What the #$*()& is Dave Doing?
Do not question us.
a.k.a. "You're too stupid to think for yourself" or "We know what you want, better than you do"
we should've known when he showed us the first sign:
then came the second sign:
What's wrong with the statement "640k should be enough for everybody"? It was a statement about current and immediate future memory needs at the time, not about how much everyone will ever need in the future.
Brent P. Newhall
I thought Bill G refuted that statement anyway.
And anyway, it was after the fact and had nowt to do with MS. IBM designed the IBM PC. They put the memory mapped I/O and ROM in the top 384K of the address space. And, unlike the 68000 (let's say), the 8086 addressing is such that you can't just expand the number of available address bits and have it work.
<<even if you extended it slightly>>
If BillG was referring to the 8086, then it is understandable, as (IIRC) the 8086 had only 10-bits of address space. When the 80386 came out, DOS extenders like DOS/4GW and PMODE/W became wildly popular to break the real-mode 640K limit. But there was some funky address mapping going on for the bottom 1MB address space, and it was hairy doing timer interrupts stuff and making call-backs to real-mode DOS and BIOS services. Actually, now that I think about it again, the whole PC design is quite silly...
tommyhl: "how long before 4GB becomes insufficient?"
rexguo and Brent:
I don't care what BrainyQuote says, Bill Gates never made the 640k comment. It's an urban myth, and there is no news source that can be referenced that indicates he ever said that.
In my very first job in 1980 I worked for a team building microprocessor based avionics systems. I was asked to write a report assessing the merits of two new microprocessors then just coming on to the market - the Zilog Z8000 and the Intel 8086. My conclusions were that the 8086 was marginally better, but that a whole megabyte of address space was totally unnecessary, and I couldn't imagine who would use it.
As Tim Sullivan notes, it's not certain that Bill Gates ever made the statement "640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - it was more likely someone at IBM or possibly Intel. The 640K barrier was a hardware limitation (in the processor chip) at the time, as mentioned by tommyhl in an earlier reply.
Well given BillG's ability to avoid giving straight answers or deny things, as displayed during the anti-trust trials, he could be denying ever made that 640K remark after realising how silly it is. Anyway, this is pure fun speculation and it doesn't really matter to me.
Fog Creek Home