Originally posted by omega leader Isn't 64k enough for everyone? I begin to think Bill was right. At this size we can reproduce the lass at greater than life size.
<offtopic geek note>
Not Bill's fault. The original PC was designed with a nice, clean 1 megabyte address range. But then, for whatever horrible cost-saving reason, the top 384k of that address space was reserved for hardware access — you could write directly into video memory which was mapped into those addresses. So, 640k limit of actually usable RAM, and nothing the OS could do about it — all IBM's fault, not Microsoft's.
(Well, short of horrible tricks, which were eventually employed.)
</offtopic geek note>