Actually, the most potent of all suspected GhGs is vaperous Dihydrogen Oxide (or Monoxide or hydroxide depending on your tastes).
If we would all just stop breathing for about 8 minutes I think global warming would cease to be an issue.
For the scientifically impaired, That's water vapor. It's emitted by every breathing thing on the planet. Get rid of water vapor and you get rid of the most prevelant GhG in existence today. Call your congressman, make clouds illegal!
There are several very humerous web sites that spoof this topic. Search for: DHMO, dihydrogen oxide, dihydrogen monoxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
All this "Save the environment" stuff is bunk. What people are trying to save is themselves/the human race. Regardless of what humans do, short of blasting Earth in to tiny bits, the environment will be fine. In the geologic/astonomical timescale we are insignificant to the planet, and this global warming thing is like a small pimple you had back in 7th grade on Wednesday night.
The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.
The planet seems to have been here for 4.5 billion years, it's traveled trillions upon trillions of miles and been bombarded by untold tons of material large and small. It's been through stages of liquid rock and solid water covering the surface, it likely will go through such stages again.
As for your project, I have a few problems with it:
1. It doesn't seem to incorporate any external changes to the system. ie: it treats the Earth as a closed system and ignores interactions with surrounding space and the local star. At least that's what I gather from the brief reading I've done so far. 2. Its conclusion will be based on the "most popular" result being the most likely. The idea as I see it is: "We'll make a bunch of guesses based on assumptions and very rough modeling, and the most often guessed result is the winner." Sounds a little less than very useful to me.
Coincidence. There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.
In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2. Environmentalists continually shout about the GhGs because it's easy to make slogans out of and it furthers their agenda.
I have no agenda but to get at truth. In my experince, accepting the first piece of data that fits your assumptions is not the way to get at truth, but a way to sell books and get on the 6:00 news.
No.. global warming is not a myth, there is solid data to show that the averge global temperature is rising. What isn't certain is WHY.
Is it "greenhouse gassses"? Is it that humans are generating more heat through burning of fuels, and throwing off the balance? IE: even if "green house gasses" were brought to 100 year ago levels, temps would still rise Is is that the Earth is going through a "warmer" part of the Galaxy/Universe? Is it that there is some change in the Earth's core causing more heat? Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about? Is it all those satellites that capture energy that normally passes the planet and direct some of back at us? It it aliens beaning an interplanetery "slow death ray" at us? Is it something else we can't think of yet?
As another poster alluded to, USB 2.0 != high speed. USB 2.0 is a new protocol standard, it happens to have two version (IIRC), standard and fast. You CAN impliment USB 2.0 and only support the older/slower transfer speed.
For whatever reason, Apple has decided to not use (perhaps not license) the "USB 2.0 (HighSpeed)" logo.
I thought the whole idea of the Mach microkernel was that the main BSD kernel could be modified on-the-fly. You could concievably save the kernel state, stop it, load a new one and restore the state, all without a restart.
You CAN do kernel changes to some degree and not restart the machine, look at SUN and Soalris.
Did similar on my beige G3. Reset my monitor arrangement, resolution, bit depth and "main monitor" settings.
I frequently run with my secondary monitor turned off, and I was confused when my login screen didn't appear. I force rebooted twice then I finally turned on the second monitor to see the LS there.
My secondary monitor is on the built-in video port and my primary is on a PCI Radeon 7000.
But that's not a solution. That's a patch to one service (WWW). You don't do anything about the other 2000+ services that may look up a name and attempt to connect to the Verisign server.
If you are really the network admin, then go to www.isc.org, download the newest version of BIND and run that as your name server. It will completely negate the entire issue of the wild card in the root server for ALL services that use DNS, not just WWW.
Re:"Don't run out and buy an Athlon 64 just yet...
on
Is Prescott 64-bit?
·
· Score: 1
There's no need to emulate anything. One of the most frequent errors is assuming the size of data structures instead of querying the system for the sizes of these structures. You can do that without ever seeing a 64 bit system.
