Has your memory card ever worn out?

nospam wrote:
In article , Mxsmanic

Backing a 64-bit address space without a swapping or paging file requires
17,179,869,184 gigabytes of RAM, so virtual memory isn't likely to become
superfluous any time soon.

nonsense. 64 bit address space can address *significantly* more memory
than 16 gig,

Is 17 exabytes enough for you? That's more than 1/20th of the
whole world's storage as of 2011. (Note: not "digital storage".
Storage. All of it.)

which actually is not that much these days. you are going
to have swap if you do anything major with your computer, even with
that much memory.

That pretty much depends on what you deem "major". People did
major things with computers 10 and 20 years ago ... Remember?
"PDA" coined (Apple Newton), 486DX2, Windows 3.1 ... back when
2-8 MB RAM (that's MEGAbyte, not GIGAbyte, folks) was what the
average had.

So you can't do anything with 4 MB RAM? Sheesh, only shows how
wasteful you are.

-Wolfgang

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

So you can't do anything with 4 MB RAM? Sheesh, only shows how
wasteful you are.

nonsense. *one* photo from my camera is much bigger than 4 mb, and
that's before i start modifying it. even a jpeg from the camera is
bigger than 4 mb, nevermind raw, and that's just for the photo. you
still need memory for the operating system and apps.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:52:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Is 17 exabytes enough for you? That's more than 1/20th of the
whole world's storage as of 2011. (Note: not "digital storage".
Storage. All of it.)

If you had seen my garage, you would have realized that the above
fraction is closer to 1/40th ;-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:40:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

So you can't do anything with 4 MB RAM? Sheesh, only shows how
wasteful you are.

nonsense. *one* photo from my camera is much bigger than 4 mb, and
that's before i start modifying it. even a jpeg from the camera is
bigger than 4 mb, nevermind raw, and that's just for the photo. you
still need memory for the operating system and apps.

Back in those days PhotoPaint used to divide an image in segments for
processing. Even viewing was a relatively laborious process.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So you can't do anything with 4 MB RAM? Sheesh, only shows how
wasteful you are.

nonsense. *one* photo from my camera is much bigger than 4 mb, and
that's before i start modifying it. even a jpeg from the camera is
bigger than 4 mb, nevermind raw, and that's just for the photo. you
still need memory for the operating system and apps.

Back in those days PhotoPaint used to divide an image in segments for
processing. Even viewing was a relatively laborious process.

photoshop does the same thing, even in the early days when it ran on a
1 megabyte macplus.

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

So you can't do anything with 4 MB RAM? Sheesh, only shows how
wasteful you are.

nonsense. *one* photo from my camera is much bigger than 4 mb, and
that's before i start modifying it. even a jpeg from the camera is
bigger than 4 mb, nevermind raw, and that's just for the photo. you
still need memory for the operating system and apps.

Back in those days PhotoPaint used to divide an image in segments for
processing. Even viewing was a relatively laborious process.

photoshop does the same thing, even in the early days when it ran on a
1 megabyte macplus.

In the truly "early days" of PhotoShop, you couldn't buy a computer with 1
megabyte RAM. There was no difficulty in processing large images (50 meg)
because the actual image file was never loaded into RAM. And, there were
applications that worked much faster than PhotoShop, which was a "late
comer" to digital image editing. Folks are too accepting of the incredible
inefficiency of today's systems.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil Gould
wrote:

Back in those days PhotoPaint used to divide an image in segments for
processing. Even viewing was a relatively laborious process.

photoshop does the same thing, even in the early days when it ran on a
1 megabyte macplus.

In the truly "early days" of PhotoShop, you couldn't buy a computer with 1
megabyte RAM.

nonsense. of course you could buy a computer with 1 meg, and they
typically could be expanded to 4-8 meg. that was a lot back then.

There was no difficulty in processing large images (50 meg)
because the actual image file was never loaded into RAM. And, there were
applications that worked much faster than PhotoShop, which was a "late
comer" to digital image editing.

actually it wasn't a 'latecomer' at all. before photoshop, what existed
were little more than paint programs. they were very primitive and not
particularly good.

Folks are too accepting of the incredible
inefficiency of today's systems.

they're actually very efficient.

nospam wrote:
In article , Neil Gould
wrote:
There was no difficulty in processing large images (50 meg)
because the actual image file was never loaded into RAM. And, there
were applications that worked much faster than PhotoShop, which was
a "late comer" to digital image editing.

actually it wasn't a 'latecomer' at all. before photoshop, what
existed were little more than paint programs. they were very
primitive and not particularly good.

I completely disagree with your notions about this. There were several
professional image editing applications on the market long before PhotoShop
was created. What do you think folks used to edit images from high-end drum
scanners?

--
best regards,

Neil

Isn't this thread worn out yet?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

On 2012-07-28 11:13 , Mxsmanic wrote:

Software vendors concentrate on development methods that produce code quickly,
allowing them to push it out the door and earn money as soon as possible. But
this code is massively bloated and unbelievably inefficient. Vendors don't
care once they've sold the product, so they allow users to pay again and again
for their careless development methods.

For once you're saying something clear, concise and true - at least
where commercial (for home and office) software applications are
concerned.

OTOH, hardware is cheap (judging by how much is sold) and uses less
power while doing "more".

In the end it's "what gets done" not "how it gets done".

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.