🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ddh6go.19tzdlett5t0wN@p53.nas1.is2.u-net.net>,
real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet (Rebecca and Rowland) wrote:

>I can't help in your search for 7.5, but have you considered 7.6?
>Assuming you've not got a SE/30, IIx, or IIcx, 7.6 is almost certainly
>a better idea.  You'll possibly find it easier to track down 7.6 than
>7.5.anything.  Have you tried asking in uk.comp.sys.mac?

Er, no!

>A straight 68k install of 7.6 took about 40MB disc space on my Performa
>475, and all the reports I've read from people who have compared 7.6 to
>7.5.anything on a 68030 Mac say that 7.6 is *much* better (faster and
>more reliable).

40MB? Ouch! That was something I hadn't considered. My entire HD is only
80MB!

>The only fly in the ointment is an interesting problem that cropped up
>in PC Exchange; you should get hold of a copy of PC Exchange from System
>7.5.5 to use with 7.6 to avoid this problem (it's more of a bug in the
>PCs that formatted the MS-DOS discs that PC Exchange can't handle, but
>since everything in the world can handle these discs except System 7.6's
>PC Exchange, it's probably best to call it a bug in PC Exchange).  I can
>email you a copy of this if you get 7.6 (I went from 7.1 to 7.6 after
>fitting my 475 with 20MB RAM and it's *wonderful*.  I can recommend RAM
>Doubler rather than standard VM, by the way).

RAM is the only thing that's not a problem - I decided I may as well go for
the maximum, so now I've got the luxury of 36MB. Thanks for the offer - may
well get back to you on that.