Le 2012-08-14 17:03, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> Still, if it's as trivial as you claim to have multiple TB of RAM back
>>> in 1995, why didn't they do that?
>>
>> I don't think anyone said it was "trivial" - just "possible".
>>
>> Neither of those implies "cheap" or "desirable in all circumstances"
>> either.
>
> I said "why would you want a 140GB heap when it's impossible to have
> that much RAM?"
>
> And everyone was like "OMG, are you kidding? Of COURSE you can have
> hundreds of GB of RAM. EVERYBODY does this ALL THE TIME for EVERYTHING!
> If your company doesn't do this then they're just being cheap."

[Citation required]

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message