🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Summers-1509951528200001@ethyl-the-frog.arc.nasa.gov> Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.arc.nasa.gov (David P. Summers) writes:
>In article <43852a$64v@thetics.europa.com>, mbell@atheria.europa.com (Max
>Bell) wrote:
>> As I stated in the portion of my response that you omitted, I admitted
>> that Microsoft code obsoletes machines at much faster rates than Macintosh
>> code does.
>
>OK, then we are in at least partial agreement.
>
>> Microsoft, however, is not the only source of software for MS-DOS
>> (actually it may not even be one today for all I know) and there are plenty of
>> programs that will run on the old machines.
>
>It may be that some vendors are more supportive and older machines
>aren't completely out of luck, but if you want to use a machine for
>a long time the answer is clear, get a Mac.

I disagree.  Look at today's MS Office and Mac's and even system 7.5x
is large.

Apple sells crippled systems to users and that means short life spans.
For instance I'm now teaching a MAC class and the only system I can
purchase from the Univ is a 5200 performa with 12MB and 800 MB HDisk.
No substitutes.  That's a crippled system given today's software.
Apple seems to want to sell stuff that has a short life span.

Most students with older macs are out of luck with it's limited
expandibility for the types of systems apple sold cheaply.
I suspect the clone competition will force apple to change.

My rule of thumb on PC's is to get 4 times the ram a base system sells
with.  So I'd get a PPC with 32MB of RAM.  For expandibility an IBM
clone in a big case is the most adaptive.

In 1991 my 386-33 had 16MB and it's still good today because the ram is
enough to run OS/2 well.  I plan on skipping the pentium for a P6 or
PPC system in 1996.
-- 

-- Dr. J.C.Coughlan, jcoughlan@gaia.arc.nasa.gov