[Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs

Thu Jul 29 11:58:19 CDT 2010

I remember that in 2000, I bought a 128MB Flash Drive for $40... Now you can
get like 32 GB ones for that much...

David Runneals
E: david at runneals.com
W: runneals.com
W: wipperman-runneals.com

Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail.

> I saw a person's Outlook cache file the other day that was 19GB large.
>  A friend pointed out to me that his first computer (he's a youngin')
> had no more than 4GB of hard drive space total.
>
> You know how people compare memory and hard drive space like that?
> They scratch the salt on their shoulder and say <mock deep voice> 'I
> remember when computers only came with 500 MB of RAM.'  Well, it seems
> to me like that can only go so far back.  There was a certain point
> (the mid 80s?) where there started to emerge a PC standard, in the
> form of the "IBM PC compatible".  I'm a latecomer to this scene, so
> correct me if I'm wrong, but before that time computers were largely
> packaged as complete products where you got what you got, and there
> were several different types.
>
> Comparing the amount of RAM in a Commodore 64 to a modern PC doesn't
> make sense.  The Commodore 64 or others didn't have the same
> architecture, they didn't use RAM in the same way.  Obviously it's
> amazing that we can package several gigs of memory into a single stick
> of silicon these days and it's actually affordable.  That's clearly
> better than we could do in 1985.  But there's something not quite
> right about comparing them as if there's some linear scale they both
> exist on.
>
> --
> Todd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:31:23 -0500
> From: Matthew Nuzum <newz at bearfruit.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs
> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group <cialug at cialug.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=9UQOwfjkTm_dgYzcVHw27+dMdF8iRVpBAC7Y9 at mail.gmail.com<9UQOwfjkTm_dgYzcVHw27%2BdMdF8iRVpBAC7Y9 at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Todd Walton <tdwalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I saw a person's Outlook cache file the other day that was 19GB large.
> >  A friend pointed out to me that his first computer (he's a youngin')
> > had no more than 4GB of hard drive space total.
> >
> > You know how people compare memory and hard drive space like that?
> > They scratch the salt on their shoulder and say <mock deep voice> 'I
> > remember when computers only came with 500 MB of RAM.'  Well, it seems
> > to me like that can only go so far back.  There was a certain point
> > (the mid 80s?) where there started to emerge a PC standard, in the
> > form of the "IBM PC compatible".  I'm a latecomer to this scene, so
> > correct me if I'm wrong, but before that time computers were largely
> > packaged as complete products where you got what you got, and there
> > were several different types.
> >
> > Comparing the amount of RAM in a Commodore 64 to a modern PC doesn't
> > make sense.  The Commodore 64 or others didn't have the same
> > architecture, they didn't use RAM in the same way.  Obviously it's
> > amazing that we can package several gigs of memory into a single stick
> > of silicon these days and it's actually affordable.  That's clearly
> > better than we could do in 1985.  But there's something not quite
> > right about comparing them as if there's some linear scale they both
> > exist on.
> >
> >
> There are a few important considerations in here.
>
> 1. User productivity - presumably, more powerful computers with more
> resources allow computers to do things automatically that make end users
> more productive. For example, squigly underlines telling you of spelling
> errors as you type replacing a manual "check spelling" button and a dialog
> showing each error separately
>
> 2. Developer productivity - early computer software required very careful
> resource planning. From the amount of RAM used to the number of floppy
> disks
> required to ship it. Modern computers resources are ample enough that
> developers don't have to think about this too much enabling them to bring
> software to market more quickly.
>
> I'm certain older non pc hardware had serious constraints that users
> thought
> about. The old emacs joke says that emacs stands for "eight megs (of ram in
> my computer) and constantly swapping" implying that a machine with a
> whopping 8 MB of RAM was not enough to get good performance out of emacs.
> And you should see the hurdles people jumped in order to accommodate linear
> access storage mediums. (yes, I am old enough to have had a computer with a
> tape drive as the main storage, but I was only about 8 at the time)
