steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) (11/07/87)
Are there any RAMDisks that run under MultiFinder (assuming you have the
requisite memory)? I've tried RamStart1.3 with no success; that's all I
can lay my hands on without (what's it called? I used to have the stuff
before I got a II) money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Steele ...!{decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!unc!steele
steele%unc@mcnc.org
"But remember, it's never too late to take Swahili." -- Peter Wolfendenkeith@apple.UUCP (11/08/87)
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 >requisite memory)? I've tried RamStart1.3 with no success; that's all I >can lay my hands on without (what's it called? I used to have the stuff >before I got a II) money. > 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!?! At least Apple hit middle ground somewhere... -- Keith Rollin amdahl\ Sales Technical Support pyramid!sun !apple!keith Apple Computer decwrl/ Disclaimer: I read this board for fun, not profit. Anything I say is from the result of reading magazines, hacking, and soaking my head in acid.
kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (11/09/87)
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!?! (send me the pieces and I'll glue them back together ...:-) with my one (internal) drive, I, routinely, copy a floppy to a RAMdisk to make copies. also to hold temporary files when hexing and packing and ... lots of good uses ... -- kraut@ngp.utexas.edu
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (11/10/87)
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.
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Richard Siegel) (11/10/87)
In article <5104@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >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 ***FLAME ON*** This is too much. One person asks a simple question: "Are there any RAMDisks that run under MultiFinder?" Instead of a straight answer, all that I've seen is a bunch of stupid cracks, and peripheral information, and absolutely *nothing* that helps to answer the original question! Does *someone* know the answer? I too am rather interested to know if there are any RAM disks that work with System 4.1 (or later) and MultiFinder. ***FLAME OFF*** --Rich **The opinions stated herein are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of my employer (THINK Technologies, Inc). * Richard M. Siegel | {decvax, ucbvax, sun}!harvard!endor!singer * * Customer Support | singer@endor.harvard.edu * * Symantec, THINK Technologies Division. (No snappy quote) *
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (11/11/87)
In article <3150@husc6.UUCP> singer@endor.UUCP (Richard Siegel) writes: > > This is too much. One person asks a simple question: "Are there >any RAMDisks that run under MultiFinder?" Instead of a straight answer, >all that I've seen is a bunch of stupid cracks, and peripheral information, >and absolutely *nothing* that helps to answer the original question! Agreed. One of my math teachers in high school always told us to "answer the question that was asked". > Does *someone* know the answer? I too am rather interested to I don't have a specific answer, but can offer one bit of information, based on my experience with large screens on a Mac Plus. I don't think there is an inherent problem with Multifinder and RAM disks. I tried the Levco Prodigy RAM Disk and it seemed to work. The main reason why a RAM Disk would not work under Multifinder is that it installs itself by running an application and grabs memory by adjusting the top of free memory. In the old days, any application could do this because it had control of the entire machine. After Multifinder has started, it is too late to reserve memory in this way. (I had to install the Prodigy RAM Disk with Mutlifinder turned off, for the same reason.) So the question becomes one of finding a RAM Disk that doesn't require it to be the start up application. One workaround that someone could try would be to startup the machine without Multifinder running, install the RAM Disk, and then launch Multifinder (by holding down the Command and Option keys and double clicking on the Multfinder icon). If the RAM Disk supports specifying the name of the application to run after it quits, you might be able to tell it to run Multifinder after it installs a RAM disk. (You might have to change Multifinder's file type to APPL first.) -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.com
kateley@apple.UUCP (Jim Kateley) (11/11/87)
munch...
Ramdisk+, version 1.01 seems to work ok.
Its shareware, $15.00:
Roger Bates
Route 1, box 865
Hillsboro, OR
97124
--
Jim Kateley
Applelink: kateley1
UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!kateley
CSNET: kateley@apple.COM
Disclaimer: What I say, think, or smell does not reflect any policy or
stray thought by Apple Computer, Inc.
