20 Nov
2012
20 Nov
'12
3:16 p.m.
On 20 November 2012 22:02, Jules Richardson
<jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose it's so cheap these days that it makes
no meaningful difference to
the cost of a device to give it 32KB or 32MB; may as well give it the larger
value and offer a more choice to the masses. There are probably cases of
certain OSes refusing to run because the host platform has _too much_ RAM,
but I'm struggling to think of any right now.
BOS was a bit picky sometimes....
http://www.global3000.co.uk/comphist.html
Now that was/is a nice OS - back around 1990 I brought a copy home and
had it running three concurrent users, each with four tasks, on an
Amstrad PC1512 (8086, but upgraded to 640K RAM and a 10Mb after-market
hard drive) - I was using BBC Micros as terminals.. I loved the way
you could copy applications and user-data between widely different
architectures without a thought.