Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

Nathan Mates <nathan@visi.com> wrote:

> In article <199710311057353439274@slip129-37-106-131.wa.us.ibm.net>,
> B.J. Major <bjblackbear@ibm.net> wrote:
> >I don't know what you are getting at here, except that you seem to be
> >harkening back to the memory question and exactly how much of it the GS
> >shipped with.  That is NOT disputable; it is a known fact exactly how
> >much memory the early GS shipped with.  Now, whether it was enough
> >memory to do what a certain person needed is a whole different ballgame,
> >and a question I've tried to keep separate, but you insist on lumping it
> >in altogether.
> 
>    Simply because the GS initially shipped with not enough memory to
> be fully useful, in case you haven't comprehended any of the posts
> explaining this in the past. I'm going to try and keep this to short
> words to hopefully get this through your skull (or do we need pictures
> for the poor Mac user [pronounced 'Inferiority complex'] here).

Apparently you also have "conveniently" forgotten that I was an Apple II
user *long before* (read:  many years before) I was a Mac user, so your
attempts to insult me are foolish.

> 
>    With 256K of RAM, the GS could NOT load the operating system, the
> GS-specific tool sets which allow it to put up a Mac-like UI, and any
> reasonable application. In fact, there's no way you *could* completely
> load just the OS and the ram based tools whatsoever. 

I never denied *any* of this (go back and read ALL my posts).  I only
stated *what it shipped with*, and that 256K was enough to run very
early floppy-based programs on disk, period.


-- 
--bj   Auto reply doesn't work; remove "black" to reply.  
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.   
"None of my computer systems do Windows."