>
> --
> Matthew Nuzum
> newz2000 on freenode, skype, linkedin, identi.ca and twitter
>
> "Never stop learning" ?Robert Nuzum (My dad)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20100729/f964a290/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:42:11 -0500
> From: <murraymckee at wellsfargo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs
> To: <cialug at cialug.org>
> Message-ID:
>
>  <0C42FC22D9143A4FA9FA3FC2EF5CFA0731F94A58D4 at MSGCMSV21015.ent.wfb.bank.corp
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> One of the programs I was assigned to maintain early in my career had a
> comment in the front.  Requires 64K of main memory - will not run in 32 K.
>  This was an IBM 370 mainframe program, although the program hasn't been
> updated since the 360 era.  I just checked and that program is still in use
> and it hasn't been updated in 25 years.  The comment is still there too.
>
> My first linear storage was punch tape.
>
> Murray McKee
> Operating Systems Engineer
> WFFIS - Wells Fargo Financial Information Systems
> 800 Walnut Street
> MAC F4030-037
> Des Moines, IA 50309-3605
> WORK (515)557-6127 Cell (515) 343-6630  FAX (515) 557-6046
> MurrayMcKee at WellsFargo.com
> "This message may contain confidential and / or privileged information.  If
> you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,
> you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message
> or any information herein.  If you have received this message in error,
> please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
> message.  Thank you for your cooperation."
>
> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Nuzum
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:31 AM
> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Todd Walton <tdwalton at gmail.com<mailto:
> tdwalton at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I saw a person's Outlook cache file the other day that was 19GB large.
>  A friend pointed out to me that his first computer (he's a youngin')
> had no more than 4GB of hard drive space total.
>
> You know how people compare memory and hard drive space like that?
> They scratch the salt on their shoulder and say <mock deep voice> 'I
> remember when computers only came with 500 MB of RAM.'  Well, it seems
> to me like that can only go so far back.  There was a certain point
> (the mid 80s?) where there started to emerge a PC standard, in the
> form of the "IBM PC compatible".  I'm a latecomer to this scene, so
> correct me if I'm wrong, but before that time computers were largely
> packaged as complete products where you got what you got, and there
> were several different types.
>
> Comparing the amount of RAM in a Commodore 64 to a modern PC doesn't
> make sense.  The Commodore 64 or others didn't have the same
> architecture, they didn't use RAM in the same way.  Obviously it's
> amazing that we can package several gigs of memory into a single stick
> of silicon these days and it's actually affordable.  That's clearly
> better than we could do in 1985.  But there's something not quite
> right about comparing them as if there's some linear scale they both
> exist on.
>
> There are a few important considerations in here.
>
> 1. User productivity - presumably, more powerful computers with more
> resources allow computers to do things automatically that make end users
> more productive. For example, squigly underlines telling you of spelling
> errors as you type replacing a manual "check spelling" button and a dialog
> showing each error separately
>
> 2. Developer productivity - early computer software required very careful
> resource planning. From the amount of RAM used to the number of floppy disks
> required to ship it. Modern computers resources are ample enough that
> developers don't have to think about this too much enabling them to bring
> software to market more quickly.
>
> I'm certain older non pc hardware had serious constraints that users
> thought about. The old emacs joke says that emacs stands for "eight megs (of
> ram in my computer) and constantly swapping" implying that a machine with a
> whopping 8 MB of RAM was not enough to get good performance out of emacs.
> And you should see the hurdles people jumped in order to accommodate linear
> access storage mediums. (yes, I am old enough to have had a computer with a
> tape drive as the main storage, but I was only about 8 at the time)
>
> --
> Matthew Nuzum
> newz2000 on freenode, skype, linkedin, identi.ca<http://identi.ca> and
> twitter
>
> "Never stop learning" -Robert Nuzum (My dad)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20100729/53935ffb/attachment.htm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20100729/2a0c729b/attachment-0001.htm 