 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:45:25 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
>>> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
>>> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
>>> hard-pressed to think of anything else...
>>
>> Virtualization of multiple OSes. Lots of people use VMware for
>> testbeds and such, that takes a good amount of memory.
>
> Surely you'd only *attempt* such a thing on an extremely high-end server
> though? (Recall that Vista is a desktop OS.)
Nope. IT classrooms typically buy the cheapest hardware they can
possibly purchase - usually desktop machines - and then run a virtual
server envrionment.
For lab work, high-end hardware is typically also not used unless
hardware duplication needs to be done for testing. Many of the machines
I've used in labs have been discarded desktops for users who upgraded to
better machines. Old Compaq Deskpro machines and the like.
I have a Compaq EVO 600 sitting here on my desk at home that's running
VMware Server, and on my Linux laptops, I have VMware Workstation
installed so I can have access to Windows for the one or two odd
occasions where I absolutely must have it (and I hate having to use it at
all). Without the 2 GB of RAM in my laptop, I wouldn't be able to do
that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:44:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sure. If you're running an intensive game, you're going to need the
> hardware to handle it. (Not sure why you'd be running something else at
> the same time as a game, but hey...)
Lots of people run antivirus, firewall, etc - while playing games.
I know many people who will have docs open for whatever reason while
playing games (taking notes, etc).
It's not uncommon.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Not sure why you'd be running something else at the same time as a game
You never played Second Life, have you? ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Maybe I've missed something, but what image editing software gives you
> more than 1 level of undo?
The GIMP. It's in your price range, too :)
> I own a camcorder. It bearly produces SD quality, never mind HD! And it
> was not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. (So I'm told anyway. It
> was a gift, so I didn't actually pay for it.) The idea that you could
> seems really far-fetched to me.
Sounds like an old cam-corder. Put it this way: 4 years ago, when I
worked at Best Buy (not the cheapest shop, mind you), you could buy an
SD camcorder for <$200 (that's about GBP130). You could buy a really
nice HD one for $800 (GBP500 or so).
>> A quick Google revealed that in 2006 8% of homes had an HD-capable TV.
>
> That's a really tiny percentage.
That's about what Macs have, and they're not exactly rare.
> And let's not forget, you still need an HD source. Those are still
> prohibitively expensive too. (Last I heard, a BluRay player is abour
You can get a PS3 for $399 now (GBP 250), or a stand-alone player for
$200 (GBP 130).
> This suggests to me that you only need large stacks of RAM if you're
> doing professional video editing work. I mean seriously, I don't even
> *know* anybody else rich enough to afford a video camera, much less
> technically expert enough to attempt to *edit* video beyond what you can
> do with a DVD recorder...
You need to get new friends, the ones you have are affecting your
viewpoint :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Really? That's a rather sudden price drop, don't you think? I mean, the
> format is still brand-spanking-new. Are there even any BluRay titles to
> play yet?
The format was brand new 3 or 4 years ago. You realize that the
Japanese have had HDTV as standard for over a decade, and are currently
discussing the successor to it (3800 horizontal resolution, or something).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I remember when Myst first came out on a CD. Wow, over 600 meg on one
> read-only disk. "Well," I thought, "there goes the end of game pirating.
> You'd never be able to copy such a thing onto a hard drive."
Yep I remember that time too, when previous games I had came on up to 10
floppies. Then this CD drive came out and could store 600 meg - the first
few data CDs I got (the entire archive of a certain magazine's cover discs,
and a couple of games) only used about a quarter of the CD. Now we have
games that come on multiple DVDs, surely the step to blu-ray can't be that
far off now.
> And yeah, it's nice to have a 10G text file, wonder how you're going to
> trim lines off the top and bottom conveniently, and then realize you are
> on a 64-bit machine with 16G of RAM, so you just fire up VI.
For me it's just nice that my PC can be chugging away processing a 5GB
simulation, and yet I can carry on working as normal (Outlook, powerpoint,
excel etc) as if it's doing nothing else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:23:47 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scott com> did
spake, saying:
>> 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?
>
> Because Vista was designed for new computers? I guess MS saw it as a
> waste of money optimising it for older machines.
A more precise answer would be - because it's doing more then the old OS,
but it's all under the surface where you can't see it.
At which point the question becomes - What stuff and does it make things
better?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe I've missed something, but what image editing software gives you
>> more than 1 level of undo?
>
> The GIMP. It's in your price range, too :)
Uhuh. And who (apart from me) uses that?
>> I own a camcorder. It bearly produces SD quality, never mind HD! And
>> it was not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Sounds like an old cam-corder.
It's only about 1 year old.
> Put it this way: 4 years ago, when I
> worked at Best Buy (not the cheapest shop, mind you), you could buy an
> SD camcorder for <$200 (that's about GBP130). You could buy a really
> nice HD one for $800 (GBP500 or so).
Doesn't necessarily mean that you can buy it in the UK for that price.
UK. I'm also told - I don't know if it's true - that CDs are roughly 10x
cheaper in America than here.)
>>> A quick Google revealed that in 2006 8% of homes had an HD-capable TV.
>>
>> That's a really tiny percentage.
>
> That's about what Macs have, and they're not exactly rare.
Rare enough that in my entire life, I've never seen a real Mac. Except
on TV.
>> And let's not forget, you still need an HD source. Those are still
>> prohibitively expensive too. (Last I heard, a BluRay player is abour
>
> You can get a PS3 for $399 now (GBP 250), or a stand-alone player for
> $200 (GBP 130).
>> This suggests to me that you only need large stacks of RAM if you're
>> doing professional video editing work. I mean seriously, I don't even
>> *know* anybody else rich enough to afford a video camera, much less
>> technically expert enough to attempt to *edit* video beyond what you
>> can do with a DVD recorder...
>
> You need to get new friends, the ones you have are affecting your
> viewpoint :)
"New" friends? What makes you think I have any to start with?
I said I didn't *know* anybody - nothing about being friends with them. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wouldn't scrolling the file take more than the linetime of the universe?
>
> Errr, no? If you turn off the syntax highlighting, it takes about 90
> seconds to load and maybe 2 minutes to save.
90 seconds?
If you just wanted to remove the first and last line, wouldn't it take
less than 90 seconds to script it? Even in the most retarded scripting
language imaginable?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Yep I remember that time too, when previous games I had came on up to 10
> floppies. Then this CD drive came out and could store 600 meg - the
> first few data CDs I got (the entire archive of a certain magazine's
> cover discs, and a couple of games) only used about a quarter of the
> CD. Now we have games that come on multiple DVDs, surely the step to
> blu-ray can't be that far off now.
Rise of the Robots: 12 floppies, delicious graphics, LAME gameplay.
Native Instruments Komplete V: 12 DVDs.
I think the step to BluRay has gotta be pretty far away though. You want
a drive that reads and burns CD, DVD-SL, DVD-DL, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R,
Looking along the shelves and seeing that it quite a wakeup call. It's a
bit like that time I was in a jewlery shop, looking at earings at about
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
