info-cpm (11/26/82)
>From mknox@Utexas-11 Fri Nov 26 13:02:55 1982
To: info-cpm@BRL
Via: Utexas-11; 26 Nov 82 13:47-EST
Via: Brl; 26 Nov 82 13:56-EST
Via: Brl-Bmd; 26 Nov 82 14:14-EST
Actually, there are some good cases for a larger TPA. Microsoft (and probably
others) seem not to have heard of a virtual memory loader. The L80 program
requires that it be able to fit both the loader AND the program in memory
at the same time. Couple that to the fact that the loader keeps growing with
each version, and that BLANK COMMON takes up room even during load.
What you have left is programs that you have to squeeze over and over to make
load, but which have lots of memory left free when they are executed.
Conclusion: My system needs more memory (at present) than the person who
runs a .COM file.
-------info-cpm (11/28/82)
>From dag@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.ARPA Sun Nov 28 13:15:13 1982
Received: from UCBARPA.BERKELEY.ARPA by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
id A23818; 28-Nov-82 11:38:13-PST (Sun)
Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
id A25542; 28-Nov-82 13:24:36-PST (Sun)
To: info-cpm@BRL, mknox@Utexas-11
Via: Ucb-C70; 28 Nov 82 14:47-EST
Via: Brl; 28 Nov 82 14:58-EST
Via: Brl-Bmd; 28 Nov 82 15:23-EST
There are a whole lot of reasons for a larger TPA..that's why
bigger micros are so nice. The main problem is one of compatibility..
what should software developers support?