And the reason for that, if I recall Photoshop correctly, is that the last 9 tests are all plug-ins. The G5 accelerator that Adobe shipped only sped up the core graphics engine, not any of the plug-ins. Supposedly PS8 (isn't that the next one?) will have all components re-compiled and optimized for the G5 systems.
At least I'm guessing that the G5 accelerator patch is just like the accelerator that made PS compiled for 68K run much faster on PPC.
Or for that matter, why not Perl. If you co scan CPAN you'll see Perl modules that will connect you in to most of the useful parts of OS X.
It's simple really: Apple prefers to do things in house where they have control. They don't have to fight with anyone or any standards body to revise or extent Applescript.
I can certainly see AppleScript going away in a few more revisions of the OS. With Project Builder so simple to use, Apple may just decide that actual binary programs are so easy to create that AppleScript is just no longer necessary.
Remember... Applescript was developed as a fast and easy way for people to manage small tasks without the drudgery of writing in C. In Project Builder you nary need a line of code, just drag, drop and fill in the blanks, thus eliminating the drugery.
The article referenced at the observer had absoloutly nothing to do with RFID tags or technology. It seems to describe a new version of the vernerable "ankle bracelet" that is used widely in the U.S. to track people released on parole or bail.
So we still have no viable arguments against the deployment of RFID tags in to consumer space.
Re:"Don't run out and buy an Athlon 64 just yet...
on
Is Prescott 64-bit?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ahhh. So there's another variable... you need x86 compatibility. that's a different animal than simply needing a 64bit Linux workstation as you initially stated. I will warn you: much open source software is written with x86 in mind and had things hard-wired to that platform. Even when things compile on a 64bit system, they tend to fail in interesting and unpredictable ways. I've found that ignorance and lazyness seem to prevail in the open source movement when it comes to truely portable software.
I don't know exactly what you mean by your last comment. I don't really know of any x86 specific hardware or peripherals except for the MBs and CPUs. Just about every other peripheral or piece of hardware will plug in to many Alphas and any recent Mac (drivers and firmware aside). I've used many video and network cards off-the-shelf as well as standard RAM in my Alpha and use standard "PC" memory, drives and peripherals on my 5 year old Mac.
I have checked out x86 price/performance. It's not been enough to get me to purchase any of it. I get more real work done on my Mac per dollar than on x86 (no virus downtime, few system updates, etc), and my Alphas put out more heat per dollar than any x86 could in it's wet dreams.
There's a difference between the way something is done, and WHY it is done that way. The source code will tell you the first, but usually not the second. In many respects, code is NOT documentation.
Nope. Not wasting time. Unless you are actually doing something, the WindowManager is idle.
Re:"Don't run out and buy an Athlon 64 just yet...
on
Is Prescott 64-bit?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Then why, precisely, are you here chatting about Intel and AMD 64 bit chips when GNU/Linux has been running on 64bit DEC Alphas for over 5 years, And YellowDog Linux runs very nicely on the G5?
I'm as big a Mac fan as anyone, but this would not take a Windows user a week. There are several apps that will mirror and restore HDs in a matter of minutes. Over a 10bT network I used to use Ghost to generate over 25 Win95 installs an hour, just by myself. 1. Boot to floppy 2. Press menu option for image to install 3. Boot machine 4. Change HD, Network, etc names
I don't know what the average user/site would encounter with the WinXP authorization, but I know larger sites get blanket installation without the contating MS step.
- It's pretty clear to me that Apple didn't divert anything. If you look at the numbers, the VT order accounts for about 1% of all Dual G5 orders. That's hardly enough to cause the delays that people are seeing in their ship dates. Notice the slide states Apple offered an "early september" ship date, but Apple initially promised customers a mid-late August date. Given when those talks between VT and Apple were likely taking place, that means that Apple had intended to fill other orders first, and had a special allotment for the VT order.
- I don't know a whole lot about a blade center, but there doesn't seem to be a place to plug in the high-speed interconnects. Also, it runs on Intel chips that run hotter and do less work than the G5, especially when AltiVec gets involved, which is usually why you build a computer this size; vector processing. I'm also guessing the required configuration needed resale value to students at the end of life for the project/system.
