Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: virtual memory
Message-ID: <2535@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 26 Oct 89 06:33:13 GMT
References: <695.254152F7@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <3768@ast.cs.vu.nl> <1989Oct24.175530.2663@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 15

In article <1989Oct24.175530.2663@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <2492@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
> >... Let's just stop and calculate for a second.  How big a
> >square matrix of IEEE doubles will fit into 2M?

> Virtual memory is not
> magic; there is no substitute for *real* memory if you want performance.

I'm afraid that Henry Spencer missed my point.
My reference to wanting to do linear programming on a personal computer
was not an argument for virtual memory, but a riposte to a claim that
	"2M on a personal computer is enough".
That more than 2M of real memory may be needed is precisely my point.
How much real memory is "enough" for a personal computer?  As much as
will justify its price.