Google Groups Home Help | Sign in
Message from discussion Bill Gates: "I never said '640K should be enough for anybody!'"
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Tom Betz  
View profile
 More options Feb 1 1996, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers, alt.folklore.urban
From: Tom Betz <tb...@pobox.com>
Date: 1996/02/01
Subject: Bill Gates: "I never said '640K should be enough for anybody!'"
Bill Gates writes a column distributed by the New York Times Syndicate.  

Here's an excerpt from a recent column.

Excerpted from: CAREER OPPORTUNITIES IN COMPUTING -- AND MORE (1/19)
                <http://nytsyn.com/live/Gates/019_011996_094929_4351.html>

             By BILL GATES
             c.1996 Bloomberg Business News
[...]
QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should
be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?

ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No
one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is
enough for all time.

The need for memory increases as computers get more potent and software gets
more powerful. In fact, every couple of years the amount of memory address
space needed to run whatever software is mainstream at the time just about
doubles. This is well-known.

When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for its
role. These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space,
would last forever. They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bit
programming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.

We at Microsoft disagreed. We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640K
of available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years. (The
IBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space. But 384K of this was assigned
to special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available. That's where the
now-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.)

A few years later, Microsoft was a big fan of Intel's 386 microprocessor chip,
which gave computers a 32-bit address space.

Modern operating systems can now take advantage of that seemingly vast
potential memory. But even 32 bits of address space won't prove adequate as
time goes on.

Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says
640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats
like a rumor, repeated again and again.
--------------------------------- end excerpt ---------------------------------

Does anyone have the cite for the first time this statement was attributed to
Bill Gates?

--
---- Tom Betz --------- <http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> ------ (914) 375-1510 --
  tb...@pobox.com | We have tried ignorance for a very long | tb...@panix.com
------------------+ time, and it's time we tried education. +-----------------
-- Computers help us to solve problems we never had before they came along. --


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google