Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Too much RAM

Last response: in Memory
Share
April 26, 2005 8:07:12 PM

Interesting article.

<A HREF="http://www.canadiancontent.net/tech/computing/too-much-..." target="_new">You may think that too much RAM would make your computer extremely fast and there is no limit on how much you could put. That's where people go wrong. When the computer needs to look for constant data in RAM, addressing space comes into play. For example if you are looking for someone's house in a small street, you have a better chance of finding the right house on the small street than on the big street. The big street is what you'd get if you overload your computer with RAM.</A>



<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem

More about : ram

April 26, 2005 8:58:07 PM

hehe

There are normal desktop users who don't need more than 1GB memory...
There are also some enthusiast gamers who can eat upwards of 2GB of memory
And then of course there is WUSY to who we all must bow down to.

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
April 26, 2005 9:03:54 PM

The reason he needs so much RAM is because of all the porn thats slowing his computer down. 300G of porn is a bit over the top.[/No fun intended]

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
Related resources
April 26, 2005 9:37:15 PM

I don't even have to read this...it's obviously a hoax...I saw what was in the address bar...Canada...And i know about canadians...they're planning on taking over the world. We all know it...Don't try to deny it. I heard they got their second N U C L E A R powered sub the other year...god. Who knows what they'll do now. Oh god...i pissed myself.

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
April 26, 2005 9:45:39 PM

Oh well..

They are probably MAC users anyway.

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
April 26, 2005 10:30:20 PM

What confuses me the most about the MAC audience is their claim to being "sophisticated"

sophisticated, definition: To make more complex

I didn't know a MAC was more complex than a PC.

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
April 26, 2005 10:51:09 PM

There are some pretty sick PC mods out there.

You put wheels on some of the PC-mods and you might end up with a rice-rocket.

A mac just seems like something that would decorate nicely with your furniture.

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
April 27, 2005 12:27:44 AM

You two have been on a rant without me? [/Nobody likes me]

:eek:  If I would have shot you when I had the chance, I would be out by now :eek: 
Intel P4 550(3.4)@<font color=green>5Ghz</font color=green>
April 27, 2005 1:32:59 PM

Would you say unix is more complicated then windows?

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
April 27, 2005 6:35:44 PM

I would say Windows is more complicated then Unix. But it's not necessarily true.

I would make the claim that any OS that has more user-friendly functions becomes more complicated. Perhaps it's just one view.

If you compare Java to C++, Java programming is easier to use which makes it less complicated for the user, however the backend programs become more complicated as a result. Actually, Java's backend is C++, which is rooted in the C language.

In this respect, Java is more complicated because of user friendly function. But then C++ is more complicated because it has the potential to do more.

Essentially all OSes have the same basic characteristics; they have to follow standards set in the machine code language.

I would not make any claims towards a MAC/PC being more complex then the other.

So it becomes a matter of opinion: Is the complexity of an OS a derivative of the assembly code language (instruction set), or is it a matter of how many functions arrise from the instruction set? or both?

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
April 27, 2005 7:03:12 PM

During the time of the x86 instruction set, nearly all programming had to be done in the assembly language.

Around the time the of RISC, there were many improvements in programming languages, compiler technology, and the cost of memory was getting better which meant there was less programming at the assembly level. So the RISC instruction set, for example, could be measured by how well compilers used it, as opposed to how well assembly programmers used it.

Also, RISC machines used fixed length instructions, with limited operations.

If you have ever had the chance to program a machine in assembly you'll probably know exactly what I am talking about.

<font color=green>*****
"Memory with lifetime warranty? So, whose lifetime is that?"
<A HREF="http://www.brentcrowley.com/" target="_new">homepage</A>
<font color=red>AIM BrentUnitedMem
!