On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:02:10 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:08:19 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: >> >>Why do you continue to refer to the area between 2GB and 4GB as >>"Within the bar"? While it is true that some early presentations >>depicted the bar as having a "thickness" of 2 GB, AFAIK, it was never >>documented that way in any IBM manual. Rather, the manuals >>describe the area above 2 GB as "above the bar". >> >The construct is such a convenient abbreviation that I see little >reason to discontinue its historic use.
Accuracy? Can you show me a reference in any manual indicating that it has ever been different from the two quotes that I provided in my previous post? Both of those quotes were both taken from release 2 editions of the manuals. Why is it useful to single out part of the storage above the bar as being "within the bar"? Do you similarly claim that the 16 MB line has thickness because you can't allocate any of the storage where the nucleus resides? The manuals say that addresses above 2 GB are above the bar. I've yet to see any manual that says that the bar has thickness. There was considerable discussion about this here in 2010 and 2011. Many claimed that the bar has a "thickness" of 2 GB. At least one person claimed that "above the bar" meant data above 4 GB. I have seen nothing in any IBM manual to substantiate any of this. There were non-specific references to a SHARE presentation that showed the bar being from 2 GB to 4 GB. SHARE presentations are not official documentation. AFAICT, the documentation for storage above the bar was introduced with release 2 and has always said that the bar is at 2 GB. Everything above 2 GB is above the bar. If there is any documentation to support another meaning of the term, I would like to see it. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
