XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:   
      
   > Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-13 23:15:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:59:35 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-11 02:00:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> So you never used core memory.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even   
   >>>>> when it can be used this way.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from   
   >>>> the core memory era ...   
   >>>   
   >>> Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".   
   >>   
   >> Neither term was used back then. I certainly didn’t use them in this   
   >> context.   
   >   
   > It does not matter, if you use that term. I talk about the real world   
   > usage.   
      
   So was I.   
      
   > And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...   
      
   It did work that way, you know. By design.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)