PC 4GB RAM limit

Software expands to fill availble space.



"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:46:43 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:

4 GB of RAM is obscene.

But bloat rules. It may be existential.

Phil Weldon writes:

What's wrong with bloat?

It erases hardware gains. Today's PCs don't run much faster than PCs
twenty years ago, in terms of response time for users; all the
additional hardware horsepower has been absorbed by bloat.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

David Maynard writes:

Since it never died out, or even gasped a teensy bit, and has been there in
every single x86 system ever made, and expanded by PCI and further expanded
by PCI express, it hardly qualifies as 'archaic'.

It's still archaic; it's a really stupid way to do things. And it just
amazes me how much membory is squandered on PCI Express; indeed, almost
all the memory used is used for PCI Express.

In fact, rather than 'die out' it has grow, lived long, and prospered.

Festered would be a better word.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Since it never died out, or even gasped a teensy bit, and has been there in
every single x86 system ever made, and expanded by PCI and further expanded
by PCI express, it hardly qualifies as 'archaic'.


It's still archaic; it's a really stupid way to do things.

That it's almost universally popular is defacto proof it's not just "a
really stupid way to do things."

And it just
amazes me how much membory is squandered on PCI Express; indeed, almost
all the memory used is used for PCI Express.

Maybe if you put more effort into understanding why it's done that way it
wouldn't be such a mystery.


In fact, rather than 'die out' it has grow, lived long, and prospered.


Festered would be a better word.

There are a lot more considerations to computer design than making it
trivially transparent for the unskilled to pop in an indeterminate amount
of RAM without being confronted by the technical.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Phil Weldon writes:


What's wrong with bloat?


It erases hardware gains. Today's PCs don't run much faster than PCs
twenty years ago, in terms of response time for users; all the
additional hardware horsepower has been absorbed by bloat.

And all the advancements in automobiles over the past 100 years have been
'wasted' because one still can't go faster than 35 MPH in a 35 MPH speed zone.

Point is, one can make any irrational claim by picking the appropriately
inappropriate 'measurement' criteria.

And since you think "all the additional hardware horsepower has been
absorbed by bloat" then why don't you run DOS on a 386 and do your video
editing with it?

Phil Weldon wrote:

Software expands to fill availble space.


It certainly can't expand into unavailable space


"Bob" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:46:43 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:


4 GB of RAM is obscene.

But bloat rules. It may be existential.

Bob wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:46:43 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:


4 GB of RAM is obscene.


But bloat rules. It may be existential.


I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large.


I can not only remember when a 12 inch pizza platter hard drive was 1.2 meg
I've got two drives and a dozen packs in the garage.


That goes back a bit.

I did pull them from a dumpster, along with the mini-computer they went
with, so they were old when I got 'em, but many were still in service. One
worked but I had to fix the other.

I can remember the Physics Dept doing particle
experiments with drum storage. The memory took a good sized room.

Oh yeah, drums. The ones with heads all over the place were impressive, and
expensive as all get out.

The strangest 'disk drive' I ran across was a real old one, still in
service, that was a huge 30 inch, or so, diameter aluminum disc mounted
vertically. Capacity was something like 250K.


If bloat rules, then how come all advances in computers have come
about by smallness?

Miniaturization enables more bloat in the same space


That's another existential question.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:02:12 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Phil Weldon writes:


What's wrong with bloat?


It erases hardware gains. Today's PCs don't run much faster than PCs
twenty years ago, in terms of response time for users; all the
additional hardware horsepower has been absorbed by bloat.

And all the advancements in automobiles over the past 100 years have been
'wasted' because one still can't go faster than 35 MPH in a 35 MPH speed zone.

Point is, one can make any irrational claim by picking the appropriately
inappropriate 'measurement' criteria.

It'd be a poor point then, because it's a quite rational
claim that hardware bloat is ridiculous. I'm not arguing
that "all additional hardware horsepower has been absorbed"
though, rather that the developers seem to have little to no
concern about the escalating storage requirements nor memory
to run applications. Just because memory is far cheaper
than it used to be, that doesn't mean I find it acceptible
for a developer to take a view that they don't have to
follow good practices.

A better argument relating to automobiles is, what do I care
if i haul around 200 lbs. of bricks in my truck everywhere
even though I have no need for them, since my engine has the
extra power and efficiency over one made 40 years ago.
While it's a shame the car dealer couldn't be bothered to
take the bricks out of the trunk when it was sold to me, I
can still drive around therefore all is right in the world.


And since you think "all the additional hardware horsepower has been
absorbed by bloat" then why don't you run DOS on a 386 and do your video
editing with it?


That may be a good point, or may not.
Suppose the video editing app had become more and more
bloated onto the point of being less efficient than it
should be. Suppose it's 10% slower as a result. 10% could
be considered the price different between two different
models of CPU, are you happy to pay more for the faster CPU
so the developer can profit more by not making the effort to
code better? Passing the buck is ok as long as it doesn't
stop here.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:03:28 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:

Phil Weldon wrote:

Software expands to fill availble space.


It certainly can't expand into unavailable space



Pagefile?

kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:03:28 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:


Phil Weldon wrote:


Software expands to fill availble space.


It certainly can't expand into unavailable space



Pagefile?

That's available.