On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:18:14 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:05:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

I think he was twitting you about forgetting the unit multipler.

256? 256k? 256M? 256G? 256T? Can't do much in 256 bytes.

Ah those days when 8 K of core (RAM for you kids) would run a big
company and the 7 bit CPU cycle was 11.5 uS (IBM 1401)
256 characters was plenty for a little program. (no "bytes" yet)
I do sort of miss it.

I know this is straying from the topic, but your core comments brought
back some memories. I have a core board here somewhere that I bring
out every now and then to show people. I think it holds a whopping
4096 bits. (64 x 64 It looks like a window screen with small magnetic
donuts at each intersection - you can determine the size by counting
the bits). And, your 11.5 us cycle time equates to a 85 kHz processor
- not megahertz - not gigahertz - but kilohertz. Those were fun
times. You had to write what any modern programmer would call
terrible unsupportable code to get it to fit in the available memory
and run fast enough. Things like changing the program on the fly so
the next time an instruction executed, it would do something else.