XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   Arno Welzel  wrote:   
   > Frank Slootweg, 2025-02-25 19:25:   
   >   
   > > 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 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-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)