Re: Software manuals [was: Re: App sought that issues 'mouse codes'...]
Martin Bazley
> On Aug 29, 3:54�pm, Martin Bazley <martin.baz...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > This may seem like an obvious question, but why does any computer need
> > 'at least' 1GB (1,024MB, 1,048,576KB) of RAM to even attain a usable
> > speed? �Is Windows actually that inefficient?
>
[snip]
> And, FWIW, 2 GiB is usually considered the minimum for reasonable
> speed nowadays, 1 GiB is considered the bare minimum for an XP box.
> (Yes, it'll run with 64 MiB, but it'll be swapping so much you won't
> want to use it.)
>
I know - I've used several of those in my time. Hard disc thrashing
more or less constantly; periodic reminders that the system is 'running
low on virtual memory'; complete lockups every few minutes or so;
performance and smoothness comparable to an A4000 attempting to run Doom
(yes, I've done it). This comes from computers ten years or more newer
than my own, with hundreds of times more RAM and astronomical processor
clock speeds. And they call this progress?
> Linux isn't any better, nor is OS X.
>
I know Apple operating systems are more or less going the
bells-and-whistles route of Windows now, but I expected better of Linux.
I'm probably prejudiced in its favour because I've never actually seen
or used it.
> Anyway, how many programs are you running at once on your Iyonix?
To which the obvious answer is: how many are you running on your PC?
Right now, the Task Manager records the presence of: AntiSpam;
SpamStamp; Gigo; NewsHound; Pinboard; Print Spool Check; Messenger Pro;
NetSurf; MsgServe; SparkFiler; StrongHelp and StrongED. I could load up
lots more, except I don't happen to be currently using anything else.
On my RiscPC 600, I have frequently got carried away and caused the icon
bar to overflow, including several large applications. 'La Difference'
is that I only notice I'm bloated when I run out of memory (which, even
with a 'tiny' 17MB, takes some doing). This is on a computer with about
a twentieth of the processing power of the one I'm using now, but the
fact is, in day-to-day desktop use, the difference (except in speed of
opening directories) really isn't significant.
I realise that such a discussion really has no place on this newsgroup,
and have cross-posted and set follow-ups appropriately.
--
__<^>__ *****************************************************************
/ _ _ \ ***** PLEASE NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED *****
( ( |_| ) ) ***** martin...@blueyonder.co.uk *****
\_> <_/ *****************************************************************
Mr John FO Evans
<martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > This may seem like an obvious question, but why does any computer need
> > > 'at least' 1GB (1,024MB, 1,048,576KB) of RAM to even attain a usable
> > > speed? �Is Windows actually that inefficient?
I always thought that the reason for all this memory was the use of large
numbers of separate files in windows programs - presumably the program will
run slowly if they cannot be kept cached.
Is this a hangover from the 64k memory of the earliest PC's? Or is it a
symptom (which I have seen elsewhere in US industry) of dividing an overall
task into small segments which can be worked on separately?
I once had to talk to a US company about a device not very different from a
cycle dynamo. I needed to talk to about 5 different teams. They in turn were
surprised that a UK company could send then a single representative -
especially as this discussion was only a sideline of my main reason for
going to the US.
John
--
_ _________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk