[Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs

Thu Jul 29 14:51:04 CDT 2010

 "What would anyone need that much space for?"

Solid state drives are getting a bit of steam. Just think-one day we
will/could have solid state Petabyte/Exabyte drives, and x-Terabyte bus
speeds.

Any thought on what that much speed + space would be needed for? (aside from
never deleting anything. ever again)

</Back_to_the_Future_logic>

-emeacham (@work)

From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf
Of David Runneals
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:58 AM
To: cialug at cialug.org
Subject: Re: [Cialug] I Remember When Computer Specs

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
<mailto: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/20100729/90757d80/attachment-0001.htm 