🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Summers-1809951603350001@ethyl-the-frog.arc.nasa.gov>, Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.arc.nasa.gov (David P. Summers) writes:
> In article <43js8l$61@feenix.metronet.com>, dcorn@metronet.com (David
> Corn) wrote:
> 
> > Have you run Win95?
> 
> I've seen the recommended memory requirements.
> 
> > >A straw man that is off subject.  I've never claimed you needed VM to 
> > >run with 12 Megs.  I get along fine without out it.
> 
> > With a PowerMac?  I'm talking about a PowerMac, and I'm more than
> deletions
> My point has been, and is, that Mac have an longer useful life because
> they aren't forced into obsolesence by lack of support.  I'm not 
> really interested in debating VM schemes.  

Exactly... you can still get parts for any Mac model from a service centre, and with the exception of certain bloatware products, a good portion of the current software base still supports older Macs (020, 030, and in some cases 68000 based machines)

> > Your comment suggests you aren't too familiar with PMs.
> 
> I don't have one.  But I know Macs well enough to know that
> this is the same stuff I heard when I had 8 Megs on my 040
> and I was doing fine while people were pontificating that it
> wasn't enough.

8 MB on a 040 is enough to keep most people happy (as long as they don't run anything from MS Office 4).

> 
> > >040 I don't believe you can't get by with 12 on a powermac.  Besides
> > 
> > I'm not suggesting you can't "get by".  However, running any sort of
> > major app on it is an exercise in itself.
> 
> OK, I looked at an office mates PM.  She has 32 Megs so she has done
> paid no attention to using her memory efficiently, so reality is even
> better than given in this analysis.  Her system takes 6 Megs (which
> I know can be dropped by a couple of megs at least), running
> Word (bloated as it is) takes 3 Megs, which would leave another
> 3 Megs for Excel.  Hardly a "crippled" machine.  And if you want
> more memory, you add it.

32 MB in a PowerMac in an office, not too bad!  Most people can get away with 16 MB.  Heck, one of our DTP guys has to live with that much in his PPC!  (32 will let Quark & Photoshop run, however fancy stuff gets kinda slow...)

> > Perhaps I should put it
> > this way - 4M on a 680x0 Mac is like 8M on a PM - slow, requiring RD,
> > and inefficient.  At work our basic boot setup on a 680x0 Mac takes
> > roughly 4M.  That's before I run any applications - just to boot the
> > machine.  Without RamDoubler, we've literally only 4M to play with.
> > That isn't enough for most users.
> 
> I agree that 4 Megs isn't enough for a lot of people.  On the other
> hand, I don't see why someone who may not need more should be forced
> to buy more memory than they need.

Very few people can run efficient System 7 based systems in 4 MB.  Taking a 68k machine to 8 MB makes a _huge_ performance increase over 4 MB.  After that, more RAM means you can run more programs at the same time.  (Same goes for 16 MB vs. 8 MB PowerMacs.)

> 
> > What do you consider obsolete?  Slow?  A Plus is definately slow - too
> > slow for most modern uses.
> 
> I would say a Plus has finally become obsolete.  This is tempered, however,
> by the fact that a plus can still be useful as a platform for word 
> processing, mail reading, etc.(and anything before a Plus is clearly
> obsolete).  

I know of a number of people who get along fine with Word 4 on a Plus to write their essays, etc.  A Plus is still a viable machine with the right software.

> 
> > >I can get a PowerPC upgrad for the same price.
> > 
> > $600-700?  OK, tell me how to add that to my Plus, please.  Or my
> > IIci.
> 
> I don't know where they stick the ci upgrade but they do, sarcasm aside,
> exist.  But, more to the point, people are still using Pluses when
> many of their contemorary PC's have either had to go through one or
> two upgrades (that cost a fair fraction of what a new machine costs)
> or have (more likely) just been abandoned alltogether (can you even
> upgrade an XT to a Pentium????)

Scary thing is, it is possible...however, all that will remain is the case to your XT.  Most people would have to replace their motherboard, power supply, floppy drives (if low density), HD (most XT's only had 40 MB or less), most of your drop-in cards (unless they are fairly new), etc., etc...
 
> No, I refuse to go on to that bloated and slow piece of junk.  The
> problem running Excel 5.0 is in the software.  (Basically, MS figures
> that if they can force PC users to upgrade their machines to cover
> ineficient programming, they can do the same for Mac, that is if
> they aren't puposely handicapping the Mac version to try and make
> Windows look better).

Same here! I refuse to run software (Word 6, etc.) that runs slower as PPC native software than emulated Word 5.1 on my 6100!  (Same goes for the other parts of Office!)

> 
> > If you're happy with ClarisWorks 1.0 or so for fast text editing, more
> > power to you.  However, the latest software from MS requires a modern
> > Mac to run it,
> 
> Fortunately this isn't true of competing products like Wingz.
> 

My thoughts exactly... Excel 4.0 is an acceptable updgrade to Excel 5.0a ;-)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Flynn                         "In a world where only the insane can
-maflynn@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca      prosper, only those who prosper can
-2A CS, University of Waterloo, Canada    truly judge what is sane." (Anon.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------"The greatest power is often simple patience." (E. Joseph Cossman)------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------