what billg really said about 640k .. - Linux

This is a discussion on what billg really said about 640k .. - Linux ; "I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: what billg really said about 640k ..

  1. what billg really said about 640k ..

    "I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the
    upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is
    why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the
    software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the
    microprocessor", billg 1993

    '640K ought to be enough for anybody', unattributed and denied by
    billg

    "I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says
    640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just
    floats like a rumor, repeated again and again", billg 1996

    http://www.weingraber.com/quotes/p/b/bill-gates.php
    http://www.faktoider.nu/640kb_eng.html

  2. Re: what billg really said about 640k ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:d096d375-db9f-407e-ba96-11e78b72ea62@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
    > "I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the
    > upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is
    > why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the
    > software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the
    > microprocessor", billg 1993
    >
    > '640K ought to be enough for anybody', unattributed and denied by
    > billg
    >
    > "I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says
    > 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just
    > floats like a rumor, repeated again and again", billg 1996
    >
    > http://www.weingraber.com/quotes/p/b/bill-gates.php
    > http://www.faktoider.nu/640kb_eng.html


    So?

    Is a technical retard like you claiming that there's something wrong or
    inaccurate here?


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: what billg really said about 640k ..

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:07:08 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> "I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the
    >> upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is
    >> why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the
    >> software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the
    >> microprocessor", billg 1993
    >>
    >> http://www.weingraber.com/quotes/p/b/bill-gates.php
    >> http://www.faktoider.nu/640kb_eng.html

    >
    > I've always wondered, though, was it Gates that laid out the memory as
    > above, or Intel engineers?


    Intel and IBM.

    The original chip design had a block of memory starting at address zero
    used for interrupt vectors, another block of memory from FFFF0h-FFFF0h
    for "startup code", and after reset, jumps to address FFFF0h to execute
    code.

    Which means your BIOS basically has to start at address FFFF0h - 16 bytes
    short of the 1MB memory capacity. Your BIOS is going to have to
    encompass at least the last 16 bytes of the address space in order to
    have something useful living at the "startup" address, so it makes sense
    to put the BIOS up near the top end of the space.

    Which means you now have a chunk in the middle for everything else -
    adapter BIOSes, video memory, application code and data, etc, etc, etc.

    So IBM chose the upper end of the space to stuff in all the vendor-
    supplied crud, leaving space from 0400h (i.e. after the interrupt table)
    up to bottom-of-reserved for your applications to use.

    Between actual BIOS, video memory, reserved space for expansions and the
    like, the reserved area started around the 1MB - 384K area, leaving some
    640K (minus interrupt vectors) for program use.

    Or, in short, Slick Willie had nothing to do with it; it was all Intel
    and IBM.

    As to the quote, "640K ought to be enough for anybody", it is often
    attributed to Slick Willie, but doesn't seem to have any actual basis in
    reality.

    If anyone were to have made such a quote, I'd expect it to have been one
    of the GEOS boys, not Bill. I talked to one of their developers many
    moons ago and one of the comments made was the endless discussions they
    had between themselves in developing the OS. The goal was to keep the
    entire thing in a single 64K segment, thus using faster near calls and
    avoiding segmented memory accesses, but this meant an endless procession
    of emails and the like saying "I need three bytes - who has unassigned
    space?" and the like.

    If anyone would regard 640K as more than sufficient, I suspect it would
    have been them.


+ Reply to Thread