>> Yup, as has always happened every year since the 80s.
>
> Except that it's *difficult* to fit a lot of features into 64 KB of RAM, 
> but it's easy to fit it into, say, 256 MB. So why do we suddenly need 2 
> GB? (Other than that it keeps the hardware vendors happy...)

Because when everyone had only 256 MB of RAM, there weren't cameras that 
could generate 10 mega-pixel images, video cameras capable of creating 
1920x1080x30fps resolution video, DVDs that could store 8GB worth of game 
data, graphics cards that were capable of rendering billions of 
multiply-textured triangles per second etc etc.

You could use exactly the same argument 10 years ago as to why it was 
necessary to have 256MB, when everyone "got on fine" with just 32MB 
previously.  Ditto for 32MB against 640K, 640K against 32K etc.

> Isn't that like saying "if the cheapest Dell offers Vista, then Vista 
> isn't an overpriced OS"? ;-)

Of course.  I don't know if you noticed, but computers always seem to sell 
for the same price.  There's always cheap ones for around 400 pounds, and 
then the expensive ones around 800-1000 pounds (ok then really expensive 
ones for more).  But the fact is, the prices don't go down, the specs go up. 
If Vista is shipping on the cheapest PCs, then it can't be that overpriced.

Post a reply to this message