scott wrote:
>> No - I'd like 99% of my RAM available for doing *useful work*,
> 
> You could always install a minimum Linux build and use a plain-text 
> editor instead of MS Word.

It's surprising how much RAM even that requires... You'd think it would 
be a few KB, but apparently not.

> What's your definition of useful work btw?  I think it would probably be 
> quite different to most other users of Windows.

Why? Because I want to use the RAM for surfing the Internet or holding 
that document I'm working on, rather than storing some useless annoying 
animated paperclib?

>> not just wasted because lazy programmers couldn't be bothered to fix 
>> their code.
> 
> Why on Earth should they optimise a program for minimum-RAM footprint 
> that uses only 10MB in the first place??!?!  It would be a total WASTE 
> of time and money for precisely ZERO benefit.

It saddens me that these days people think producing a superior product 
is "a waste of time".

> Sure, if your program is using a huge chunk of RAM then it would 
> probably be worth spending time trying to make sure it is optimised, but 
> for something that is only using 10MB in the first place it's a total 
> waste of time.

You say "only" as if 10 MB is a small amount of RAM...

> In fact, I think the whole MS OS and Office apps have probably been 
> optimised for speed, not RAM usage, as todays machines have many times 
> more RAM than you could ever use by loading even 50 copies of Word and 
> PowerPoint.

Given how badly many of the PCs at work struggle to run Word, I doubt 
that...

I guess it just comes down to how frustrating it is that my PC takes 30 
seconds to load or close any given application. I mean, 20 *years* ago 
computers could do that instanteneously with a fraction of the RAM and 
CPU power. Why are we not coding like that any more??

Post a reply to this message