PC 4GB RAM limit

1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon writes:

According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.

According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there beyond
the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form."

There are over six billion people in the world, and a great many of
those 535 million PCs are used in offices, and many people who own a PC
have more than one, or use one at the office as well. So only a small
fraction of the world population has regular access to a PC, especially
outside work.

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

On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:00:39 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
wrote:

1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon

41. It would seem mxsmanic is simply anti-technology
whether it has been self-realized yet or not.

What has this thread got to do with the PC 4GB RAM limit ?

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon writes:

According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.

According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there beyond
the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any
form."

There are over six billion people in the world, and a great many of
those 535 million PCs are used in offices, and many people who own a PC
have more than one, or use one at the office as well. So only a small
fraction of the world population has regular access to a PC, especially
outside work.

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

The mutating content of this thread is typical of crossposts. You might as
well ask what this thread has to do with overclocking, the newsgroup in
which I read it. 'PC 4GB RAM limit' as a subject was pretty well exhausted
by 30 posts. At least this crossposted thread has been civil.

Phil Weldon

"old jon" wrote in message
...
What has this thread got to do with the PC 4GB RAM limit ?

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Phil Weldon writes:

According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.

According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there beyond
the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any
form."

There are over six billion people in the world, and a great many of
those 535 million PCs are used in offices, and many people who own a PC
have more than one, or use one at the office as well. So only a small
fraction of the world population has regular access to a PC, especially
outside work.

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

old jon wrote:

What has this thread got to do with the PC 4GB RAM limit ?

Believe it or not, there was/is a connection, albeit convoluted, and this
one is similar to other basic 'complainer/conspiracy' evolutions.

It works like this. There is some situation someone doesn't
like/understand, such as a 4 Gbyte limit on RAM. Someone offers a variation
of the typical complainer explanation, like either the entire planet (or
users, or 'the industry', it varies) is 'stupid' or there is some
'conspiracy' (commonly 'for profit', or 'for oil') or both (stupid *and*
evil). Then the thread evolves through discussing the unsubstantiated
claims, such as "there is a big wide world out there beyond the geeks, and
almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form;" which was
used as a kind of explanation for why no one cares (I.E. not complaining
too) thereby allowing industry to do these 'stupid/evil' things 'for profit'.

That's a shortened version because it wandered through 'software bloat' and
other 'complaints' about 'stupid' computer aspects with the basic idea
being the common 'complaint logic' that they're 'stupid' here (software
bloat) and 'stupid' there (computers are effectively no faster after 50
years), 'stupid' everywhere so, naturally, they're 'stupid' at that too
(the 4 GByte RAM limit). Everything's all fouled up, it's all for profit
(what isn't?), industry is stupid (there are other ways to do it) and out
to get you anyway (evil), no one cares because they don't know any better
(I.E. stupid too or, at this stage, they don't exist) and that's why you
have a 4 GB RAM limit.

Now, don't try to follow that logic too closely because it's a common
aspect of 'complaint logic' that if one complaint is disputed then any
other complaint can be substituted, whether related or not (what Phil was
upset with), because the basic argument is 'everyone and everything is
SNAFU and/or evil' so any complaint is considered 'supporting evidence' of
any other.

And that's how the topic evolves into almost anything.


"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...

1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..

Phil Weldon writes:


According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.

According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there beyond
the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any
form."

There are over six billion people in the world, and a great many of
those 535 million PCs are used in offices, and many people who own a PC
have more than one, or use one at the office as well. So only a small
fraction of the world population has regular access to a PC, especially
outside work.

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

Thanks DM. That`s really cleared it up for me g. best wishes..J

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
old jon wrote:

What has this thread got to do with the PC 4GB RAM limit ?

Believe it or not, there was/is a connection, albeit convoluted, and this
one is similar to other basic 'complainer/conspiracy' evolutions.

It works like this. There is some situation someone doesn't
like/understand, such as a 4 Gbyte limit on RAM. Someone offers a
variation of the typical complainer explanation, like either the entire
planet (or users, or 'the industry', it varies) is 'stupid' or there is
some 'conspiracy' (commonly 'for profit', or 'for oil') or both (stupid
*and* evil). Then the thread evolves through discussing the
unsubstantiated claims, such as "there is a big wide world out there
beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in
any form;" which was used as a kind of explanation for why no one cares
(I.E. not complaining too) thereby allowing industry to do these
'stupid/evil' things 'for profit'.

That's a shortened version because it wandered through 'software bloat'
and other 'complaints' about 'stupid' computer aspects with the basic idea
being the common 'complaint logic' that they're 'stupid' here (software
bloat) and 'stupid' there (computers are effectively no faster after 50
years), 'stupid' everywhere so, naturally, they're 'stupid' at that too
(the 4 GByte RAM limit). Everything's all fouled up, it's all for profit
(what isn't?), industry is stupid (there are other ways to do it) and out
to get you anyway (evil), no one cares because they don't know any better
(I.E. stupid too or, at this stage, they don't exist) and that's why you
have a 4 GB RAM limit.

