with a 40 Mbyte hard drive or the Mac IIx with the >68030 and super drive. Both machines would have 4 Mbytes and both >configurations are the same price. Since I have a 60 Mbyte external drive >I don't need the disk space. > >Do you think it's best to go with the 030 and it's memory management for >future OS's or is this a waste of money if you're only going to run Mac >software (not A/ux)? Oh drool.... Go for the IIx; it may seem like a ripoff now, but in one or two years, you'll be glad you have the MMU and SuperDrive. Supposedly, future versions of MacOS will require an MMU; I think this was even officially announced. It only makes sense, since without it the Mac won't really be able to compete with high-end workstations, or even (gag) OS/2. Of course, in one or two years having only 4 megabytes will seem like a tight squeeze, but for now I think it should do.... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman