Two questions

On 9/18/2015 1:19 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:


snip


When it is said that nospam is here to disagree with someone, he
disagrees.

Does anyone recall nospam ever entering a thread and not disagreeing
with someone?


Yes! Every so often, in the deepest of the woods, even a blind squirrel
finds an acorn.

--
PeterN

On 9/18/2015 5:47 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-18 02:57, David Taylor wrote:
On 17/09/2015 20:15, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article 201509171104071059-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

.. and would not 32 GB RAM be even better?

Yes, if your work needs it. I make do with 16GB.

for some purposes, 4 gig is fine.

it depends on what someone is actually doing.

blindly getting 16 gig or 32 gig just because it's the maximum could
easily be a waste of money.

Yes. I make due perfectly fine with 16GB of RAM. I may see an
advantage to having 32GB but most likely not, it wouldn't be noticed at
all.

Monitoring what happens gives you one figure, then allow for what might
happen in the future - sensor resolutions are still increasing so more
memory might be needed.

At one stage it made sense to get the maximum memory the motherboard
could take. For example, on a four-slot system, if it can take 32 GB
but the system is offered with 16 GB, that could come as 4 x 4 GB
meaning that if you later want to use the full 32 GB you end up throwing
16 GB away. There was also the case when older memory was either much
more expensive or unobtainable when you wanted to upgrade.


When I bought this computer it came with 8 GB. Apple want a fortune for
RAM, so I ordered RAM from Crucial (or OWC or whatever). Added 16 GB
for a total of 24. In the unlikely event that I need 32 GB, then the
original 8 GB will be taken out.

I can run OS X, Win XP, Win 7, a couple Linux' all at the same time
(virtualized) and load PS (for Mac) in the OS X machine; PS for Win in
either (or both) Windows machines, do any silly bugger thing I want in
all of them and there is memory to spare for a RAM disk of a few GB.

So for Peter's needs, I'd guess 8 GB is ample and 16 GB isn't a too
expensive comfort zone.


Sorry Alan. On my laptop, the optimum memory for me is 12 GB. Given the
price of memory, I plan to put in 32. Yes there is some loss with more,
as the increase in memory requires more memory to manage it, at the
current price, I can always take some out.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-18 18:40, PeterN wrote:
On 9/18/2015 5:47 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-18 02:57, David Taylor wrote:
On 17/09/2015 20:15, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article 201509171104071059-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck
wrote:

.. and would not 32 GB RAM be even better?

Yes, if your work needs it. I make do with 16GB.

for some purposes, 4 gig is fine.

it depends on what someone is actually doing.

blindly getting 16 gig or 32 gig just because it's the maximum could
easily be a waste of money.

Yes. I make due perfectly fine with 16GB of RAM. I may see an
advantage to having 32GB but most likely not, it wouldn't be noticed at
all.

Monitoring what happens gives you one figure, then allow for what might
happen in the future - sensor resolutions are still increasing so more
memory might be needed.

At one stage it made sense to get the maximum memory the motherboard
could take. For example, on a four-slot system, if it can take 32 GB
but the system is offered with 16 GB, that could come as 4 x 4 GB
meaning that if you later want to use the full 32 GB you end up throwing
16 GB away. There was also the case when older memory was either much
more expensive or unobtainable when you wanted to upgrade.


When I bought this computer it came with 8 GB. Apple want a fortune for
RAM, so I ordered RAM from Crucial (or OWC or whatever). Added 16 GB
for a total of 24. In the unlikely event that I need 32 GB, then the
original 8 GB will be taken out.

I can run OS X, Win XP, Win 7, a couple Linux' all at the same time
(virtualized) and load PS (for Mac) in the OS X machine; PS for Win in
either (or both) Windows machines, do any silly bugger thing I want in
all of them and there is memory to spare for a RAM disk of a few GB.

So for Peter's needs, I'd guess 8 GB is ample and 16 GB isn't a too
expensive comfort zone.


Sorry Alan. On my laptop, the optimum memory for me is 12 GB. Given the
price of memory, I plan to put in 32. Yes there is some loss with more,
as the increase in memory requires more memory to manage it, at the
current price, I can always take some out.

Why be sorry? It's your choice. But at some point you said, in effect,
"spend as much as needed, but not more than needed."

More memory doesn't need more memory to manage it since you have
whatever more memory is needed to manage it. That may sound facile but
there is no point in putting metrics on such.

What happens with most OS' is that given more memory overall, they will
load and keep more opcode and attendant data in memory and will use swap
less often (if at all). With 32 GB you are very fat on that side (and
frankly more than you're likely to need from what I gather).

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:03:17 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-18 15:40:22 +0000, "Mayayana" said:

| So we have established that Mayayana's last isn't Jenner.
|
| ...er, last name...

Yeah, but the real question is, was the CPU
used to figure that out, or did the mouse do it?

If we get down to the nitty-gritty, without a CPU, you are without a computer.

You may instead be an octopus, which creature has it's processing unit
diffused through most of it's body. There is nothing central about it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:37:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading
as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the
near future.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I'd bet that Apple would convert the entire line right up to the Mac Pro
once they got things going. Maybe not as quick as the Intel transition,
but PDQ.

i doubt it, since intel wins in compute power. where arm shines is
power efficiency, making it suitable for portable products. desktop
products are not on a tight power budget so there's not a strong reason
to make the switch there.

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I don't give a flying sit about "most users." If you had any degree of
awareness you would know that my prime shooting is with a D800, and I am
constantly editing large images. Anyway I have decided.

if you had any degree of a clue, you'd have realized that you've been
told that your use case is not extreme and you don't push the limits.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading
as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the
near future.

how would that affect apple transitioning to another cpu platform?

On 18/09/2015 23:40, PeterN wrote:
[]
Sorry Alan. On my laptop, the optimum memory for me is 12 GB. Given the
price of memory, I plan to put in 32. Yes there is some loss with more,
as the increase in memory requires more memory to manage it, at the
current price, I can always take some out.

No need to worry about needing "more memory to manage more memory".
It's a /very/ small fractional increase, and more than compensated for
by the increased ability of the OS to cache data in RAM.

If the delta price between 16 GB and 32 GB isn't too great, go for it,
although as Alan say, 16 GB is likely enough. I use MRTG to monitor
memory usage, and here's what my 16 GB system shows:

http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/performance_kiruna.php

Even the 8 GB systems here feel comfortable (all running Win-10).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:02:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading
as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the
near future.

how would that affect apple transitioning to another cpu platform?

I believe it will require a secure chipset. We shall have to wait and
see.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens