followup: Rinky dink hamfest - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

29 Mar 1999

I don't know why I posted the previous empty reply . . . it's hell getting
old . . . <sigh>

I would mention that I had 128K in each of my Systems Group systems and
never used it under CP/M.  MP/M had a mechanism for cashing in on extra
memory, but it was awkward at best under CP/M 2.2.

Needless to say, the use of a RAMdisk would speed things up, but unless
there was an extensive amount of software for managing it, and that took up
too much TPA, even a RAMdisk didn't help much.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher &lt;edick(a)idcomm.com&gt;
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
&lt;classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu&gt;
Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: followup: Rinky dink hamfest

...

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe &lt;rigdonj(a)intellistar.net&gt;
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
&lt;classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu&gt;
Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: followup: Rinky dink hamfest

>At 08:40 AM 3/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Joe, CP/M-80 is 2.2,
>
>  I looked throgh the XEROX manuals last night. There's a separate manual
>for 2.2, CPM-80 and CPM 86 and MS-DOS 2.  2.2 is the oldest in this bunch.
>
>> and real computers don't need more than 64K...
>
>  Yeah I know but 128K is nice to have.
>>
>>The 820, at least the later ones, used big 984K discs.  I hardly ever ran
<snip>