Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159556

Re: Delay Line Memory

From Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Newsgroups alt.folklore.computers
Subject Re: Delay Line Memory
Date 2016-02-16 22:19 -0500
Organization National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Message-ID <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602162218310.21952@darkstar.example.org> (permalink)
References <na03mr$ttc$1@dont-email.me> <a96bdf8d-4419-477d-a3d5-6eefc4772139@googlegroups.com> <173119089.477366490.706150.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote:

> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:21:16 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> Yesterday I saw a video on YouTube about a delay line memory device.  It did
>>> *not* use mercury or any liquid to hold and circulate the memory contents.
>>> Instead it had a *wire*!!!  The wire was physically twisted at one end ot
>>> input the bit.  The other end "decoded" the bit and also re-circulated the
>>> bit.
>>
>> As someone else mentioned, there was probably some sort of electrical
>> component to receive and then pass on each bit.  The delay in doing so
>> allowed for the memory.
>>
>> Old issues of C&A had ads for "pulse transformers", which may have been
>> used for delay line memory.
>>
>> Today, it's hard to believe that core memory was once so expensive that
>> cheaper alternatives were sought.
>>
>> When IBM introduced the 650, which used a magnetic drum for memory,
>> I think core was available, but the drum was cheaper.  Later variants
>> of the 650 had a tiny bit of core for buffers.  As just discussed,
>> the low end 1401 had only 1,400 characters of memory in it.
>>
>> Question:  when IBM introduced its PC, it had up to 640k of memory.
>> I think smaller amounts were available, with a cheaper price.  Did
>> customers actually want to save a few bucks and go for the cheaper
>> and smaller PC?  (To me, it seemed people couldn't wait for expanded
>> and extended memory to come out so the PC could get up to 1 meg and
>> even beyond, so it's hard to believe people would accept less than 640k.)
>>
>
> Memory was expensive, you bought what you needed.  Many people bought
> whatever Lotus 1-2-3 wanted, maybe 128K?
>
And I seem to recall IBM wanted more for the memory than other companies.

So it often was cheaper to buy a barebones IBM, and then load it up with 
memory and even a floppy drive or two, than pay IBM prices.  It even got 
better as third party companies started selling IBM bits, so you could buy 
that Hercules video card that was better than what IBM offered originally.

   Michael

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:21 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-16 15:41 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:18 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 17:36 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:57 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 15:08 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-17 01:31 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:25 +0100
    Re: Delay Line Memory Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:14 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:46 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2016-02-17 18:18 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:44 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:43 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 01:24 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
      Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 22:19 -0500
      Re: Delay Line Memory JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:34 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-16 20:06 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 20:23 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:35 +1100
    Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
      Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:27 -0600
          Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 04:14 +0000
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:07 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-17 01:30 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 19:11 -0500
      Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 23:13 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:25 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-17 23:16 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 12:01 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:46 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:13 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 04:49 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:21 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 04:51 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:16 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:50 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 06:31 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory G. <gerry77@no.spam.mail.com> - 2016-02-17 04:08 +0100
  Re: Delay Line Memory Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-17 08:19 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 14:57 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:43 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-19 22:13 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:17 +0000
      Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 09:17 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 09:20 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 18:49 -0800
        Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-20 21:06 -0800
  Re: Delay Line Memory jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2016-02-17 18:23 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-17 23:06 -0800

csiph-web