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