>> 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.

Only the last two there actually require any more RAM. The others just 
eat your harddrive faster.

(As an aside... Are you serious? Are there really 10 megapixel cameras 
now? Last time I looked, 7 was about the biggest you could get. I mean, 
unless you pay silly money, obviously.)

> I don't know if you noticed, but computers always seem to 
> sell for the same price.


basically the cheapest thing in the shop.

> But the fact is, the prices don't go down, the specs go up.

Now that I can agree to.

> If Vista is shipping on the cheapest PCs, then it 
> can't be that overpriced.

I just checked online. A copy of Vista that doesn't say "upgrade" on it 

  So that's 80% of the cost of the hardware. You can build a cheap PC 

expensive to me...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message