Re: 64 gig memory

If they had an RPQ to extend it to 96K then why not got 128K, if you 
added the extra address bit why not use it to its maximum usefulness?

Paul

Sven Pran wrote:

><ArarghMail708NOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:osded3lenn2t3acpjvv80m76map70ndoq3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
>
>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:31:08 -0400, SkippyPB
>><swiegand@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:16:32 GMT, spambait@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>In article <1188406631.848750.235750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
>>>>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 first job -- 370 Model 145 with 256K sup****ting a Fortune 500 
>>>>cor****ation.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>My first job was for a whole/retail company that had a 360 model 30. I
>>>don't recall the memory size but I believe it was around 256K.  It ran
>>>      
>>>
>>I didn't think a 30 could have that much memory.
>>    
>>
>
>It couldn't.
>
>64K was the maximum but I was once told that IBM had an RPQ
>which allowed extending the 30 to 96K. (I never had it confirmed.)
>
>Sven 
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Paul S. Hinman - VE6LDS
long West 113 deg 27 min 20 sec
lat  North 53 deg 27 min 3 sec
Maidenhead Locator DO33gk