14 Jun
2023
14 Jun
'23
4:47 a.m.
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 as well but it just will not go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no real basis in reality....
-Ali
14 Jun
14 Jun
4:19 p.m.
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 <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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 as well but it just will not
go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no real basis in reality....
-Ali
4:52 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:21 PM Sellam Abraham via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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
click-bait headline that was, well, false. He did not respond well to
that being pointed out. His "insider knowledge" hasn't impressed me.
> So I had always heard the quote "640KB is
enough memory" being attributed
> to Bill Gates
>
> And apparently the man himself has denied it as well but it just will not
> go away...
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
It's entirely possible, even probable, BG didn't say exactly those
words no matter what people think they remember. OTOH, I do remember,
back in the day, that he _did_ make a similar statement, *but* unlike
the myth, it wasn't to belittle PC users, but whatever he _did_ say
was a caution to application programmers that the max available memory
space _ought to_ be enough to write reasonable programs for the PC
market, that there were ways to write programs that _would_ fit in
640K and you should be doing that.
So I'm not gonna swear he said those words, I do remember something
along those lines was said ~40 years ago.
-ethan
5:02 p.m.
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 much is BS and how much is real. His technical
stuff sound pretty ok/right and as far as click bait goes.... well it is YT and that’s how
you make money. Linus does the same thing and so do just about any of the other channels
out there both computing and non-computing related ones. Just be glad his video thumbnail
is not a scantily dressed girl...
-Ali
5:59 p.m.
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 single sided floppy disks.
I remember when he was a millionaire.
He has been denying the 640K quote for more than 30 years.
5:58 p.m.
Maybe I an state this here without getting a lot of flack apart feom of
the youruber fan boys elsewhere... Shhhhh...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 saying.
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.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 12:52 PM Ethan Dicks via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:21 PM Sellam Abraham via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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
click-bait headline that was, well, false. He did not respond well to
that being pointed out. His "insider knowledge" hasn't impressed me.
> So I had always heard the quote "640KB
is enough memory" being
attributed
> to Bill Gates
>
> And apparently the man himself has denied it as well but it just will
not
> go away...
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
It's entirely possible, even probable, BG didn't say exactly those
words no matter what people think they remember. OTOH, I do remember,
back in the day, that he _did_ make a similar statement, *but* unlike
the myth, it wasn't to belittle PC users, but whatever he _did_ say
was a caution to application programmers that the max available memory
space _ought to_ be enough to write reasonable programs for the PC
market, that there were ways to write programs that _would_ fit in
640K and you should be doing that.
So I'm not gonna swear he said those words, I do remember something
along those lines was said ~40 years ago.
-ethan
6:22 p.m.
On 06/14/2023 12:58 PM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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 said no one will ever need more than 640K."
;)
6:46 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 12:22 PM Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
There are two details that should be brought up. The quote is bogus, sure.
Gates did work to increase the limit (There are stories of him getting the
design changed from 512k to 640k, for example). He also has said that one
shouldn't avoid the pc because of that.. which is way different than "never
need" the quote uses... both of these are quite reasonable things...
especially since obe of the original expanded memory schemes came from
Microsoft in part...
Warner
On 06/14/2023 12:58 PM CDT Bill Degnan via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 said no one will ever need more than
640K." ;)
4:56 p.m.
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.... But hey everyone is entitled to their beliefs...
;)
-Ali
5:02 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 9:47 PM Ali via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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 specification.
paul
15 Jun
15 Jun
2:17 a.m.
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 publications have been
incorrect in saying
that the IBM has more memory capacity than the Apple III. In fact,
Markkula says, both systems could support up to 256K RAM. Apple
however, currently offers 128K only. “We could offer more, but
frankly we don’t know what anyone would do with that memory.”
"Old-Timers Claim IBM Entry Doesn’t Scare Them"
<https://books.google.com/books?id=JT0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&ots=UIUJBsfNdl&pg=PA5-IA2#v=onepage&q&f=true>,
*InfoWorld*, 5 October 1981
5:06 a.m.
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 this:
For the developers who paid for the advance copy of the "new OS/2"
(about $3000, IIRC), MS sent out copies of NT 3.1. Under threat of
lawsuit, they relented and refunded the advance payments.
--Chuck
5:48 a.m.
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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 slightest intention of honoring that statement.
What I also remember is this:
For the developers who paid for the advance copy of the "new OS/2"
(about $3000, IIRC), MS sent out copies of NT 3.1. Under threat of
lawsuit, they relented and refunded the advance payments.
--Chuck
When shipped, Visual Basic v1 stated that it was for Windows and OS/2. I purchased it due
to this. They only included the Windows version.
By the time MS released Windows 95, I had a system running Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2,
which by then was owned by IBM. Lotus SmartSuite was so buggy that I saw the writing on
the wall, and bought my first Mac, a PowerBook 520c. I’m typing this email on a Mac. If
MS had delivered an OS/2 version of Visual Basic, there is a good chance I’d be typing
this on Windows.
Zane
6:19 a.m.
On 6/15/2023 12:48 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I worked for 3 years learning the internal communications APIs on OS/2
to support and enhance a common networking layer for Compuware
applications called "Generalized Communications Services (GCS)" as part
of the "GCS" team at that firm. The layer was used by all of the OS/2
front ends connecting to legacy OS/370 mainframe apps that Compuware
sold (Xpediter, File-Aid, etc.). I used to joke that all of that skill
was then useless as the world moved to NT. In reality, there are lots
of similarities between the OS/2 and WinNT IPC and networking APIs, but
that made for a less interesting story! :-)
GCS would no doubt cause people here to cringe, but I think it was
impressive for the time. It provided a common naming service (ala DNS)
for protocols such as LU.2, LU6.2, Named Pipes, NetBIOS, and TCP/IP, and
offered a way to simulate full duplex operation over half duplex LU2
channels. It also worked with all of the Windows 3.1X 3270 emulators of
the day and offered the ability to send arbitrary length data over LU2,
even with the significant constraints of LU2 screen sizes. Efforts were
helped by realizing that most emulators would allow for very large
screen sizes (128x128, or sometimes even 128x512, which would allow 16kB
- 64kBto be transmitted in one packet). There was a "hub" defined which
could seamlessly convert from one protocol to another if the sending
code found out from the naming service that the receiver was on a
different protocol, as the sender would send to the hub, which would
convert and then send to the recipient.
The emergence of TCP/IP on Windows for Workgroups, Win95, WinNT3.1, and
zOS spelled the end of GCS.
As a further anecdote for those caring about 370, a man by the name of
Walter Falby at Compuware got so frustrated at IBM's initial TCP/IP
protocol stack for the zOS environment he borrowed by Comer networking
books and implemented (in 370 assembler) an entire TCP/IP protocol stack
(called HCI) I think Compuware sold to customers for a while until the
IBM code got better... That developer reminded me so much of the "Mel"
of Internet Folklore fame.
/me still has his copy of OS/2 v3 and Warp sitting here.
Jim
--
Jim Brain
brain(a)jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com
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 this:
For the developers who paid for the advance copy of the "new OS/2"
(about $3000, IIRC), MS sent out copies of NT 3.1. Under threat of
lawsuit, they relented and refunded the advance payments.
--Chuck
When shipped, Visual Basic v1 stated that it was for Windows and OS/2. I
purchased it due to this. They only included the Windows version.
By the time MS released Windows 95, I had a system running Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2,
which by then was owned by IBM. Lotus SmartSuite was so buggy that I saw the writing on
the wall, and bought my first Mac, a PowerBook 520c. I’m typing this email on a Mac. If
MS had delivered an OS/2 version of Visual Basic, there is a good chance I’d be typing
this on Windows.
Zane
2:57 a.m.
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 as well but it just will not go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no real basis in reality....
"nobody needs more than 640K of memory now" would not be unreasonable.
"nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory now" would be unreasonable.
He has been denying it for more than 30 years.
But, if he had said it, then he would certainly like to deny it.
16 Jun
16 Jun
7:43 a.m.
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 chunk, on a system that only had 32GB total).
