Re: LZ: More RAM

Subject: Re: LZ: More RAM
From: barrym <barrym@neosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:52:22 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <TCPSMTP.16.9.3.14.18.52.17070.662@undergnd.metrobbs.com>

On Tue, 3 Sep 1996 vikings@undergnd.metrobbs.com wrote:

> IN>He sure did.  The gist of it was "Nobody will ever need more than 640K of
> IN>memory."  And that's why we still have the 640K barrier to this day.
> 
> IN>--timmyt
> 
> 
> I'm confused. 640k of what? It can't be RAM or hardrive. So what is it?

Ram.  Bill Gates is often said to have made the statment, in the
early days of dos, that 640k was more ran than anybody would ever
need.  He denies that he said it.  But in those days, given the
technology and the direction PCs seemed to be taking, it
wasn't such a dumb statement.  Most computers were sold with
between 32 and 64k and even the 32k ones were adequate for most
users.  A program more than 20k in size was unusual and only
one program could be run at a time.  TSR's were small.  Everything
was written in asm in those days.

Hmmmm.  Maybe he was right.  Do we really need these bloated
programs and operating systems?  My 64k Kaypro with it's 10
meg hard drive (partitioned to 2 5 meg drives because CP/M
couldn't handle a 10 meg drive) and it's 4 mhz Z80, is plenty
fast for word processing.  Faster than my pentium with Windows
and Word.

Barry

References:

From: