🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6664@apple.UUCP>, keith@apple.UUCP (Keith Rollin) writes:
> In article <1927@unc.cs.unc.edu> steele@unc.UUCP (Oliver Steele) writes:
> >Are there any RAMDisks that run under MultiFinder (assuming you have the
> 
> I'm sorry, but this just cracks me up. For a long time, people were ragging
> on Apple that MultiFinder used up too much memory and was practically useless
> to them. Now Oliver is saying that he has too much memory and wants to use
> it as a RAM disk!?!

There is nothing funny about having a variety of configurations in the field.
Whenever you introduce a product that does not work well on a low-end
configuration you can expect people to complain about a lack of commitment by
Apple. That does not mean that there are not users with larger configurations.

The valid complaint against Apple is that the now standard
Hypercard/Multifinder software combination demands 2 meg of memory to
work reasonably. Sure, you can use the regular finder and Hypercard with 1 meg,
but if you do that, you are not running a fully functional Mac.
The requirement for the minimum, fully functional Mac is now 2 meg.
As a person who just recently purchased a Mac SE with 1 meg,
the configuration in the middle of the Mac line (plus, SE, II), I do resent
the fact that Apple has obsoleted my machine after less than 90 days. By buying
in the middle of the product line, I had hoped my configuration would be
fully functional for at least 1 1/2 to 2 years. Now I am forced to shell out
the $400 for a memory upgrade even before the machine is out of warranty.

So, does my problem at the low end mean that people with high-end
configurations have humorous problems? I don't know, but if you give me
another couple meg of memory, I will test out that hypothesis for you.