From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 15 10:33:47 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA17823 for current-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:33:47 -0700 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA17817 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:33:37 -0700 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA19780; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:33:34 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA00867; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:33:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199504151733.KAA00867@corbin.Root.COM> To: uhclem@nemesis.lonestar.org (Frank Durda IV) cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Memory init pattern In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Apr 95 10:11:53 PDT." <199504151711.KAA00834@corbin.Root.COM> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:33:33 -0700 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>What has happened more recently is that TI has been suing computer >>makers for performing power-on diagnostics and the memory test >>(not the initialization) was considered to be one of them. That is > > Operating system startup memory tests have been done for longer than Tandy ^^^^^ >has been in business (even late 60's DEC machines did this). Oops, I meant "TI"...but now that I think about it, I don't know how long TI has been is business. ...but my point still stands about there being systems far before '78 that used start-up memory tests, however. -DG