- That's absoloutly true. When you need technical details about Linux you have to dig. When you have a question about OS X's guts, I'd guess you call Apple and have a conference call with all the coders (at least at this level of purchase/prestige). Could you imagine trying to get Linus, and all the other code writers for Linux and the supporting libraries and utilites on the phone at once?
Indeed. Apparently.museum should also be exempt from delegation only. That page seems to suggest that there may be other TLD root servers that will resolve rather than refer, and that this is desirable and trusted. Does anyone know how to determine this? Is it mostly just the smaller and newer domains like "museum", "aero", etc?
For those who have upgraded/patched BIND to allow for the "type delegation-only" zones, here is a listing of all known publicy accessible TLDs configured for such operation. Simply put this in your named.conf, or use the new "include" operation and store these in a separte file.
Due to the lameness of the lameness filter I can't post the list here. Get it from here This is a plain text file signed with GPG.
My web server should be able to handle the load since it's only a 16KB text file. Feel free to mirror it elsewhere.
For those who have upgraded/patched BIND to allow for the "type delegation-only" zones, here is a listing of all known publicy accessible TLDs configured for such operation. Simply put this in your named.conf, or use the new "include" operation and store these in a separte file.
Due to the lameness of the lameness filter I can't post the list here. Get it from here This is a plain text file signed with GPG.
My web server should be able to handle the load since it's only a 16KB text file. Feel free to mirror it elsewhere.
I do applaud the ISC for patching BIND to eliminate this issue, but at the same time I am suspicious of another of their patches/features to DNS servers calle "views". Views seem (to me) that they will cause similar effects to that of wild cards in the root domains: that answers will not exactly be consistent or authoratiative depending on what you ask and where you ask it. In my opinion any use of the "views" functions of BIND are better handled by sub-domains. somesystem.mycompany.com would be used by all people outside the company, those inside would be on a different (sub)domain such as somesystem.intranet.mycompany.com.
For example: an employee uses a laptop at work and the resolver returns 10.5.10.1 for the name www.mycompany.com. When that employee connects to the same DNS server from outside (working from a hotel) the resolver returns 66.35.250.151 for the same name. Now... the internal http server was runnung intranet specific services that are not on the public http server, what can the exec do? Now sure, you can say that this would only be used by those in the know who have already worked out all of this, but the point is, that it makes the DNS system return different results to different people, there is no one true correct answer any more. That is wrong.
Granted, I've not throughly researched what exactly views do in BIND, but it certainly on the face seems to be covered by at least several of the points mentione in the letters we've read from ICANN and the IAB, as well as numerous others here on/.
The reason SSDs were common was they plugged in to the computer's internal bus system. The floppy and hard drive systems were connected via a very slow bus. Combine the slow bus with low rotational speed, and high seek times and even an expensive SSD could save you hours of waiting every day, thus lowering the TCO.
HD manufacturers have made super efficient motors, added lots of cache, and made the actuators move very quickly and reliably. A 120GB HD today daws only about 6W during read/write (4 at idle). When it transfers data, it does so over a bus that's about 2x faster than the sustainable write speed of the drive. You can get all of that for less than $1/GB
PC100 would make a nice SSD, it's still in productions and reatively inexpensive. Add a PCI controller, memory controller, and an intermediate microcontroller to translate sectors to RAM space and you've got a RAM disk. Problem is that even at aggressive wholesale such a device would cost about $25/GB.
Sure it would run circles around a HDD performance wise, but doubt the time savings in daily use would amount to much. For SSDs to become viable again we need a RAM spec that isn't based on speed, but pure density
On-die cache will never be "irrelevant". Even if the main RAM system runs at clock speed (or faster), there is still latency in getting the signals from the CPU, to RAM and getting a response. The difference could be as much as 10x. A solid state "disk" (SSD) would suffer even higher latencies with all the command overhead and the several bus systems that must be traversed/translated.
We've been promised SSDs for years. The last time I saw SSD units that were of a usable size, and reasonably priced compared to rotational media was in the mid 80s when 128KB was a lot of storage. Of course, the mid 80s is also the last time I saw a desktop computer that ran the CPU, RAM and system bus at the same clock speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the most potent of all suspected GhGs is vaperous Dihydrogen Oxide (or Monoxide or hydroxide depending on your tastes).
If we would all just stop breathing for about 8 minutes I think global warming would cease to be an issue.
For the scientifically impaired, That's water vapor. It's emitted by every breathing thing on the planet. Get rid of water vapor and you get rid of the most prevelant GhG in existence today.
Call your congressman, make clouds illegal!
There are several very humerous web sites that spoof this topic. Search for: DHMO, dihydrogen oxide, dihydrogen monoxide, or hydrogen hydroxide.
All this "Save the environment" stuff is bunk. What people are trying to save is themselves/the human race.
Regardless of what humans do, short of blasting Earth in to tiny bits, the environment will be fine. In the geologic/astonomical timescale we are insignificant to the planet, and this global warming thing is like a small pimple you had back in 7th grade on Wednesday night.
The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.
The planet seems to have been here for 4.5 billion years, it's traveled trillions upon trillions of miles and been bombarded by untold tons of material large and small. It's been through stages of liquid rock and solid water covering the surface, it likely will go through such stages again.
As for your project, I have a few problems with it:
1. It doesn't seem to incorporate any external changes to the system. ie: it treats the Earth as a closed system and ignores interactions with surrounding space and the local star. At least that's what I gather from the brief reading I've done so far.
2. Its conclusion will be based on the "most popular" result being the most likely. The idea as I see it is: "We'll make a bunch of guesses based on assumptions and very rough modeling, and the most often guessed result is the winner." Sounds a little less than very useful to me.
Coincidence.
There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.
In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2. Environmentalists continually shout about the GhGs because it's easy to make slogans out of and it furthers their agenda.
I have no agenda but to get at truth. In my experince, accepting the first piece of data that fits your assumptions is not the way to get at truth, but a way to sell books and get on the 6:00 news.
No.. global warming is not a myth, there is solid data to show that the averge global temperature is rising.
What isn't certain is WHY.
Is it "greenhouse gassses"?
Is it that humans are generating more heat through burning of fuels, and throwing off the balance? IE: even if "green house gasses" were brought to 100 year ago levels, temps would still rise
Is is that the Earth is going through a "warmer" part of the Galaxy/Universe?
Is it that there is some change in the Earth's core causing more heat?
Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?
Is it all those satellites that capture energy that normally passes the planet and direct some of back at us?
It it aliens beaning an interplanetery "slow death ray" at us?
Is it something else we can't think of yet?
As another poster alluded to, USB 2.0 != high speed.
USB 2.0 is a new protocol standard, it happens to have two version (IIRC), standard and fast. You CAN impliment USB 2.0 and only support the older/slower transfer speed.
For whatever reason, Apple has decided to not use (perhaps not license) the "USB 2.0 (HighSpeed)" logo.
I thought the whole idea of the Mach microkernel was that the main BSD kernel could be modified on-the-fly. You could concievably save the kernel state, stop it, load a new one and restore the state, all without a restart.
You CAN do kernel changes to some degree and not restart the machine, look at SUN and Soalris.
Did similar on my beige G3. Reset my monitor arrangement, resolution, bit depth and "main monitor" settings.
I frequently run with my secondary monitor turned off, and I was confused when my login screen didn't appear. I force rebooted twice then I finally turned on the second monitor to see the LS there.
My secondary monitor is on the built-in video port and my primary is on a PCI Radeon 7000.
But that's not a solution. That's a patch to one service (WWW). You don't do anything about the other 2000+ services that may look up a name and attempt to connect to the Verisign server.
If you are really the network admin, then go to www.isc.org, download the newest version of BIND and run that as your name server. It will completely negate the entire issue of the wild card in the root server for ALL services that use DNS, not just WWW.
There's no need to emulate anything. One of the most frequent errors is assuming the size of data structures instead of querying the system for the sizes of these structures. You can do that without ever seeing a 64 bit system.
It's ironic then that the PC zelots now complain that the Mac has no games. Ahhj how far we've come in 10 years.