Remember:
When you smile :-), the world smiles with you,
When you frown :-(, the : and - keys think they are getting picked onkraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (11/12/87)
In article <6700@apple.UUCP>, lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) writes: > In article <3150@husc6.UUCP> singer@endor.UUCP (Richard Siegel) writes: > > > > This is too much. One person asks a simple question: "Are there > >any RAMDisks that run under MultiFinder?" Instead of a straight answer, > >all that I've seen is a bunch of stupid cracks, and peripheral information, > >and absolutely *nothing* that helps to answer the original question! > > Agreed. One of my math teachers in high school always told us to "answer > the question that was asked". Touche - I didn't have the answer when the question was asked, but did get curious enough to find out. Soooooo... I normally boot to the finder and do NOT set MultiFinder to be the StartUp application... after reboot, I used MacRam Version 2.5 (which I got with the MacMemory upgrade some years back) and created a 500k RamDisk before using OPTION-COMMAND-double-click on MultiFinder ..... I did not try to create a RamDisk *AFTER* I'm already in MultiFinder. But I believe that would not work anyway ... BTW - I do not care iparticular for Richard's message. heck, at least, he could have tried some RamDisks himself rather than just flaming ....(-: -- kraut@ngp.utexas.edu
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (11/12/87)
Some people have complained that if you want to run Multifinder and
Hypercard, you need 2 Meg. They complain that Apple has obsoleted
their machine('s configuration) even though they just bought a brand
new Mac SE or Mac II or whatever.
I disagree. You can always make these arguments, and they are
invalid. You could also claim that Multifinder obsoletes the tiny
display on Mac+ or Mac SE, since a small display really hurts the
usefulness of Multifinder. You knew what was coming down the line
from Apple.
Apple's goal is to write an innovative O/S and stay ahead of IBM. You
should be thankful that you can buy a mac and expand to 2Meg CHEAPLY
by buying 3RD PARTY MEMORY. If Apple started selling 2Meg machines
standard, I bet it would add $400 to each machine! This will save you
money in the long run.
I think it is ridiculous to expect Apple to stay within the confines
of the base machines they sell. If Apple believed this, the finder
and Hypercard would still fit within 128K and the world would be
miserable.
What's more, you can get much of the functionality by using switcher
and the uni-finder.
I bought a Mac II knowing full-well that the color would be very poor
unless I got a memory expansion. It cannot manage more than about 2
color pictures in 1MEG of memory at once. I don't blame Apple for
selling me a base machine that won't run some applications well. You
pay your money and you take your choice.
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}singer@endor.UUCP (11/12/87)
In article <6808@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >BTW - I do not care iparticular for Richard's message. heck, at least, >he could have tried some RamDisks himself rather than just flaming ....(-: > 1) It certainly is your privilege to not like my posting. 2) I did try different RAM disks. Everything breaks under System 4.1. 3) :-) --Rich **The opinions stated herein are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of my employer (THINK Technologies, Inc). * Richard M. Siegel | {decvax, ucbvax, sun}!harvard!endor!singer * * Customer Support | singer@endor.harvard.edu * * Symantec, THINK Technologies Division. (No snappy quote) *
deano@hope.UUCP (Dean Benz) (11/15/87)
I have now seen a number of messages talking about RamDisk+... It's great, it
saves your ram disk after a soft reset, it works with multifinder... etc.
Well, I for one would love to try it. Would some kind soul who has a
copy please send it to the moderator of mod.binaries. mac. If it has been
posted then I must have missed it and I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time.
Dean Benz
UUCP: {ucbvax!ucdavis,sdcsvax,ucivax,ucla-cs}!ucrmath!hope!deano
ARPA: ucrmath!hope!deano@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu or ucrmath!hope!deano@ics.uci.edu
USNail: Dean Benz, 1110 Blaine St. Apt. 108 Riverside Ca 92507.