A while later, I had a thought that actually maybe this quote has some
merit. Maybe not the specific amount (of 640KB) - but the general notion
that there is rarely a reason for a single application to consume the
entirety of main memory. It may be better, especially with threads or
multi-core, to work a problem in smaller chunks -- specifically, to work a
problem in chunks smaller than the CPU cache. And in fact, I found a huge
jump in my programs performance when I kept the buffers exactly 1 byte less
than the CPU cache (at the time that was 1MB) - as soon as I went 1 byte
over, I noticed a huge (~3X) hit in performance. Now that's just a single
data point, and the old advise of "never optimize your program for
performance too early" is probably still good. And especially most shops
won't spend the time/resources to cache optimize their builds - I suspect
some games do at startup, they maybe profile what your L3 cache size.
Anyhow, years ago I recall coming across a quote or an article where Gates
stated the IBM PC (or maybe the 8088 cpu itself) was designed or intended
to only "last" about 10 years. Not that the system components itself would
only last that long, but as it being a "useful" system. In that context,
maybe he was right (if he had said it) - 640K was maybe "enough for anyone"
for the remainder of the 1980s. I recall starting with 384KB (thinking
anything past 128KB was "huge") and doing upgrades in the late 1980s to get
to 640KB, and not getting into extended/expanded memory until the early
90s. This would be for "typical" household applications (taxes, small
business, word processing) - obviously image processing (CAD, movie
rendering, etc.) or multi-user servers do need more memory.
I also recall that it was Intel that requested to keep it to 10 segments of
64KB (640KB), not really a Microsoft or MS-DOS doing. i.e. aspects beyond
Microsoft wanted to reserve the "upper memory" for other stuff (video
memory). You have 16 segments, how many to hold in reserve? Someone
chose 6. Quick and Dirty OS indeed.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:47 PM Ali via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 as well but it just will not
go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no real basis in reality....
-Ali
8:08 a.m.
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, <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 loading a lot of data into main memory (like 8-16GB of
data to process as one huge chunk, on a system that only had 32GB total).
A while later, I had a thought that actually maybe this quote has some
merit. Maybe not the specific amount (of 640KB) - but the general notion
that there is rarely a reason for a single application to consume the
entirety of main memory. It may be better, especially with threads or
multi-core, to work a problem in smaller chunks -- specifically, to work a
problem in chunks smaller than the CPU cache. And in fact, I found a huge
jump in my programs performance when I kept the buffers exactly 1 byte less
than the CPU cache (at the time that was 1MB) - as soon as I went 1 byte
over, I noticed a huge (~3X) hit in performance. Now that's just a single
data point, and the old advise of "never optimize your program for
performance too early" is probably still good. And especially most shops
won't spend the time/resources to cache optimize their builds - I suspect
some games do at startup, they maybe profile what your L3 cache size.
Anyhow, years ago I recall coming across a quote or an article where Gates
stated the IBM PC (or maybe the 8088 cpu itself) was designed or intended
to only "last" about 10 years. Not that the system components itself would
only last that long, but as it being a "useful" system. In that context,
maybe he was right (if he had said it) - 640K was maybe "enough for anyone"
for the remainder of the 1980s. I recall starting with 384KB (thinking
anything past 128KB was "huge") and doing upgrades in the late 1980s to get
to 640KB, and not getting into extended/expanded memory until the early
90s. This would be for "typical" household applications (taxes, small
business, word processing) - obviously image processing (CAD, movie
rendering, etc.) or multi-user servers do need more memory.
I also recall that it was Intel that requested to keep it to 10 segments of
64KB (640KB), not really a Microsoft or MS-DOS doing. i.e. aspects beyond
Microsoft wanted to reserve the "upper memory" for other stuff (video
memory). You have 16 segments, how many to hold in reserve? Someone
chose 6. Quick and Dirty OS indeed.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:47 PM Ali via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 as well but it just will not
go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is
another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no
real basis in
reality....
-Ali
9:05 a.m.
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<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 loading a lot of data into main memory (like 8-16GB of
data to process as one huge chunk, on a system that only had 32GB total).
A while later, I had a thought that actually maybe this quote has some
merit. Maybe not the specific amount (of 640KB) - but the general notion
that there is rarely a reason for a single application to consume the
entirety of main memory. It may be better, especially with threads or
multi-core, to work a problem in smaller chunks -- specifically, to work a
problem in chunks smaller than the CPU cache. And in fact, I found a huge
jump in my programs performance when I kept the buffers exactly 1 byte less
than the CPU cache (at the time that was 1MB) - as soon as I went 1 byte
over, I noticed a huge (~3X) hit in performance. Now that's just a single
data point, and the old advise of "never optimize your program for
performance too early" is probably still good. And especially most shops
won't spend the time/resources to cache optimize their builds - I suspect
some games do at startup, they maybe profile what your L3 cache size.
Anyhow, years ago I recall coming across a quote or an article where Gates
stated the IBM PC (or maybe the 8088 cpu itself) was designed or intended
to only "last" about 10 years. Not that the system components itself would
only last that long, but as it being a "useful" system. In that context,
maybe he was right (if he had said it) - 640K was maybe "enough for anyone"
for the remainder of the 1980s. I recall starting with 384KB (thinking
anything past 128KB was "huge") and doing upgrades in the late 1980s to get
to 640KB, and not getting into extended/expanded memory until the early
90s. This would be for "typical" household applications (taxes, small
business, word processing) - obviously image processing (CAD, movie
rendering, etc.) or multi-user servers do need more memory.
I also recall that it was Intel that requested to keep it to 10 segments of
64KB (640KB), not really a Microsoft or MS-DOS doing. i.e. aspects beyond
Microsoft wanted to reserve the "upper memory" for other stuff (video
memory). You have 16 segments, how many to hold in reserve? Someone
chose 6. Quick and Dirty OS indeed.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:47 PM Ali via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 as well but it just will not
go
away...
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=5214635
So I guess like the napkin/disk story and the DR/IBM story this is another
one of those vintage myths and folk lore with no real basis in reality....
-Ali
17 Jun
17 Jun
2:26 a.m.
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 loading a lot of data into main memory (like 8-16GB of
data to process as one huge chunk, on a system that only had 32GB total).
A while later, I had a thought that actually maybe this quote has some
merit. Maybe not the specific amount (of 640KB) - but the general notion
that there is rarely a reason for a single application to consume the
entirety of main memory. It may be better, especially with threads or
multi-core, to work a problem in smaller chunks -- specifically, to work a
problem in chunks smaller than the CPU cache. And in fact, I found a huge
jump in my programs performance when I kept the buffers exactly 1 byte less
than the CPU cache (at the time that was 1MB) - as soon as I went 1 byte
over, I noticed a huge (~3X) hit in performance. Now that's just a single
data point, and the old advise of "never optimize your program for
[...]
If you want to know about max possible speedup, try to run memtest -
it requires booting into the mem testing procedure. Numbers are
impressive, even if the best ones are for smallest (L1) caches.
Anyhow, years ago I recall coming across a quote or an
article where Gates
stated the IBM PC (or maybe the 8088 cpu itself) was designed or intended
to only "last" about 10 years. Not that the system components itself would
only last that long, but as it being a "useful" system. In that context,
maybe he was right (if he had said it) - 640K was maybe "enough for anyone"
[...]
For those who would like more of BG sayings, here you are:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
There you have it, 640KB (he denies) and 6-10 years is somewhere
there, too... And some more.
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:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Olsen
This claim surprised me a bit. He denied himself a hell of lucrative
future market. OTOH, he was born in 1926 (BillG in 1955) - back then a
phone was still a luxury... An idea that everybody could have their
own phone with unique number sounded like total bollocks, I suppose
(also: do we have enough women to work at the switchboard). The idea
that one could have something in place of radio broadcasting (but
similar in function) which would have been tailored to each one's
individual gusto? Ha...
Then we have folks in DRI, who were surprised when, after releasing
their latest CP/M (the one capable of multiuser/multitasking, cannot
dig the exact version or quote source), they found out user used those
capabilities to run few programs at once (on two terminals side by
side) rather than for server-multiuser thingy. Their surprise
surprised me, as I quickly learned to annex neighboring vt52 (I can
only guess, vt52, but made in Poland, by Mera-Elzab - looked like this
one: https://www.elzab.com.pl/images/historia/8%20Mera7953.jpg ) and
have edt in one and compiler errors in another - it took me only few
days of doing my small assignment on university VAX.
Seeing how people make this kind of omissions, I am nowadays tempted
to think they were not really using their own products, or at least
not too hard. Did not challenge themselves as users.
BG, while I am not at all his fan... well, not too much, on the one
hand he sold quite a shitty tech and became disgustingly rich from it
(and this very fact could be a one-line summary of what humanity is),
on the other hand, let's imagine Linux won and all those clueless
people call me in the middle of the night, shit, how do I run emacs, I
barked a dog at it and computer still not running.
Anyway, as much as I am not a fan, I think BG was quite competent.
--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola
--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
** **
** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com **
5:26 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:26 PM Tomasz Rola via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Olsen
One version of that story is he told it to David Ahl who was trying to
pitch a <$2000 PDP-8 for the home market (IIRC a configuration like a
4-slot box with a KK8A, some basic I/O and a smallish MOS RAM card -
too small to compete with a "real" PDP-8 system).
Ken's reaction was an element of what led to David going off to found
Creative Computing, as the story goes.
-ethan
23 Jun
23 Jun
4:04 a.m.
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
nothing but a stopgap, and anyway the 80286 was for high-end minicomputer
replacements, so why assume that more than 1M on an 8086-type CPU for PCs
for an OS that was going to be obsoleted anyway was the future.
KJ
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 1:26 AM Ethan Dicks via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:26 PM Tomasz Rola via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> 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:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Olsen
One version of that story is he told it to David Ahl who was trying to
pitch a <$2000 PDP-8 for the home market (IIRC a configuration like a
4-slot box with a KK8A, some basic I/O and a smallish MOS RAM card -
too small to compete with a "real" PDP-8 system).
Ken's reaction was an element of what led to David going off to found
Creative Computing, as the story goes.
-ethan
4:47 a.m.
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 people to get ready to jump to iAXP432 because 8086/80286 was
nothing but a stopgap, and anyway the 80286 was for high-end minicomputer
replacements, so why assume that more than 1M on an 8086-type CPU for PCs
for an OS that was going to be obsoleted anyway was the future.
KJ
The 640K is a minor point.Look at the PDP 11 you had hoards virtual
memory but code and data only 64kb each. Same as the Intel's small
model. How long were OS's crippled by this fact?
Did the iAXP432 just have 64kb segments as well?
Ben.
30 Jun
30 Jun
2:56 a.m.
Not sure how any of that relates to my post.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:47 AM ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
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 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
nothing but a stopgap, and anyway the 80286 was for high-end minicomputer
replacements, so why assume that more than 1M on an 8086-type CPU for PCs
for an OS that was going to be obsoleted anyway was the future.
KJ
The 640K is a minor point.Look at the PDP 11 you had hoards virtual
memory but code and data only 64kb each. Same as the Intel's small
model. How long were OS's crippled by this fact?
Did the iAXP432 just have 64kb segments as well?
Ben.
23 Jun
23 Jun
7:37 a.m.
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 information on some status pins about what
segment register is used for adressing. So in theory, you could have one
separate 1Mb of memory for each possible segment register. Or at least you
could easily separate the stack from the other memory.
Anyone here know of a design that actually made use of this?
Christian
30 Jun
30 Jun
3:02 a.m.
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 harder than the theory, or 2) it made more sense to wait for Intel chips
with less limitations, which seemed to me to be what was going on at the
time. But certainly an interesting 'what if'.
KJ
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 3:37 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
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 information on some status pins about what
segment register is used for adressing. So in theory, you could have one
separate 1Mb of memory for each possible segment register. Or at least you
could easily separate the stack from the other memory.
Anyone here know of a design that actually made use of this?
Christian
510
days inactive
526
days old
24 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
Adrian Godwin -
Ali -
ben -
Bill Degnan -
Christian Corti -
Chuck Guzis -
ED SHARPE -
Ethan Dicks -
Fred Cisin -
Jim Brain -
Ken Seefried -
Paul Koning -
Sellam Abraham -
Steve Lewis -
Tomasz Rola -
Warner Losh -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net -
Yeechang Lee -
Zane Healy