>> 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.

Have you tried editing a 10MP photo?  10e6*3bytes = 30 MB, times several 
layers and undo levels easily exceeds 256 MB.

Have you tried editing a full-HD video clip using your PC?  Believe me, it 
eats RAM, which is traditionally why the "video editing" PCs have been high 
spec with lots of RAM.

> (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.)

Yawn!  Check amazon!  Loads priced between 100 and 200 pounds with 10MP.


> basically the cheapest thing in the shop.

While that may be true, I highly doubt that a PC would not have been 
available at the time for under 1000 pounds.  WHen was it and what spec?  We 
bought a P166 32MB in 1996 (IIRC), it cost something like 800 pounds and 
certainly wasn't the cheapest one available.

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


Where the hell are you looking?  On amazon they have the 
all-singing-all-dancing full Ultimate edition for 217.98.  The home-premium 
edition is 147.48.  If you want to upgrade, it's 68.98 for the home version, 
and if you want the OEM version (basically tied to that PC) then you can 
half those prices.

Of course, a company like Dell who buys in bulk will get it a lot cheaper, 
assume they pay around half price, so that's 30 quid instead of 60 for home 
premium.

Post a reply to this message