Always private
DuckDuckGo never tracks your searches.
Learn More
You can hide this reminder in Search Settings
All regions
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium (fr)
Belgium (nl)
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada (en)
Canada (fr)
Catalonia
Chile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India (en)
Indonesia (en)
Ireland
Israel (en)
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia (en)
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan (en)
Peru
Philippines (en)
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain (ca)
Spain (es)
Sweden
Switzerland (de)
Switzerland (fr)
Taiwan
Thailand (en)
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
US (English)
US (Spanish)
Vietnam (en)
Safe search: moderate
Strict
Moderate
Off
Any time
Any time
Past day
Past week
Past month
Past year
  1. quoteinvestigator.com

    640K ought to be enough for anyone. The term 640K refers to 640 kilobytes of computer memory. But these days a computer often has a capacious memory that is tens of thousands of times larger, and this size continues to grow. ... That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it ...
  2. en.wikipedia.org

    The 640 KB barrier is an architectural limitation of IBM PC compatible PCs. The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, was able to address 1 MB (2 20 bytes), since the chip offered 20 address lines.In the design of the PC, the memory below 640 KB was for random-access memory on the motherboard or on expansion boards, and it was called the conventional memory area.
  3. retrocomputing.stackexchange.com

    which is detailed on subsequent pages: the system is supposed to provide between 16 and 64K of RAM on the motherboard, then up to 192K as expansion, with an additional 384K possible in the future (providing 640K RAM in total); then there's a 16K reserved block, 112K for the video buffers (of which 16K at B0000 were used for MDA, 16K at B8000 ...
  4. skeptics.stackexchange.com

    I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem. More details available in the above link.
  5. retrocomputing.stackexchange.com

    The 640K limit was a hardware design limit under the control of IBM. IBM and Microsoft did work together on some aspects of the PC's hardware design, so it would be plausible that Bill Gates might have had some involvement in choosing 640K as the limit, but the practical choices would have been 512K or 768K, with trade-offs between linear RAM and hardware expansion versatility.
  6. computinghistory.org.uk

    Although Bill Gates denies making this statement, it does show how significant the breakthrough from 64K to 640K of computing memory felt to those in the computing industry at the time (the early 1980s). In the event, within five years of the arrival of 640K this level of memory was considered far too small and memory has expanded almost ...
  7. Can’t find what you’re looking for?

    Help us improve DuckDuckGo searches with your feedback

Custom date rangeX