Now, don't try to follow that logic too closely because it's a common
aspect of 'complaint logic' that if one complaint is disputed then any
other complaint can be substituted, whether related or not (what Phil was
upset with), because the basic argument is 'everyone and everything is
SNAFU and/or evil' so any complaint is considered 'supporting evidence' of
any other.

And that's how the topic evolves into almost anything.


"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...

1. Choked on the first paragraph of my post, did you?
2.
3. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
4. about 30,000 questionnaires:
5. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
6. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
7. internet connection.
9. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form of
10. internet connection."
11.
12. Didn't fit your contention, did it?
13.
14. Decided to be dishonest, did you?
15.
16. If you quote, at the very least you should indicated when an elision
17. was made.
18.
19. My post, in its entirety was
20.
21. "According to a MetaFacts, Inc. 2004 survey using responses from
22. about 30,000 questionnaires:
23. Fifty-eight percent of American households own PCs.
24. Twenty-seven of American housholds have broadband
25. internet connection.
26. Fifty-seven percent of American households have some form
27. of internet connection.
28.
29. According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.
30.
31. According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there
32. beyond the geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in
33. computers, in any form.""
34.
35. One of the great things about Usenet newsgroups is that questionable
36. statements are examined, and incorrect information is corrected.
37. Some learn from this process, some see this only as a way to get
38. backed further and further into a corner.
39.
40. Phil Weldon




"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Phil Weldon writes:


According to another source, 535 million PCs are in use world wide.

According to 'mxsmanic' "...there is a big wide world out there beyond
the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any
form."

There are over six billion people in the world, and a great many of
those 535 million PCs are used in offices, and many people who own a PC
have more than one, or use one at the office as well. So only a small
fraction of the world population has regular access to a PC, especially
outside work.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
kony writes:

Naturally the more advanced a product's features are, the
more elaborate the interface would need be, but believe it
or not- people manage. Even small children manage to learn
to text-message their classmates. They have smaller
fingers, but also less coordination.

It's not a question of coordination, it's a question of small buttons.
I haven't seen anyone touch-typing on a cellphone keyboard.

Than you haven't been in a high school lately. It doesn't take much
practice to be able to touch-type on standard cell phone keypad. You'd be
surprised how fast these kids can type while they pretend to listen to the
teacher.

MC

ModeratelyConfused writes:

Than you haven't been in a high school lately.

High-school students aren't any smaller than they've been in the past.

It doesn't take much practice to be able to touch-type on
standard cell phone keypad.

Cell-phone keypads are not adapted to touch-typing. Most of them have a
very firm feel and very limited travel, which is inappropriate for
touch-typing, and the keys are too small and close together.

It would be very interesting to see anyone "touch-typing" on a
cell-phone keypad. Even laptop keyboards are often ill-adapted to very
fast typing. Remember, touch-typing implies using all ten fingers to
type ... and without looking at the keyboard (or screen, in some cases).
While I've seen some people who are reasonably fast on a cell-phone
keypad, I've seen none who could come even remotely close to the typing
speed that is possible on a real, full-size keyboard. Fast
touch-typists can type as fast as they talk.

The best keyboards I've seen for touch-typing are Microsoft Natural
Keyboards; they are the only ones that seem to prevent RSI.
Unfortunately, the mechanical features of the MSKs are not up to the
standards of some other keyboard manufacturers, but they are still
pretty good, and the split design of the keyboard is vital to reducing
stress on the wrists while maintaining speed.

You'd be surprised how fast these kids can type while they pretend
to listen to the teacher.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure practice improves speed, but for
any given amount of practice, speeds on a small keypad will never match
those on a full-size keyboard.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
ModeratelyConfused writes:


Than you haven't been in a high school lately.


High-school students aren't any smaller than they've been in the past.

No, but they may be more practiced at things previously not even available
to practice with.

It doesn't take much practice to be able to touch-type on
standard cell phone keypad.


Cell-phone keypads are not adapted to touch-typing. Most of them have a
very firm feel and very limited travel, which is inappropriate for
touch-typing, and the keys are too small and close together.

This reminds me of the arguments 'proving' that people would never be able
to remember 7 digit telephone numbers, and now there are 10.

'Theory' over observation.

In all fairness, the phone number critics did, at least, accept the
observation once it happened.

It would be very interesting to see anyone "touch-typing" on a
cell-phone keypad. Even laptop keyboards are often ill-adapted to very
fast typing. Remember, touch-typing implies using all ten fingers to
type ... and without looking at the keyboard (or screen, in some cases).

