On 2007-12-14, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> On 2007-12-14, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ____/ AZ Nomad on Friday 14 December 2007 04:18 : \____
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:06:27 -0600, Tom Shelton
>>> <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>On 2007-12-13, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> ____/ 7 on Thursday 13 December 2007 16:45 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Linonut on Thursday 13 December 2007 14:06 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the whole, though, I'm quite happy with this system and this amount
>>>>>>>> of RAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pass some over. I'm still on 256 MB over here, with KDE 4 alpha at times.
>>>>>>> Can this thing run Vista, let alone have it installed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its becoming dirt cheap - about 60 pounds for 4Gb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but who needs so much memory? Maybe I should say: /what/ needs so much
>>>>> memory?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Video production, photo editing are the two big ones that come to mind.
>>
>> Very few people do the former. As for the latter, only if you edit gigantic
>> images or do CG stuff (ray tracing and such) will this be necessary.
>>
>
> I know lots of people who do the former, actually. I even play with it
> on occasion.
I'd just like to have 4G to have 4G. I may never need it all, or I
might.
I used to compile a lot of things in 80M, a few years ago, of course. I
did one (I forget what it was now) that crashed the machine with 256M
swap. I upped it to 512M. It crashed again. I upped it to 1G and
completed the compile after many hours.
I never needed that much again. But I'll always have 1G swap or more
around, just in case. I feel the same about maxing out the memory.
--
One single fact can ruin a perfectly good argument.
|
|
