>> Today if it doesn't fit in RAM, the OS makes the computer
>> pretend it has more RAM than it does (with the *minor issue* of a vast
>> slowdown and halving the life of your harddrive).
> 
> I'd rather put it this way: Today, if it doesn't fit in RAM, the OS 
> helps you "juggling" the memory chunks to work on. (And if it doesn't 
> fit in L1 or L2 cache, the CPU provides essentially the same service.) 
> Which makes life much easier in a world where you don't know how much 
> RAM you'll have when programming the software. (Back then, you /did/ 
> know the specs of the one machine you wrote your programs for.) Plus, it 
> allows much easier and faster (and therefore more economical) design of 
> software where runtime performance doesn't matter that much.

Well, there is that, yes. But I (and presumably everybody else) would 
prefer it if we could actually make RAM really, really fast...

> (As for harddrive life, I guess that depends on your harddrive.)

If stuff is being swapped out just because it isn't being used right 
now, that's fine. But watch a program trying to random-access several GB 
of data when you don't have multiple GB of RAM. It's an extremely 
efficient way to give your HD a *very* strenuous workout! ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message