And the reason for that, if I recall Photoshop correctly, is that the last 9 tests are all plug-ins. The G5 accelerator that Adobe shipped only sped up the core graphics engine, not any of the plug-ins.
Supposedly PS8 (isn't that the next one?) will have all components re-compiled and optimized for the G5 systems.
At least I'm guessing that the G5 accelerator patch is just like the accelerator that made PS compiled for 68K run much faster on PPC.
Or for that matter, why not Perl. If you co scan CPAN you'll see Perl modules that will connect you in to most of the useful parts of OS X.
It's simple really: Apple prefers to do things in house where they have control. They don't have to fight with anyone or any standards body to revise or extent Applescript.
I can certainly see AppleScript going away in a few more revisions of the OS. With Project Builder so simple to use, Apple may just decide that actual binary programs are so easy to create that AppleScript is just no longer necessary.
Remember... Applescript was developed as a fast and easy way for people to manage small tasks without the drudgery of writing in C. In Project Builder you nary need a line of code, just drag, drop and fill in the blanks, thus eliminating the drugery.
The article referenced at the observer had absoloutly nothing to do with RFID tags or technology. It seems to describe a new version of the vernerable "ankle bracelet" that is used widely in the U.S. to track people released on parole or bail.
So we still have no viable arguments against the deployment of RFID tags in to consumer space.
Ahhh. So there's another variable... you need x86 compatibility. that's a different animal than simply needing a 64bit Linux workstation as you initially stated. I will warn you: much open source software is written with x86 in mind and had things hard-wired to that platform. Even when things compile on a 64bit system, they tend to fail in interesting and unpredictable ways. I've found that ignorance and lazyness seem to prevail in the open source movement when it comes to truely portable software.
I don't know exactly what you mean by your last comment. I don't really know of any x86 specific hardware or peripherals except for the MBs and CPUs. Just about every other peripheral or piece of hardware will plug in to many Alphas and any recent Mac (drivers and firmware aside).
I've used many video and network cards off-the-shelf as well as standard RAM in my Alpha and use standard "PC" memory, drives and peripherals on my 5 year old Mac.
I have checked out x86 price/performance. It's not been enough to get me to purchase any of it. I get more real work done on my Mac per dollar than on x86 (no virus downtime, few system updates, etc), and my Alphas put out more heat per dollar than any x86 could in it's wet dreams.
There's a difference between the way something is done, and WHY it is done that way. The source code will tell you the first, but usually not the second. In many respects, code is NOT documentation.
Nope. Not wasting time. Unless you are actually doing something, the WindowManager is idle.
Then why, precisely, are you here chatting about Intel and AMD 64 bit chips when GNU/Linux has been running on 64bit DEC Alphas for over 5 years, And YellowDog Linux runs very nicely on the G5?
I'm as big a Mac fan as anyone, but this would not take a Windows user a week. There are several apps that will mirror and restore HDs in a matter of minutes. Over a 10bT network I used to use Ghost to generate over 25 Win95 installs an hour, just by myself.
1. Boot to floppy
2. Press menu option for image to install
3. Boot machine
4. Change HD, Network, etc names
I don't know what the average user/site would encounter with the WinXP authorization, but I know larger sites get blanket installation without the contating MS step.
- It's pretty clear to me that Apple didn't divert anything. If you look at the numbers, the VT order accounts for about 1% of all Dual G5 orders. That's hardly enough to cause the delays that people are seeing in their ship dates. Notice the slide states Apple offered an "early september" ship date, but Apple initially promised customers a mid-late August date. Given when those talks between VT and Apple were likely taking place, that means that Apple had intended to fill other orders first, and had a special allotment for the VT order.
- I don't know a whole lot about a blade center, but there doesn't seem to be a place to plug in the high-speed interconnects. Also, it runs on Intel chips that run hotter and do less work than the G5, especially when AltiVec gets involved, which is usually why you build a computer this size; vector processing. I'm also guessing the required configuration needed resale value to students at the end of life for the project/system.
- That's absoloutly true. When you need technical details about Linux you have to dig. When you have a question about OS X's guts, I'd guess you call Apple and have a conference call with all the coders (at least at this level of purchase/prestige). Could you imagine trying to get Linus, and all the other code writers for Linux and the supporting libraries and utilites on the phone at once?
