XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   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. And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage,   
   > even if it is technically possible to keep information without powering   
   > the memory.   
      
     Well, we (HP) sold computers (2116/2115/2114) with BASIC, were the   
   core memory kept the 'OS', the interpreter and the user's program(s).   
   They did not have mass storage, only paper tape for the intitial load of   
   OS/interpreter and to save/load programs.   
      
     Same for the 9100A/B 'calculator's of the time. Program and data in   
   core memory. Yes, program and data could be loaded from and saved to   
   creditcard-sized magnetic cards, but core memory was definitely intended   
   to be non volatile storage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)