Phone: (714) 686-6131 (U.C. Riverside: Home of, Ah, Well, Gimme a sec.)singer@endor.harvard.edu (Richard Siegel) (11/15/87)
In article <66@ucrmath.UUCP> deano@hope.UUCP (Dean Benz) writes: >I have now seen a number of messages talking about RamDisk+... It's great, it >saves your ram disk after a soft reset, it works with multifinder... etc. All of the above are true for RamDisk+ 1.4. I just found it, and I'll post it if no one wants to. --Rich **The opinions stated herein are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of my employer (THINK Technologies, Inc). * Richard M. Siegel | {decvax, ucbvax, sun}!harvard!endor!singer * * Customer Support | singer@endor.harvard.edu * * Symantec, THINK Technologies Division. (No snappy quote) *
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (11/16/87)
I would also like a copy of RamDisk+. If it is archived anywhere, could someone please e-mail me the Internet address? (The numbers please, not just the symbolic name). -Ted ******************************************* Ted C. Johnson Hewlett-Packard, Design Technology Center Santa Clara, CA (408)53-3555 UUCP: ...hplabs!hpcea!hpcilzb!tedj *******************************************
chips@tekchips.TEK.COM (Chip Schnarel) (11/21/87)
In article <66@ucrmath.UUCP>, deano@hope.UUCP (Dean Benz) writes: > I have now seen a number of messages talking about RamDisk+... It's great, it > saves your ram disk after a soft reset, it works with multifinder... etc. > Well, I for one would love to try it. Would some kind soul who has a > copy please send it to the moderator of mod.binaries. mac. If it has been > posted then I must have missed it and I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. > Dean Benz The author of RamDisk+, Roger Bates, is near to releasing a new version which has extended features (more detailed control of what is loaded into the RamDisk, etc.) and works more smoothly with MultiFinder and the new System. When this release is done (real soon now :-) I will mail it to the moderator of comp.binaries.mac (assuming I can figure out the correct address) and I'll upload it to GEnie. Chip Schnarel Tektronix, Inc. chips%tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (11/26/87)
In article <5104@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >In article <6664@apple.UUCP>, keith@apple.UUCP (Keith Rollin) writes: > >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. The requirement for the minimum, fully functional Mac is 1 meg. Use of MultiFinder and HyperCard do not really fall into the category of, minimum, fully functional. They are extensions. You can use HyperCard in 1 meg. You can use MultiFinder with many applications in 1 meg. I might add that just being able to switch between the finder and one application at a time is a great improvement, so this is a useful configuration. >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. This attitude seems a bit exaggerated. First, using Multi-Fnder is an OPTION, not a requirement. Secondly, the most useful things the Macintosh does, it does without HyperCard. HyperCard is just catching on, and does not yet avail the power of Word, PageMaker, SuperPaint, Excel. It is probably capable of doing a lot of things it doesn't do yet, but I can't believe anyone NEEDS HyperCard. Yet. With that in mind, I wonder why you think youe SE is "obsolete", or why you feel "forced" to buy a memory upgrade. It still does all the useful things it did before they introduced MultiFinder. Your SE will be "fully functional" for years to come. But do your think youe base level system should do EVERYTHING any Mac can? Just depends upon what you mean by "fully functional". Why did you buy a personal computer? What is it you need to get done? You see, 1 Meg SIMMs do not grow on proverbial trees. They could ship Mac SE's with 2 megs. They could also justify charging you an extra $350 too. What about the person who doesn't need the extra memory? You can still do a LOT in 1 meg. I do think they should offer, and suspect we will see, a MacSE configuration with 2 megs become an item in the Apple Product list. I think it should cost more than the 1 meg variety too. I doubt it would have saved you much, but you would not have felt quite so upset. You have a tool. Get the most out of it that you can. John Gilbert -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (11/28/87)
In article <14543@felix.UUCP> john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) writes: >In article <5104@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >>The valid complaint against Apple is that the now standard >>Hypercard/Multifinder software combination demands 2 meg of memory to >>work reasonably. > >The requirement for the minimum, fully functional Mac is 1 meg. Use >of MultiFinder and HyperCard do not really fall into the category of, >minimum, fully functional. They are extensions. You can use HyperCard in >1 meg. You can use MultiFinder with many applications in 1 meg. I might >add that just being able to switch between the finder and one application >at a time is a great improvement, so this is a useful configuration. Use of HyperCard and MultiFinder constitutes using a standard program under the standard operating environment, which cannot be done on the middle-of-the- product-line configuration. Whether something is useful is not the point, it is whether Apple is providing value and good service to their customers by putting together a set of system software that purports to multitask but cannot run two standard programs when given 1 meg of memory. It appears to me that they are hoping to get people to upgrade their