Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny... I enjoyed Neuromancer, although I didn't read it until about 15 years ago. And, yeah, the memory thing hasn't aged well. Thing is, 1984 was a funny time in computing, particularly when you consider the kind of computers normal people had access to. At that point even things like PCs and the new Mac had 128 or 256K of RAM[0], so I get that 3MB must have seemed like an ocean of memory at the time. And, re…
> But then Gibson must have done some pretty in depth research for Neuromancer, right? Isn't he on record that his documentation was listening to techies talking shop in bars? > And then do you really want to harshly judge the book on that one slightly laughable thing about memory when, in other ways, it was incredibly forward looking and almost prophetic. He seems to understand humans. Gibson's world and Brunner's S…
Yeah. I don’t think he was a technophile himself. Which might have helped him because he was not trying to be realistic. But at the same time there are things he understood deeply.