If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|