[dghlsakjg]

Which, mythological provenance aside, was a very accurate statement at the time.

In 1943 there were probably only a few governments capable of paying the extreme cost, and having a valid use case, for a "computer" in 1943.

If you asked him what he thought the market was for a device that cost a month's wages, and could connect to anywhere on earth, do infinite math, remember anything perfectly, and entertain the whole household was, he probably would have had a different answer.

[Cheer2171]

Same with the infamous Gates quote. In 1981, 640K really was enough for anyone in the market for a personal computer at the price point of the IBM 5150.

[tromp]

https://www.wired.com/1997/01/did-gates-really-say-640k-is-e...

[hyperman1]

The 8086 was based on a 64K design, with segment registers thrown in to expand it to 1M (and 640K of that 1M was reserved for RAM).

It was already clear then that 64K on its own was not enough, and the segment register twiddling to touch other 64K windows was seriously limiting.

The model was patchy from day 1, and would need serious effort to be future proof. Even if computers with 640K installed were rare, the design limitation of 640K possible RAM was clearly not enough.