followup: Rinky dink hamfest

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Mon Mar 29 12:28:07 1999

I don't know why I posted the previous empty reply . . . it's hell getting
old . . . <sigh>

I would mention that I had 128K in each of my Systems Group systems and
never used it under CP/M. MP/M had a mechanism for cashing in on extra
memory, but it was awkward at best under CP/M 2.2.

Needless to say, the use of a RAMdisk would speed things up, but unless
there was an extensive amount of software for managing it, and that took up
too much TPA, even a RAMdisk didn't help much.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: followup: Rinky dink hamfest


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
><classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
>Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:26 AM
>Subject: Re: followup: Rinky dink hamfest
>
>
>>At 08:40 AM 3/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Joe, CP/M-80 is 2.2,
>>
>> I looked throgh the XEROX manuals last night. There's a separate manual
>>for 2.2, CPM-80 and CPM 86 and MS-DOS 2. 2.2 is the oldest in this bunch.
>>
>>> and real computers don't need more than 64K...
>>
>> Yeah I know but 128K is nice to have.
>>>
>>>The 820, at least the later ones, used big 984K discs. I hardly ever ran
<snip>
Received on Mon Mar 29 1999 - 12:28:07 BST