PC 4GB RAM limit

In article , Mxsmanic
says...
Conor writes:

Thats because they've never used one.

Many of them are compelled to use one at work.

Satnav? Can't think of many jobs needing that.

Thats because they probably use one at work and are sick of them.

They don't see any need for a PC at home. They don't have e-mail
accounts, and they aren't interested in the Web, and PCs aren't
justifiable for much else.

Or use an older PC with an older OS...

Only new PCs with new operating systems are sold in most stores.

Who says you have to buy new? I've just gone out and sourced another
couple of P3 Compaq Deskpro systems because there is a demand for them.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

Mxsmanic wrote, in a response to a request to post his operating
environment:
"No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems."

Then there is no need to continue the discussion.

Phil Weldon




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

Why don't you post details on the equipment, applications, and operating
systems you work with?

No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems.

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

Conor writes:

Do you actually know what a RAMDrive is?

Yes. Are you using ferrite cores for your RAM?

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

In article , Mxsmanic
says...
Conor writes:

Do you actually know what a RAMDrive is?

Yes. Are you using ferrite cores for your RAM?

Why would I need to?


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

kony wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:11:04 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:



I did some experiments a long time ago during the 'subliminal suggestion'
myth era and just one frame (1 of 30, say, once a minute) modified produced
noticeable 'something' with people who had no idea there was even an
experiment going on. I say 'something' because they couldn't tell what it
was but would ask "is there something wrong with the TV?"


Ha! I knew I'd find out someday who was putting subliminal
messages in my TV set!

Hehe. Except it doesn't work anyway.


Btw, what did you come up with as to how 'slow' a computer could handle it?



Apathy set in before I nailed down a speed, 600MHz P3 was
too slow, 1.3GHz Tualatin Celeron handled it with a little
to spare. 1.1GHz Celeron couldn't cut it but I'm fairly
sure it was the poor Sis integrated video that was the
larger (if not only) bottleneck.

I too would suggest it was the SIS because I use ~1.35 gig tualatins (one a
mildly overclocked 1.2 and the other an overclocked 1.1) for a couple of
small HTPCs (two different rooms) and there is moderate room to spare.

I admit I was a bit surprised at just how much power real time encoding
consumes, though. They're enough for what I'm doing but not for a 'full
featured' HTPC.

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


As a number of folks have mentioned, if you don't like the bells and
whistles then just turn them off. It's a trivial thing to do.


It still would not be instantaneous. And yet it should be.

It is on mine.

And nothing will ever be able to do it "instantaneously." The laws of
physics don't allow it.


As I've already explained, 1/60 second is good enough.


Case in point, Sachs 3D Fish screen saver won't run at speed on an old
Matrox Millennium no matter HOW fast the processor is.


Any card that can refill the screen buffer in 16 milliseconds is good
enough.

800x600 24 bit true color at 60 is 86.4 megabytes per second and the video
card memory has to do it times 2, once for the incoming data and second for
output to the RAMDACs. It can't. And even if it could processing full
frames when only a portion has changed would be a terrible waste of
processing power.

The 'argument' is moot because I've done it: Taken the millennium card and
tried it in everything from a P166MMX to an Athlon 3200+ and there is no
difference in the agonizingly slow, almost static, movement.

On the other hand, the P166MMX with a still rather old TNT2 works quite
well and that is it's current mission in life: a virtual fish tank.


The screen saver presumably depending on some sort of hardware
functions in the card, other than simple bitmaps.

That's why they're called '3D'.

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


He's probably got the windows effects enabled since XP will default to that
on a 'super powerful computer' if you "let Windows chose.".


They are all disabled. I have XP configured to look like NT 4.0.


Then, with all due respect, I do not accept your characterization of it's
speed.

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


You know, since he essentially dismissed the 100,000 to 1 cost reduction in
disks drives as not 'counting' in the performance issue he could use a
massively parallel disk array to speed things up since he'd have, by that
measure, up to 100,000 drives to play with, to hit the same price/bit mark.


Massively parallel systems have problems of their own.


No kidding. Tell me of anything that doesn't "have problems of their own."

Mxsmanic wrote:

Phil Weldon writes:


Why don't you post details on the equipment, applications, and operating
systems you work with?


No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems.


You've got one heck of a hard sell when we're all sitting in front of a
machine we can see for ourselves.

Mxsmanic wrote:

kony writes:


What's your point again?
That because "some" don't want one, this means all
technology should stand still?


No. My point is that there is a big wide world out there beyond the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form.

Then your point is demonstrably invalid because, if it were true, there
were would be little sales outside the business world and even a casual
visit to Best Buy, Circuit City, or any number of consumer stores, proves
otherwise.

Again, what is the point?
Random observations about minorities is kinda wasteful.


That's why geek arguments are so weak. Most people aren't geeks.

That's true. Most people aren't geeks. And I am surrounded by teeming
hoards of computerized non geeks.


Yep, the size is a large part of it. What if you were a
woman and had enough room in your purse for a smaller
version?


I'd use the room for something else.


Transportability and weight have everything to do
with how portable something is. Further, smaller devices
more readily find their ways into new places like cars and
perhaps classroom desks.


For what purpose?

And how do you type on such small computers? How do you read the tiny
screens?

That's the difference between 'complainers' and designers. The complainer
stops at imagining things to complain about while the designer continues on
to look for solutions.

You ought to go to stores and advise them of this wisdom, as
many stores are still concluding that they are selling them.


Some sell them, some don't. The attraction is fat margins, not volume.

That's a laugh.

IMO, one of the most valuable things to a PC is internet access, which I
consider almost as innovative and useful as the invention of the printing
press because one has, at their fingertips, an almost unlimited source of
information. For example, instead of just arguing 'feelings' or 'deduction'
I can put "consumer PC sales 2004" into Google and find:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/CEAP...esFor2004.html

(The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA): U.S. Consumer Electronics
Sales & Forecasts: 1999-2004)

"Manufacturer-to-dealer sales of consumer electronics products will total a
record $101 billion in 2004... "Consumer electronics continue to win over
American consumers by providing the tools to create, educate, entertain and
connect," said Gary Shapiro, CEA president and CEO."

Of that, for some comparisons (2003 numbers):

digital television (DTV) products... some $6.1 billion
plasma television... nearly $1.5 billion
LCD... $0.65 billion
stand-alone DVD players... more than $3 billion
direct-to-home satellite systems... nearly $1.4 billion
personal video recorders (PVRs)... $0.19 billion
MP3 players... $0.56 billion
digital camera sales... some $3.4 billion
wireless telephones... almost $9.2 billion

PC sales --- $12.5 billion ---
(which, btw, was a 15 percent increase over 2002)


Would seem that just a bit more than "almost no part of it is interested in
computers, in any form."