Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.editors
Subject: Re: What is an animal or an SSD drive? (Was: blah, blah, blah) Android editors
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:54:05 +0100
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <m27vkoFud22U3@mid.individual.net>
References: <vnj2dj$2daj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vnp10s$tt74$2@dont-email.me> <r0h57lxcrc.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net> <vnqf6t$3pvrg$1@news.xmission.com> <m0gon3Faa5cU1@mid.individual.net> <vo0ubp$2k46v$1@dont-email.me> <m0kg75FsnacU1@mid.individual.net> <vo380k$34a3i$6@dont-email.me> <m0n9r5Fc0mmU6@mid.individual.net> <vo6j0u$3p489$3@dont-email.me> <m0olqtFj22lU2@mid.individual.net> <vo8poc$8tqo$1@dont-email.me> <m0tp8qFdkfhU1@mid.individual.net> <voe7ev$1f0us$2@dont-email.me> <m16tokFs58qU1@mid.individual.net> <volqti$33ijk$1@dont-email.me> <m1j7b8Fq6p8U1@mid.individual.net> <vp2vki$1t1e6$3@dont-email.me> <m1qqqmF717U1@mid.individual.net> <vpb2k5$3kapt$3@dont-email.me> <m26cs6Fn5c8U1@mid.individual.net> <vpl95m$25q46$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 8Qf6shqpE30ZfwUaEB4/YwcQ6R6EaA9s2kyJNXnh3max8PIVUA
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uSWCvwxD5WqTZgZq1ZKlVllhsB0= sha256:EIHZreXwxhB+OLddx02KaAvvtRLyHRL5mauA5v4L87A=
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vpl95m$25q46$2@dont-email.me>
Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.android:146876 alt.comp.os.windows-10:182564 comp.editors:106695

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-25 21:28:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:27:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
>>>>>
>>>>> It did work that way, you know. By design.
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevant for what I said.
>>>
>>> You said it wasn’t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
> 
> It was non-volatile. That is a matter of indisputable fact.
> 
>> As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
>> replaced core memory within a few years ...
> 
> Why wait for *non-volatile* ones? If the non-volatility was not important, 
> the replacement would have happened sooner.

No, *volatile* of course. I was just not checking my text before sending
it.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de