response 1 of 22:

Aug 25 22:43 UTC 1991

If you buy a new Mac, you should get System 7.

I have not "upgraded," and will not do so until I can get a copy of
System 7, free.

response 3 of 22:

Aug 27 03:41 UTC 1991

System 7 is neat, but the biggest drawback is that some programs don't work
with it.  Apple tested a ton of software prior to release, and the docs with
system 7 will give you a good idea of what will and won't work.  Most big
name publishers that had incompatible programs have upgrades available, but
if you've been collecting software for a few years, that doesn't help.  If
you're about to get a Mac for the first time, and buy all new software, I
think it's the way to go.  I'm sticking with 6.07, though my dad is running
both system 6 and 7, switching between the two each reboot with a program
called "System Switcher".  He likes system 7, but said even programs that
are supposedly system 7 compatible crash sometimes (Adobe Photoshop and
other graphics programs), so he needs the ability to switch between the two.
You definitely want lots of RAM with system 7, but at about $50 a meg, 
that's not a major consideration.

response 5 of 22:

Aug 27 14:55 UTC 1991

Macs are classically under-memoried, I guess.
Just kidding.
But the classic is supposed to be a bare-bones system for those who want
to run MacWrite, MacPaint, and the like. Simple old stuff.

response 7 of 22:

Aug 31 22:31 UTC 1991

Denise, you CAN go past 4 megs if you like, with the help of an aftermarket
piggyback board...but 4 should be sufficient (and the extra money for the
board would likely not be a wise investment on a Classic). As for whether you
would actually WANT to use Sys7 on a Classic...some tests I ran on my IIsi
showed Sys7 to generate as much as a 30% slowdown from Multifinder on 6.0.7...
and I found MF itself to be unbearably slow on a Classic with 4 megs. If you
are currently using only Finder on your Classic, you would like pull your
hair out going to Sys7 (my tests (not comprehensive, but significant) showed
6.0.7 Finder-only to be THRICE as fast as Sys7). Granted, I am the, uh,
impatient sort, but I personally would find Sys7 on a Classic to be unbearably
slow. However, if you're currently using Multifinder, and it doesn't bug you
too much, Sys7 might be worth a shot in 4 megs. You COULD run it in 2, if you
have a fairly stripped-down System, and worked with relatively small files
(Pagemaker is sorta out of the question ;-)  )
  .

response 9 of 22:

Sep 4 18:34 UTC 1991

 Wow!  I need a memory board to plug things into before prices go up again!

response 11 of 22:

Sep 9 00:30 UTC 1991

IBM's v5.0, Mac's v7.0, and Amiga's v2.0 all sounds like major
improvements, and all occurring at about the same time.  It's some
kind of a sign.  Some kind of a conspiracy.  All three machines
were deliberately held back with less than ideal operating systems.
Some kind of cosmic alignment of the universe.  What if this leads
to a trend?  All computers getting the OS they deserve, right from
day 1.  Then were will we all be?

response 13 of 22:

Sep 9 05:19 UTC 1991

  nahh..  on the forthcoming ridiculously high-speed HP workstations.
of course something would have to be done about HP/UX first.

response 15 of 22:

Nov 21 18:19 UTC 1995

  Just paid $22 a meg for 1M 1X8 80ns simms. I am *very* happy, since my Plus
is using System 7.0 (with tuneup), System takes up a little over 1M of memory
and will run in a 2.5M environment.

response 17 of 22:

Jul 15 21:56 UTC 1996

  I think that that is the feature that I like the best. Well, the drag and
drop is cool too.

response 19 of 22:

Jul 19 06:10 UTC 1996

You should get a program like "Memory Mapper", which shows a detailed map of
where things are located. it's probably somewhere on the umich archives.

Yeah 7.5 is a hog. It's a lot worse with the GX printer stuff.

response 21 of 22:

Jul 20 13:11 UTC 1996

ftp://ftp.the.net/mirrors/ftp.utexas.edu/util/memory-mapper-111.hqx