That's a good point, though like you I don't know of anything that ever
tried to take advantage of that theory (though I wouldn't have been paying
enough attention at the time to confidently comment, so...). Since it's
not 'common knowledge' that it was done, I'd surmise either 1) the reality
is
Not sure how any of that relates to my post.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:47 AM ben via cctalk
wrote:
> On 2023-06-22 10:04 p.m., Ken Seefried via cctalk wrote:
> > Didn't see anyone mention it, but one should recall that the whole memory
> > space on the 8088/8086 was 1M, so a 'limit' (whatever
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023, Ken Seefried wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention it, but one should recall that the whole memory
space on the 8088/8086 was 1M, so a 'limit' (whatever kind) of 640K wasn't
Well, it only has 20 address bits. But it can address much more memory
because it has additional
On 2023-06-22 10:04 p.m., Ken Seefried via cctalk wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention it, but one should recall that the whole memory
space on the 8088/8086 was 1M, so a 'limit' (whatever kind) of 640K wasn't
the dumbest computer design decision ever made. In addition to that, Intel
was telling
Didn't see anyone mention it, but one should recall that the whole memory
space on the 8088/8086 was 1M, so a 'limit' (whatever kind) of 640K wasn't
the dumbest computer design decision ever made. In addition to that, Intel
was telling people to get ready to jump to iAXP432 because 8086/80286 was
Along the same lines as the 640K quote, I vaguely remember reading a book
that quoted Bill Gates when asked about developing any software for NeXTSTEP
(Probably porting Microsoft Office to compete against Lotus Improv and Word
Perfect) where his reply was "Develop for it? I'll piss on it!"
It's
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:26 PM Tomasz Rola via cctalk
wrote:
> I guess we are all prisoners of our own mental frame. I recall that
> Ken Olsen (DEC founder), once quipped "There is no reason for any
> individual to have a computer in his home." - that was in 1977,
> according to wikiquote:
>
>
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 02:43:06AM -0500, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> I don't think Gates ever actually said this - but that's just based on my
> own examination into this from a few years back.
>
> But, over the years I've done some thread programming, and I was once
> solving a problem by
Weird but I even seem to remember someone saying "who woukd been more than 64k"
Ed# SMECC
Sent from AOL on Android
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:43 AM, Steve Lewis via
cctalk wrote: I don't think Gates ever actually said
this - but that's just based on my
own examination into this from
I think what he meant was ' no application needs more than 640k - the rest
is for the operating system'
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023, 08:43 Steve Lewis via cctalk,
wrote:
> I don't think Gates ever actually said this - but that's just based on my
> own examination into this from a few years back.
>
>
I don't think Gates ever actually said this - but that's just based on my
own examination into this from a few years back.
But, over the years I've done some thread programming, and I was once
solving a problem by loading a lot of data into main memory (like 8-16GB of
data to process as one huge
On 6/15/2023 12:48 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
Well, I don't know about the 640KB quote, but he did say that OS/2 (what
was to become Warp 3) had Microsoft's full commitment. (cf "The OS/2
handbook"). At the time he said it,
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Well, I don't know about the 640KB quote, but he did say that OS/2 (what
> was to become Warp 3) had Microsoft's full commitment. (cf "The OS/2
> handbook"). At the time he said it, MS was already developing NT and
> had not the
Well, I don't know about the 640KB quote, but he did say that OS/2 (what
was to become Warp 3) had Microsoft's full commitment. (cf "The OS/2
handbook"). At the time he said it, MS was already developing NT and
had not the slightest intention of honoring that statement.
What I also remember is
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023, Ali via cctalk wrote:
So I had always heard the quote "640KB is enough memory" being attributed to
Bill Gates. However, recently I was watching Dave Plummer on YT and he said
that it is not true:
https://youtu.be/bikbJPI-7Kg?t=372
And apparently the man himself has denied it
A 100% verifiable quote about memory from 1981:
> Apple Computer president, A. C. Markkula, Jr. is confident that
> Apple products will continue to do well. “The IBM is more expensive
> than the Apple II, and the Apple III offers better performance,” he
> says.
> Markkula points out that
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 12:22 PM Will Cooke via cctalk
wrote:
>
>
> > On 06/14/2023 12:58 PM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
> wrote:
> >
> > As far as the Bill Gates quote, I do remember reading an actual longer
> > quote somewhere (?), the context was lost from a larger paragraph if one
> > takes
> On 06/14/2023 12:58 PM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> As far as the Bill Gates quote, I do remember reading an actual longer
> quote somewhere (?), the context was lost from a larger paragraph if one
> takes just the snippet statement IIRC.
>
Maybe the longer quote was "I never
I remember when he was a programmer, and any of his programs would run in 64K.
I remember when he didn't even have 64K.
I remember when he used 8 bit processors.
I remember when he used 16 bit processors.
I remember when he used 32 bit processors.
I remember when he distributed software on
Maybe I an state this here without getting a lot of flack apart feom of
the youruber fan boys elsewhere... Sh...but a lot of the youtubers who
claim to be experts in vintage computing history or repairs are really just
experts in Google and Wiki searching, with good speaking skills.
Just
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 9:47 PM Ali via cctalk wrote:
> So I had always heard the quote "640KB is enough memory" being attributed
> to
> Bill Gates.
Along the same lines, I remember a supposed quote from Gates to the effect that
program specifications are a waste of time because the code is the
>that there were ways to write programs that _would_ fit in
> 640K and you should be doing that.
That sentiment is an entirely different statement and meaning from the quote
which is attributed to him.
I won't comment on Dave's videos because I don't have enough "insider"
knowledge to say how
> Based on other videos of Dave's that I've watched he doesn't really
> know
> what he's talking about so I wouldn't lend much credence to his
> apocrypha
> either.
>
Well, I am willing to believe him given the PC World article that I also linked
to in my original message And snopes.com
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:21 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
wrote:
> Based on other videos of Dave's that I've watched he doesn't really know
> what he's talking about so I wouldn't lend much credence to his apocrypha
> either.
Agreed. Some months back, Dave put out one of his videos with a
Based on other videos of Dave's that I've watched he doesn't really know
what he's talking about so I wouldn't lend much credence to his apocrypha
either.
Sellam
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 9:47 PM Ali via cctalk wrote:
> So I had always heard the quote "640KB is enough memory" being attributed
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
