🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sheldon.803657460@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu> sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:

>From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon)
>Newsgroups: alt.comp.shareware,alt.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.misc,alt.sources,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer.turbovision,alt.fan.bill-gates,aus.computers,aus.computers.ibm-pc,alt.sources,aus.sources,comp.sys.ibm.pc
>Date: 20 Jun 95 14:11:00 GMT
>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

> I think that you will find that those programs which take up 50 Megs of RAM
>on todays computer do CONSIDERABLY more than their counterparts 15 years ago
>running on a 64K RAM system with a 180K floppy, or even 5 years ago with 1
>meg of ram, and a 40 meg harddrive.

I don't know if you do programing by yourself. But I know that this
argument is not that valid because the programs don't offer that much
more functionality to justify THAT much memory requirements.

I see that, for an OS, it would be good to have more memory. But to
use this memory for the OS only is nonsense. You can't tell me that an
GUI, Multitasker and some device drivers need up 4 or 8 MB. Do you know
how much code fits in a memory this size (including text)?

-- 
bye, Gerhard Gruber
FIDO: 2:310/81.11
e-mail: Gerhard.Gruber@aut.alcatel.at   (only until 26th June)
        gruber2@ibm.net                 (prefered)

If there are any misspellings in my postings, (and I'm sure there
are :) ), feel free to email me. Since I'm not a native English
speaker I'd appreciate someone pointing out my mistakes.