memory. Now, that isn't evil, but it would be nice if they were a little more honest about it. >First, using Multi-Fnder is an OPTION, not a requirement. True. I have the option of using the new standard system software, or the old software that is provided for compatibility with older systems. >Secondly, the most useful things the Macintosh does, it >does without HyperCard. HyperCard is just catching on, and does not yet >avail the power of Word, PageMaker, SuperPaint, Excel. It is probably >capable of doing a lot of things it doesn't do yet, but I can't believe anyone >NEEDS HyperCard. Yet. > This is no argument. The fact is, HyperCard is a standard piece of software. Everyone gets it. Apple is hyping it as the greatest thing since Macintosh. Apple is pushing to involve people in developing stackware. The program is useful and does eliminate the need for buying many application packages. I have several applications running in it already. True, no one NEEDS Hypercard, but then again no one NEEDS a Macintosh. >With that in mind, I wonder why you think youe SE is "obsolete", or why you >feel "forced" to buy a memory upgrade. It still does all the useful things >it did before they introduced MultiFinder. Your SE will be "fully functional" >for years to come. But do your think youe base level system should do >EVERYTHING any Mac can? Just depends upon what you mean by "fully >functional". Why did you buy a personal computer? What is it you need >to get done? If MultiFinder were some fancy extension to the Macintosh that Apple felt was an extra, it would be sold as an extension to the system and not bundled as the standard system software. Apple would not be sending information out to developers telling them to change their software so that it will be "Multi- finder friendly". I am judging "fully functional" by what Apple is telling me is its standard system. My SE is not a base level system. It is the middle of the product line. I don't expect it to do everything. I do expect it to run the standard software. >You see, 1 Meg SIMMs do not grow on proverbial trees. They could ship >Mac SE's with 2 megs. They could also justify charging you an extra $350 >too. What about the person who doesn't need the extra memory? You can still >do a LOT in 1 meg. As a side note, the $400 memory upgrade is the education discount price. I was told it would be $800 full retail. For what it is worth, Apple will more likely tack more money onto the retail price that $350. Apple could have put a little effort into making Multifinder smaller. The fact that Multifinder is an excessive memory hog has been well documented in this forum. They could also have made HyperCard a little smaller, or at least segmented it so that it could run in something less the 750K! (It took a lot of will power not to use an explitive between "750" and "K").
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (12/09/87)
In article <5431@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >In article <14543@felix.UUCP> john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) writes: >>In article <5104@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: Conveniently omitted is a statement from the original poster which I quoted in my article and was directly responding to: The requirement for the minimum, fully functional Mac is 2 meg. ( should be preceeded with >>> ) >>>The valid complaint against Apple is that the now standard >>>Hypercard/Multifinder software combination demands 2 meg of memory to >>>work reasonably. >> >>The requirement for the minimum, fully functional Mac is 1 meg. Use >>of MultiFinder and HyperCard do not really fall into the category of, >>minimum, fully functional. They are extensions. You can use HyperCard in >>1 meg. You can use MultiFinder with many applications in 1 meg. I might >>add that just being able to switch between the finder and one application >>at a time is a great improvement, so this is a useful configuration. > >Use of HyperCard and MultiFinder constitutes using a standard program under the >standard operating environment, which cannot be done on the middle-of-the- >product-line configuration. Whether something is useful is not the point, it >is whether Apple is providing value and good service to their customers by >putting together a set of system software that purports to multitask but cannot >run two standard programs when given 1 meg of memory. It appears to me that >they are hoping to get people to upgrade their memory. Now, that isn't evil, >but it would be nice if they were a little more honest about it. You can still use HyperCard! You can still use Multifinder! It is a fact of life in computing that there are limitations based on physical resources. You can use both, but not at the same time. At least your machine has the potential to use them simultaneously someday. The "standard" operating environment is using plain old "Finder". Using Multifinder is... >>First, using Multi-Fnder is an OPTION, not a requirement. > >True. I have the option of using the new standard system software, or the >old software that is provided for compatibility with older systems. No, WAIT!!! Not true. You can use the very latest, brand spanking new system software without Multifinder. You have absolutely no reason to use an older system unless some application happens to require it. >>Secondly, the most useful things the Macintosh does, it >>does without HyperCard. HyperCard is just catching on, and does not yet >>avail the power of Word, PageMaker, SuperPaint, Excel. It is probably >>capable of doing a lot of things it doesn't do yet, but I can't believe anyone >>NEEDS HyperCard. Yet. >> > >This is no argument. The fact is, HyperCard is a standard piece of software. >Everyone gets it. Apple is hyping it as the greatest thing since Macintosh. >Apple is pushing to involve people in developing stackware. The program is >useful and does eliminate the need for buying many application packages. I >have several applications running in it already. True, no one NEEDS Hypercard, >but then again no one NEEDS a Macintosh. >>With that in mind, I wonder why you think youe SE is "obsolete", or why you >>feel "forced" to buy a memory upgrade. It still does all the useful things >>it did before they introduced MultiFinder. Your SE will be "fully functional" >>for years to come. But do your think youe base level system should do >>EVERYTHING any Mac can? Just depends upon what you mean by "fully >>functional". Why did you buy a personal computer? What is it you need >>to get done? > >If MultiFinder were some fancy extension to the Macintosh that Apple felt was >an extra, it would be sold as an extension to the system and not bundled as >the standard system software. How do you substantiate that? I just plain don't see that that follows. > Apple would not be sending information out to >developers telling them to change their software so that it will be "Multi- >finder friendly". I am judging "fully functional" by what Apple is telling me >is its standard system. As a developer, if I choose to improve my software to take advantage of what Multifinder offers, then I will have a better product. This does not mean that folks not using Multifinder are worse off with my product. Apple wants developers to make the most of what is available, and also not to forget those configurations which do not use all features whenever possible. They have never encouraged us to assume multifinder and forget the rest. I assume "fully functional" to mean that the computer is usefull as sold. It does not mean it can run all combination of things. >My SE is not a base level system. It is the middle of the product line. I don't >expect it to do everything. I do expect it to run the standard software. And it does. You just seem to think it all has to run at the same time. >>You see, 1 Meg SIMMs do not grow on proverbial trees. They could ship >>Mac SE's with 2 megs. They could also justify charging you an extra $350 >>too. What about the person who doesn't need the extra memory? You can still >>do a LOT in 1 meg. > >As a side note, the $400 memory upgrade is the education discount price. I was >told it would be $800 full retail. For what it is worth, Apple will more >likely tack more money onto the retail price that $350. Don't buy Apple! I bought 2 1meg 120ns SIMMs from a parts supplier for $175 apiece. You can EASILY find such parts for under $230 each, and the 3rd party upgrades in the Mail order adds are now all under $500 for 2 megs, complete with instructions and warranty. Apple can get them cheaper in quantity, I am sure. I *thought* you were arguing originally that the problem was they had sold you a system that could not use the software without more memory, and that the SE should come configured for the "standard software". Here you seem bothered by the fact that the required memory would have cost too much more. >Apple could have put a little effort into making Multifinder smaller. This is a pretty bold statement. Do you know how much effort they put in? How much waste is there in Multi-finder? Stick the word "Perhaps" at the front and I wold feel better, but hey, this is not about MY feelings. I suspect there is room for improvement. There is also room for lots more features too. >The fact that Multifinder is an excessive memory hog has been well documented >in this forum. They could also have made HyperCard a little smaller, or at >least segmented it so that it could run in something less the 750K! >(It took a lot of will power not to use an explitive between "750" and "K"). There are many applications out that now come with configured memory sizes approaching this. 4th Dimension is one. MPW is another. I still feel: 1. You do not NEED HyperCard. I love it. I do not NEED it. You CAN run HyperCard without Multi-finder, so it is not useless to you. 2. One does not NEED multi-finder to do useful things on a Mac. You CAN use Multifinder in 1 meg with many programs, so it is not useless to you. 3. Apple never sold you something with the promise that you could run HyperCard with Multifinder in 1 meg as part of the conditions for the sale, or even as a sales incentive. If your salesman did, you got a legitimate gripe with the sales guy. 4. It is not wrong to package together pieces of software that will not run together in small, supported configurations. It is not wrong to sell configurations which are so small that they can not run all the software that comes with it at the same time. This is especially true for those customers who have very important, yet simple needs like just using PageMaker to crank out the newsletter. Those folks appreciate not having to spend more for the extra memory. 5. A 2 meg SE would be a useful configuration, and is worth listing on the price list. Had you bought such a configuration I suspect you would pay almost as much as buying a 3rd party upgrade. No big win, only you would probably feel better. Sigh. Maybe they should just put a whopping price tag on the software to make it seem like an "OPTION"??? Charge you $200 for HyperCard, $200 for Multi-finder, and then you would have spent $400 and still have only 1 megabyte. I'm glad it's cheap. John G. -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john