-"640 Kb should be enough to do anything" (Bill Gates). (Minimum RAM requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are 65535 Kb)

-"The future computers shouldn't weight more than 1,5 Tons" (Popular Mechanics, 1949)

-"I think there is a global market up to 5 or 6 computers, roughly" (Thomas Watson, IBM president, 1943)

(sorry if it's a bad translation )

Nice
LOL

I got a few for ya:

"Endless Loop: n., see Loop, Endless."
"Loop, Endless: n., see Endless Loop."
- Random Shack Data Processing Dictionary

"There is no reason anyone in the right state of mind will want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, President of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977.

"I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere."
- Anonymous

"When the programme refuses to work as intended, change the specification to fit the programme. It's easier than vice versa."
- Briefing for new programmers joining Microsoft, 1995

"Yeah, microchips, but what... is it good for?"
- an IBM senior enginner, 1968

"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'"
- Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Computer

(etc. you can find lots of others using Google)


btw: 64 MB = 65536 kB, not 65535 kB

Quote:

btw: 64 MB = 65536 kB, not 65535 kB

True, but thanks to some heavy Microsoft optimizations you only NEED 65535kB

64 MB of RAM to run WinXP is logical.
What is definetly not logical is 500 MHz to emulate a 3,5 MHz computer...

And one more sentence (bad translated, of course):

"To understand what is recursivity first you should understand what recursivity is".

Quote:

True, but thanks to some heavy Microsoft optimizations you only NEED 65535kB

LOL

I can imagine a P-IV with "only" 64 Mb running WinXP ....

Quote:

64 MB of RAM to run WinXP is logical. What is definetly not logical is 500 MHz to emulate a 3,5 MHz computer...

What is logical about an OS requiring 64MB? Still remember I wrote this kick-ass MIDI tracker for MSX in just 15kB (plus it used 48kB of uncompressed data for screens and instrument tables and such). Nowadays I create games for the GameBoy Advance and we have to fit them in either 4MB or 8MB (yes, there are 16MB and 32MB ROMs but they're too expensive to publish). You can squeeze a lot of stuff in memory (be it Read Only or Random Access) as long as you know your limit. If you look at those 4kB/64kB demos you'll see what I mean. Microsoft seems to create its own limits, forcing us to upgrade. Instead of living with the standard, it's always easier to expand the standard.

Well said. And by expanding the standard over and over again, the charm of computing disappears, I think....

Therefor, I like gameconsoles and handhelds.....They have a lifetime of about 5 years and one can really learn the machine....And achievements can be seen in perspective....The hardware is fixed....I like that....

So you are trying to say that a operating system like Windows XP should need let us say 4MB or something like that? Or 15KB with some KBs with uncompressed data?
And it's us who want more and more, not Microsoft. We can always decide not to buy the new windows, and start to do something with our lives instead of blaming Microsoft...

You feel as if you could decide?

Wow...

And yes, the same OS could be done in 4MB if technology would've forced those engineers to do so (fyi: W95 runned pretty much okay on a 486SX25 with 4MB and XP doesn't look that much different from a user's point of view)