🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2448@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes:
>Dumb question time:  Why (other than their heritages) do multifinder and
>hypercard *REQUIRE* so much memory.  I thought that much of the magic of the
>"old" mac was that any application would run on a little Mac, but perhaps
>with poor performance.

>Why can't these programs keep some (perhaps at the user's discretion, as in
>MS Wors 3.01) of the data on disk instead of in memory.  That way, I can use
>a hard disk to its maximal advantage, and not have to invest in gobs of
>semiconductor memory.  I'd much rather plunk down $600-$800 for a 20-30M HD
>than for an additional 1Meg of memory; I'd be able to use the HD for both
>heavy data, DA, font and application storage, PLUS the ability to use these
>ifancy new programs.

I would guess that the next revision to System/Finder will include not
only preemptive task scheduling but also true virtual memory (both
require an MMU to work well).  Of course, those Macs that don't have
an MMU won't benefit from this.  This suggests that a much cheaper MacII
architecture machine is on the way real soon now.  The old Macs are
going to be in the same position as the i8088 and i8086 machines: unable
to do true multitasking/virtual memory and thereby increasingly
obsolete.  The only question is how fast this will happen, and how
easy (expensive) it will be to upgrade your older machine.  The
accelerator board (68020/68881/68851/68030) people may do landoffice business 
for the next few years.

--alan@pdn