And lo on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:24:30 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake, saying:

>>> 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.

No the comparision here appears to be -

OS+applications requires 1 Gb of RAM
new OS+same applications requires 2 GB of RAM

It's not the point that RAM is cheap the question is why do you need to  
double your RAM size in order to get similar results as with your previous  
OS?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message