Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!dbuck
From: dbuck@superior.carleton.ca (Dave Buck)
Subject: Re: Future of 16-bit and 32-bit Smalltak/V's?
Message-ID: <CwJvCB.AK1@cunews.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <m0qnpV9-000BqGC@nextsrv1.andi.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:21:46 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <m0qnpV9-000BqGC@nextsrv1.andi.org>,
Jay Anthony <janthony@nextsrv1.andi.org> wrote:
>This is really frustrating... we were all set to begin development of  
>a commercial application for Smalltalk/V, but it appears that the  
>Win32 version simply can't produce reasonable sized apps for us (we  
>need to work *well* in 8Meg RAM).

Some clients I'm working with are in a similar boat.  This is
something we are quite concerned about.  Our app at this time has an
image file (V.EXE file) of just over 1 Meg. On an 8 Meg system, it
takes almost a minute to load the app.  We're considering binding and
unbinding Smalltalk DLL's at runtime, but this is only a partial
solution.

Digitalk claims that version 3.0 will have lower memory requirements
than 2.0 Win32.  I wonder, however, if the difference will be
significant.  After all, Windows and Win32 themselves take up a
considerable amount of memory (6 Megs, I hear, though I haven't
measured it).

As for using Envy Packager, unfortunately, this product is not
available for the Win32 version of Envy and it's not at all clear that
OTI will release one.

If you come up with any novel solutions, let me know.


David Buck
dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca

_________________________________
| David K. Buck                 |
| dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca         |
| The Object People             |
|_______________________________|
