Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
Windows 9 64Bit only
Message
From
07/06/2012 05:27:05
Metin Emre
Ozcom Bilgisayar Ltd.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
 
To
07/06/2012 03:13:25
General information
Forum:
Visual FoxPro
Category:
Other
Environment versions
Visual FoxPro:
VFP 9 SP1
OS:
Windows 7
Network:
Windows 2008 Server
Database:
MS SQL Server
Application:
Desktop
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01545323
Message ID:
01545563
Views:
69
>>>>>>>...Let this discussion rest until a 128bit or 256bit version of Windows is released, which will not happen before I'm dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you think work until dead? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Seriously, I don't expect a 128bit or 256bit Windows version, except maybe server versions, to arrive within the next 30-40 years.
>>>>
>>>>They did not expect a qwerty keyboard and screen for outputs (they used printer for output) at Space 1999... :)
>>>>
>>>>Maybe there will no Windows at next 30-40 years, maybe everyone will use Facebook OS. I'm serious too...
>>>
>>>I can't say how accurate my memories are about this... but here goes.
>>>
>>>it's only been about 40 years ago when 8-bit micros were just becoming available. We're talking about 64KB address space (w/ most systems "maxing out" on RAM at 48KB).
>>>... and about 31 years since introduction of the IBM-PC w/ 16-bit 8088 CPU, which had 1MB address space.
>>>... and about 28~29 years since the introduction of IBM PC/AT w/ 80286 that had 16MB address space.
>>>... 23~24 years since the introduction of 80486 systems which could theoretically be set up to go up to 4GB. (I remember back then, 4GB was a HUUUGE amount of memory, and definitely a pipe dream of even coming close -- IIRC, available harddisk size of that time wasn't even close to that level).
>>>... about 20 years ago with the introduction of Win 3.1, real mode memory addressing was a thing of the past..
>>>... and about 18 years ago there was the big push to go from 16-bit to 32-bit
>>
>>The Intel 80386 was the real game-changer, not the 486, which was really an optimized derivative. Apparently introduced around '85-'86.
>
>Yep, SCO Unix on a 386 with somewhere around 25 Wyse terminals and (OMG) COBOL - worked good. Though, in my mind, the 286 was the game changer. It was the first CPU fast enough to make a productive workstation on a LAN. At that point it really made sense to start deploying serious business apps on PCs.

My vote for 386. I have a customer their server was novell 3.12, 486-16 MB ram, it was excellent. My notebook has 8 gb ram i7 and it's slow...
Previous
Next
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform