XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10
Arno Welzel <
usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Frank Slootweg, 2025-02-25 19:25:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn?t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't. This was just the side-effect of using magnetic cores.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. I gave some examples from that era, where non-volatility was not a 'side-effect', but an essential property
without which the system(s) couldn't function,, especially in the
abscence of on-line mass-storage.
If a property exists in a technology, it is used - of course. But this
does not mean, that a technology was especially designed for this use case.
Nor does it mean it was *not* designed for this use case.
As I mentioned, and you conventienly snipped:
"That's just your opinion, not a fact. Anyway neither of 'us' can
prove that either way."
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years, because the proporty "non
volatile" was not the important thing. Instead having a lot of cheap RAM >> was much more important - also when core memory was invented.
I think you mean "*volatile* integrated circuits", otherwise the rest
of your comments do not make any sense. And indeed, after the second generation HP computers with core memory (2100), the third generation (21MX) had volatile RAM with ICs.
Exactly - *volatile* memory chips replaced core memory when they got available and cheaper than core memory, because implementing RAM was the
main use case for core memory and not the fact, that it is non-volatile.
Disagree. I that same period, less expensive mass storage became
available, so volatile RAM was less of a problem. N.B. When the first HP computer (2116) came out, there was *no* mass storage device available.
That (2757A) came two years later. The 21MX (volatile RAM) came eight
years after the 2116 (core memory).
Even machines with core memory still had some kind of external storage (punched tape, magnetic tape, drum memory etc.) because you still need
some kind of permanent storage even with core memory.
Yes, but as I explained, they only needed that external storage *once*
to load and for the rest only to save/load the program, not the OS. Mag
tape, drum memory, etc. are seperate cases, they are not just to load
the OS and save/load programs, but also for mass storage. The systems I mentioned, only used paper tape and magnetic cards.
Anyway. let's drop this silly (non-)discussion. As I said, it's just a
matter of opinion and we're not going to agree.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)