Indeed. Apparently .museum should also be exempt from delegation only. That page seems to suggest that there may be other TLD root servers that will resolve rather than refer, and that this is desirable and trusted. Does anyone know how to determine this? Is it mostly just the smaller and newer domains like "museum", "aero", etc?
I've removed those two from the list.
For those who have upgraded/patched BIND to allow for the "type delegation-only" zones, here is a listing of all known publicy accessible TLDs configured for such operation.
Simply put this in your named.conf, or use the new "include" operation and store these in a separte file.
Due to the lameness of the lameness filter I can't post the list here. Get it from here This is a plain text file signed with GPG.
My web server should be able to handle the load since it's only a 16KB text file. Feel free to mirror it elsewhere.
For those who have upgraded/patched BIND to allow for the "type delegation-only" zones, here is a listing of all known publicy accessible TLDs configured for such operation.
Simply put this in your named.conf, or use the new "include" operation and store these in a separte file.
Due to the lameness of the lameness filter I can't post the list here. Get it from here This is a plain text file signed with GPG.
My web server should be able to handle the load since it's only a 16KB text file. Feel free to mirror it elsewhere.
I do applaud the ISC for patching BIND to eliminate this issue, but at the same time I am suspicious of another of their patches/features to DNS servers calle "views".
/.
Views seem (to me) that they will cause similar effects to that of wild cards in the root domains: that answers will not exactly be consistent or authoratiative depending on what you ask and where you ask it.
In my opinion any use of the "views" functions of BIND are better handled by sub-domains.
somesystem.mycompany.com would be used by all people outside the company, those inside would be on a different (sub)domain such as somesystem.intranet.mycompany.com.
For example: an employee uses a laptop at work and the resolver returns 10.5.10.1 for the name www.mycompany.com. When that employee connects to the same DNS server from outside (working from a hotel) the resolver returns 66.35.250.151 for the same name.
Now... the internal http server was runnung intranet specific services that are not on the public http server, what can the exec do? Now sure, you can say that this would only be used by those in the know who have already worked out all of this, but the point is, that it makes the DNS system return different results to different people, there is no one true correct answer any more. That is wrong.
Granted, I've not throughly researched what exactly views do in BIND, but it certainly on the face seems to be covered by at least several of the points mentione in the letters we've read from ICANN and the IAB, as well as numerous others here on
You mean like "General protection fault: reboot" with the little exclimation icon?
The reason SSDs were common was they plugged in to the computer's internal bus system. The floppy and hard drive systems were connected via a very slow bus. Combine the slow bus with low rotational speed, and high seek times and even an expensive SSD could save you hours of waiting every day, thus lowering the TCO.
HD manufacturers have made super efficient motors, added lots of cache, and made the actuators move very quickly and reliably. A 120GB HD today daws only about 6W during read/write (4 at idle). When it transfers data, it does so over a bus that's about 2x faster than the sustainable write speed of the drive. You can get all of that for less than $1/GB
PC100 would make a nice SSD, it's still in productions and reatively inexpensive. Add a PCI controller, memory controller, and an intermediate microcontroller to translate sectors to RAM space and you've got a RAM disk. Problem is that even at aggressive wholesale such a device would cost about $25/GB.
Sure it would run circles around a HDD performance wise, but doubt the time savings in daily use would amount to much. For SSDs to become viable again we need a RAM spec that isn't based on speed, but pure density
On-die cache will never be "irrelevant". Even if the main RAM system runs at clock speed (or faster), there is still latency in getting the signals from the CPU, to RAM and getting a response.
The difference could be as much as 10x.
A solid state "disk" (SSD) would suffer even higher latencies with all the command overhead and the several bus systems that must be traversed/translated.
We've been promised SSDs for years. The last time I saw SSD units that were of a usable size, and reasonably priced compared to rotational media was in the mid 80s when 128KB was a lot of storage. Of course, the mid 80s is also the last time I saw a desktop computer that ran the CPU, RAM and system bus at the same clock speed.