MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » September 2011

Re: CISC (ugh!) question



fixed

Might have been based on memory chip density & the system's number of
physical slots for memory features.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM, John McKee <jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A few weeks ago, I saw something on the list about how a modern system
(can't recall if the system referred to was a 270 or whatever). Just
remember that "the doctor" described the possible memory expansion for it.
And that expansion was not "official" from IBM as I recall.

Which brought this nagging question to mind. There is no practical value
to any answer - except pure unrelenting curiosity. I worked with a B50. It
was purchased with 24M of RAM. Prior to my arrival, a deal was made to swap
the genuine IBM memory for 48M of IPL memory. That system was loaded down
beyond belief.

I was told that 48M was the absolute maximum memory that the B50 could
address.

This was obviously way before any customer oriented maintenance on a RISC
system.

Was 48M the absolute maximum memory that the old beast could support?

My assumption, based on tremendous change in nearly 20 years is that 48M
was indeed the maximum. But, why 48? Not a power of 2.


John McKee
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.









Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact