My first job out of college had a Honeywell 115 Mod 2 box. Hard drive (singular) was 10 MB. RAM was 32K of magnetic core. 6 bit CPU and 7 track 556 bpi tape (3 of them).
Thought we were going to heaven when it was replaced by an HP 3000 with 7 hard drives of 47 MB each and 512 KB memory. The phone I'm typing this on is many times more powerful than that! On Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 12:20 Roberts K <roberts.klot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Blast from the past, > Yes, I do remember when 200mb hard drive was quite big harddrive to buy in > the shop. I was fairly young man then :-D. But W541 is pretty sweet > machine. I run linux on P70 and do not foresee the need to change it > anytime soon. > Roberts > > > > > Now this Lenovo work station I am sitting at is ancient. The W541's were > > the last of the W series. Still, this little thing I v=can pick up and > > carry around has HUNDREDS of times as much capacity as those three 3350 > > hard drives and it has many gbytes of core, enough to load into core > > that entire database several times. > > -- > Dr Roberts Klotins > > > > On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 17:32, Michael or Penny Novack via gnucash-user < > gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote: > > > On 9/19/2024 11:16 AM, Roberts K wrote: > > > In my experience the amount of data is relatively small (even for > > thousands > > > of records) > > > > A bit of historical perspective is needed, particularly because our > > heads have not yet absorbed a fundamental change in technology. > > > > Back in my working days, the IBM 3350's (hard drives) held somewhat over > > 300 mbytes each and our programs on the mainframe had about 10 mbytes > > core (the OS took about 6 mbytes from every program's virtual space. > > > > So a large database might span three drives and only a tiny bit of it at > > a time could fit into core. > > > > Now this Lenovo work station I am sitting at is ancient. The W541's were > > the last of the W series. Still, this little thing I v=can pick up and > > carry around has HUNDREDS of times as much capacity as those three 3350 > > hard drives and it has many gbytes of core, enough to load into core > > that entire database several times. > > > > We (NOW) load entire databases into core because we can. We didn't > > before because we couldn't (and the ones that did work that way could > > only handle small databases) > > > > Michael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnucash-user mailing list > > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > > ----- > > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > ----- > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
