To this day common internet lore "knows" that, allegedly, Bill Gates at some point uttered the now-famous statement "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (referring to the IBM PC, which for like a decade had a 1MB memory limit, 384 kilobytes of it reserved for the hardware and 640 kilobytes being available for the running software).
It's actually unknown where this claim, and this utterance, originates from. The earliest instances of it appearing on the internet is the signature (ie. footer) of a usenet post made in 1992. This in itself makes it highly suspect, especially given that Bill Gates allegedly said it in the very early 1980's (the year 1981 being the most commonly suggested year). How come some usenet post made ten years after the fact is the oldest record of this whole thing that we can find? No other mention anywhere. No news articles (online or offline), no mentions in any website by anybody, anywhere...
It's quite likely that somebody just made up this quote and attributed it to Bill Gates. Bill Gates himself has categorically denied ever having said it, or anything like it. (Of course it's theoretically possible that he's trying to hide and cover up a blunder, but given everything else, I don't find that possibility very likely.)
A more detailed lore has formed around the quote, most probably completely apocryphal and made-up. Namely, that this happened particularly at a computer trade show in 1981, as a response to some criticism against the hard memory limit of the just-introduced IBM PC.
(Some alternative theories state that this was not said by Bill Gates, but by some IBM engineer or representative at said show, and that it was only later misattributed to Gates. However, while certainly possible, it's also somewhat unlikely, given that there's no track record of this until 11 years later in a random usenet post.)
Anyway. Let's just forget for a moment whether this was actually said by somebody in all seriousness to defend the IBM PC, or whether it was just invented by some random dude as a false quote by Bill Gates.
Instead, let's just examine the statement itself, and whether it's actually reasonable, given the context. Remember, we are talking about the very early 1980's, and the IBM PC was just introduced as a very affordable home computer for the masses, significantly faster and with significantly larger RAM than any other home computer of the time. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that "640K ought to be enough for anybody" was indeed said in defense of the computer in some kind of computer trade show in 1981.
Is the claim utterly stupid, or does it actually make sense?
People mock the claim (and that was most probably what that usenet poster was thinking when he wrote it in his signature) because it, seemingly, is saying that 640 kilobytes of RAM should be enough for anybody... forever. In other words, people interpret it as quite literally saying "nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory. It will suffice for anybody for all time."
However, that's not what it's actually saying.
Let's look at it from another perspective. Consider that if somebody were to ask (and this is actually quite commonly asked): "How much RAM is enough for modern PC video games?"
As a proper answer one could very well say "16 GB ought to be enough for anybody." And it would actually be a very sensible and correct answer.
It would be saying that currently, at this moment, 16 gigabytes is more than enough for any video game, and pretty much any practical activity you would want to do with a gaming PC.
It's not saying "16 GB will be enough forever, to the end of time; you will never need any more than that."
Now consider the setting in which the original quote was allegedly said: In 1981 your typical home computer had 64 kilobytes of RAM, and sometimes even less. In that context, in that time period, 640 kilobytes was ten times what you would have typically found in a home computer. Thus, in that context, it was clearly enough for any potential customer who would be interested in such a home computer. It's no different than nowadays 16 gigabytes being more than enough for pretty much anything you could do with a modern gaming PC. There was simply no application in 1981 that a normal user would have used that would have required more RAM than that. Not even close.
So is the utterance, even if it's real, stupid? No, it's not. It's completely sensible for the time period it was (allegedly) said in.
It's actually unknown where this claim, and this utterance, originates from. The earliest instances of it appearing on the internet is the signature (ie. footer) of a usenet post made in 1992. This in itself makes it highly suspect, especially given that Bill Gates allegedly said it in the very early 1980's (the year 1981 being the most commonly suggested year). How come some usenet post made ten years after the fact is the oldest record of this whole thing that we can find? No other mention anywhere. No news articles (online or offline), no mentions in any website by anybody, anywhere...
It's quite likely that somebody just made up this quote and attributed it to Bill Gates. Bill Gates himself has categorically denied ever having said it, or anything like it. (Of course it's theoretically possible that he's trying to hide and cover up a blunder, but given everything else, I don't find that possibility very likely.)
A more detailed lore has formed around the quote, most probably completely apocryphal and made-up. Namely, that this happened particularly at a computer trade show in 1981, as a response to some criticism against the hard memory limit of the just-introduced IBM PC.
(Some alternative theories state that this was not said by Bill Gates, but by some IBM engineer or representative at said show, and that it was only later misattributed to Gates. However, while certainly possible, it's also somewhat unlikely, given that there's no track record of this until 11 years later in a random usenet post.)
Anyway. Let's just forget for a moment whether this was actually said by somebody in all seriousness to defend the IBM PC, or whether it was just invented by some random dude as a false quote by Bill Gates.
Instead, let's just examine the statement itself, and whether it's actually reasonable, given the context. Remember, we are talking about the very early 1980's, and the IBM PC was just introduced as a very affordable home computer for the masses, significantly faster and with significantly larger RAM than any other home computer of the time. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that "640K ought to be enough for anybody" was indeed said in defense of the computer in some kind of computer trade show in 1981.
Is the claim utterly stupid, or does it actually make sense?
People mock the claim (and that was most probably what that usenet poster was thinking when he wrote it in his signature) because it, seemingly, is saying that 640 kilobytes of RAM should be enough for anybody... forever. In other words, people interpret it as quite literally saying "nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory. It will suffice for anybody for all time."
However, that's not what it's actually saying.
Let's look at it from another perspective. Consider that if somebody were to ask (and this is actually quite commonly asked): "How much RAM is enough for modern PC video games?"
As a proper answer one could very well say "16 GB ought to be enough for anybody." And it would actually be a very sensible and correct answer.
It would be saying that currently, at this moment, 16 gigabytes is more than enough for any video game, and pretty much any practical activity you would want to do with a gaming PC.
It's not saying "16 GB will be enough forever, to the end of time; you will never need any more than that."
Now consider the setting in which the original quote was allegedly said: In 1981 your typical home computer had 64 kilobytes of RAM, and sometimes even less. In that context, in that time period, 640 kilobytes was ten times what you would have typically found in a home computer. Thus, in that context, it was clearly enough for any potential customer who would be interested in such a home computer. It's no different than nowadays 16 gigabytes being more than enough for pretty much anything you could do with a modern gaming PC. There was simply no application in 1981 that a normal user would have used that would have required more RAM than that. Not even close.
So is the utterance, even if it's real, stupid? No, it's not. It's completely sensible for the time period it was (allegedly) said in.
Comments
Post a Comment