🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RMBP4C3@dri.com>, frotz@dri.com (Frotz) writes:
> joonsong@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Suk-Hyun Song) writes:
> ]In article <35010004@hpfinote.HP.COM> pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) writes:
> ]>... you'll never be able to get > 600 K free with MS-DOS
> ]>and one of QRAM, 386MAX etc. (unless you use hercules card). This is
> ]>because MS-DOS must reside in low memory.
> 
I personally think it is the responsibility of the operating system to
recognise the extra memory, quite apart from the slight efficiency gains in
putting such stuff into the o/s rather than an add-on product. This isn't to
say these products aren't wonderful, rather Microsoft has been dragging its
feet (in my humble opinion) for too long.  The makers of DR DOS seem to have a
more sensible attitude to what should go into an o/s (and what shouldn't); so 
it gets my vote for more reasons than a few Kb here and there (actually, I
manage to get around 800Kb available memory on a 386 with mono screen, but on
many 286's I get around 600Kb - still a worthwhile improvement to some people).

> ]I suppose this is all a matter of definition.
> ]Does a 640K computer have 640000 bytes or 655360?
> ]If you think 1K = 1024 bytes, then 600K = 614400 bytes.
> ]       Or if 1K = 1000 bytes, then 600K = 600000 bytes.
> 
I think we should standardise on small "k" to mean 1000 (as it does everywhere
else), and capital "K" for 1024, so 640Kb = 655.36 kilobytes. The problems
really come when we talk of disk space in Megabytes - may mean 1000000 bytes or
1000Kbytes or 1024Kbytes; 1024000 is silly, methinks, but a lota people seem to
use it!

Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.