Re: Article: The shift away from user directed projects

["Charles E. Bortle, Jr." <cbrtjr@ix.netcom.com>]

Hello Lou,

Good ones too, but no, I _was_ thinking of the 4k comment.
In the early S100 8bit 8080 / Z80 CP/M days someone made
a comment that nobody would ever need more than 4k of memory.
Those machines could use up to a whopping 64k ;-)  I actually
recieved comments similar to the 4k comment when I wanted to
upgrade from 32k to 64k on my S100 machine.

(By the way, I had set up a bank switching system on that machine
well before the PC was a gleam in Phil Estridge's (sp?) eyes and,
of course, before LIMS EMS.  I had 64k RAM plus a 32K EEPROM
board.)

Sorry for the off-topic :-(


--
Charles          cbrtjr@ix.netcom.com
"For God So Loved The World, That He Gave His
Only Begotten Son, That Whosoever Believeth
In Him Should Not Perish, But Have Everlasting
Life"John3:16  * http://pw2.netcom.com/~cbrtjr/wrdthing.html *
Lou Zher <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:cOsJ4.48135$U4.219264@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> Charles E. Bortle, Jr. <cbrtjr@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8d5l1b$603$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Interesting quote Ted :-)  Reminds me of the quote about
> > how nobody would ever need more than 4k of memory
> > (I think that was Bill Gates, but I cannot remember...I need
> > more memory ;-)
>
> "Nobody will ever need more than 640KB of memory" - IBM engineers, when
> deciding to top-load the adapter area to 0xA0000 on the PC.
>
> If you are thinking of the 64KB limit, that is only a limit of what a
16-bit
> register can index. That's Intel.
>
> Bill Gates _can_ be blamed for the 32MB HD limit (pre DOS 4). That
certainly
> seemed short-sighted.
>
> -LZ
> [ Do not try to e-mail me. - It is a spam trap. ]
>
>
>