XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   Arno Welzel  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   
   > any other technology would have been as cheap and fast as core memory,   
   > it would have been used.   
      
     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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)