Re: 64 gig memory

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:52:56 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <SnlBi.27272$mp6.25482@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urjlew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> hancock4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> > I saw an ad for IBM's Z9 mainframe, saying it had 64 gigabytes of
core
>> > (RAM) memory.  My first thought was "64, that's kind of low", and
then
>> > I realized we were' talking gig, not meg, not K.
>> > 
>> > When I started we had a machine with 192K sup****t an entire hospital.
>> > My next job was big time, 8 Meg, with maybe 1-2 gigabytes in disk
>> > memory (3330s with 200Meg packs).
>> > 
>> > It blows my mind that everything we had on disk memory could now be
>> > left permanently in core memory since it's so cheap and we have so
>> > much of it.  Of course, disk memory is cheap too.
>> > 
>> Well heck that's only four key fob memory sticks worth. :)
>> So 64G or 512G RAM memory capacity is no more awesome, except
historically.
>> But of course it makes a difference if it's really fast.
>
> And I remember talking to guy who had to wait till after work to run 
> jobs that took up more than 32K.

And, I remember -- as an IBM Hardware C.E. -- working evenings to apply 
engineering changes to the mainframe systems in Denver -- because the 
customer was still treating the computer like a typewriter:  At 5 P.M. 
they turned them off and went home!!  Such easy access did not last long 
-- once the bean counters pointed out the folly of that to the PHB's.

Jonesy
-- 
  Marvin L Jones    | jonz          | W3DHJ  | linux
   38.24N  104.55W  |  @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 config.com | Jonesy |  OS/2
    *** Killfiling google posts: <http://jonz.net/ng.htm>