Prev: When does Windows go into Standby mode?
Next: Keyboard does not start after Windows XP starts up
From: Greg Russell on 31 Mar 2010 12:50
In news:hovt2b$d53$1(a)news.eternal-september.org,
Alias <aka(a)masked&anonymous.com.invalido> typed:

> people like you will believe _anything_ that Billy tells them.
>
> OK, you win.

Don't worry, there are more just like you, and many of them have the last
name of "MVP".

On second thought, *DO* worry.


From: Bob I on 31 Mar 2010 14:10


Greg Russell wrote:
> "klafert" <klafert(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9951DDF1-5107-4CD7-981E-5665EAC697E1(a)microsoft.com...
>
>
>>Yes a 1 MB chip I still have the old one which is a 1 MB
>
>
> Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
> memory.
>
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9101699/The_640K_quote_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_

From: Bob I on 31 Mar 2010 14:14


Greg Russell wrote:

> "Alias" <aka(a)masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovr84$9cf$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>>>Billy-Boy Gates stated some years ago that nobody needs more than 640K of
>>>memory.
>>
>>And when he said it, it was true.
>
>
> No, it most certainly wasn't, and people like you will believe _anything_
> that Billy tells them.
>
> I was running mathematical models at the time that simply couldn't be run
> with that little of memory, so they were compiled and run on 32-bit systems
> such as SunOS. The very numerous "himem" 3rd-party programs to extend the
> memory beyond the Billy-mandated 640K barrier were a drain on cpu cycles, as
> well as a significant source of additional "bugs" beyond the inherent M$
> ones.
>


The 640 kB barrier is an architectural limitation of IBM and IBM PC
compatible PCs. The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, was
able to address 1024 kB (1 MB or 220 bytes), as the chip offered 20
address lines. The lower limit was due to hardware mapping
(memory-mapped I/O):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory

From: Greg Russell on 1 Apr 2010 18:12
In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed:

> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...

No, it was an 8086.


From: Ken Blake, MVP on 1 Apr 2010 19:41
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:12:07 -0700, "Greg Russell"
<grussell(a)invalid.con> wrote:

> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>
> No, it was an 8086.



Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: When does Windows go into Standby mode?
Next: Keyboard does not start after Windows XP starts up