"Touch typing" doesn't 'imply' any particular number of fingers. That just
happens to be the methodology used with a 'full sized' keyboard because it
was made for 10 fingers.

And there's nothing about a standard QWERTY that makes it the 'last word'
(pun) in alphanumeric entry methods.

Here's an alternate:

http://www.infogrip.com/product_view...ontxt=Keyboard

and another

http://www.infogrip.com/product_view...ontxt=Keyboard

These people have tons of studies to show this one is 'better' than a QWERTY

http://www.handykey.com/site/twiddler2.html

Frankly, I think a lot of the resistance to one handed keyboards is because
the QWERTY is easier to hunt and peck.

While I've seen some people who are reasonably fast on a cell-phone

The the 'argument' part is over. "Reasonably fast" is, well, reasonable.

keypad, I've seen none who could come even remotely close to the typing
speed that is possible on a real, full-size keyboard. Fast
touch-typists can type as fast as they talk.

The topic wasn't a speed contest. The topic was whether the small devices
were ergonomic enough to be useful. And 'reasonable' fills the bill.

The best keyboards I've seen for touch-typing are Microsoft Natural
Keyboards; they are the only ones that seem to prevent RSI.
Unfortunately, the mechanical features of the MSKs are not up to the
standards of some other keyboard manufacturers, but they are still
pretty good, and the split design of the keyboard is vital to reducing
stress on the wrists while maintaining speed.

The Dvorak folks disagree and say theirs is even faster. But then fastest
possible may not be the criteria of interest for you, just as it isn't
necessarily with the portables.


You'd be surprised how fast these kids can type while they pretend
to listen to the teacher.


Oh, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure practice improves speed, but for
any given amount of practice, speeds on a small keypad will never match
those on a full-size keyboard.


Sure it will. Compare the speed of a small keypad that, because of it's
size and portability, one has to that of a full-size keyboard that isn't
there. The small keypad will win every time.

David Maynard writes:

No, but they may be more practiced at things previously not even available
to practice with.

The poor ergonomics of cell-phone keypads are related to human anatomy,
not practice.

This reminds me of the arguments 'proving' that people would never be able
to remember 7 digit telephone numbers, and now there are 10.

And there are a lot more people looking numbers up.

"Touch typing" doesn't 'imply' any particular number of fingers. That just
happens to be the methodology used with a 'full sized' keyboard because it
was made for 10 fingers.

Touch-typing means typing without looking at the keyboard, using all
available fingers. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be called
TOUCH-typing. You put your fingers on home keys, and thereafter you
type without looking at the keyboard, and with all fingers.

And there's nothing about a standard QWERTY that makes it the 'last word'
(pun) in alphanumeric entry methods.

I didn't say otherwise, but the size and ergonomics of a standard
keyboard make it much more conducive to fast typing than a cell-phone
keypad.

There are faster keyboards, but unfortunately they are not compatible
with the standard QWERTY keyboards. If one need only type on one's own
keyboard, this incompatibility is not a problem; but if one must retain
the ability to type quickly on a standard keyboard, then a high degree
of compatibility must be maintained. That's why I use a Microsoft
Natural Keyboard, which is much more ergonomic than a straight keyboard,
but retains most of the key layout.

These people have tons of studies to show this one is 'better' than a QWERTY

They are probably right.

Frankly, I think a lot of the resistance to one handed keyboards is because
the QWERTY is easier to hunt and peck.

I suspect the main reason for resistance is as above, i.e., the need for
compatibility. That's why the Dvorak keyboard has never caught on.

The originaly QWERTY was designed to make typing _difficult_, in order
to help avoid jamming type bars on the typewriters.

The the 'argument' part is over. "Reasonably fast" is, well, reasonable.

It's nothing compared to touch-typing on a real keyboard.

The topic wasn't a speed contest. The topic was whether the small devices
were ergonomic enough to be useful. And 'reasonable' fills the bill.

Speed is the primary measure of ergonomy in this case.

The Dvorak folks disagree and say theirs is even faster.

I agree with them. Unfortunately, until everyone has a Dvorak keyboard,
I need to stay familiar with the traditional keyboard layout. I don't
even think I could get a Natural-style keyboard in Dvorak layout.

But then fastest
possible may not be the criteria of interest for you, just as it isn't
necessarily with the portables.

It has to be fast and it must not induce RSI.

Sure it will. Compare the speed of a small keypad that, because of it's
size and portability, one has to that of a full-size keyboard that isn't
there. The small keypad will win every time.

Not a valid comparison.

I prefer to wait until I'm in front of my PC to type text messages, even
though I have a cell phone. It allows me to writer longer messages in
less time, thereby wasting less time overall. High-school students may
have lots of time on their hands, but I do not.

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