| 1 |
Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> you know - I don't give a rat's ass about 'pig' or not, because: |
| 4 |
> I have enough ram. Ram is cheap. 16gb of DDR 1600 ECC costs what? 160€? |
| 5 |
> Cheap. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
What kind of argument is this? |
| 8 |
I do not consider it cheap to spend 160 bucks only to waste them |
| 9 |
for nothing. *If* I should spend 160 bucks for ram, then I would |
| 10 |
want to use this ram for: calculations, image manipulation, many |
| 11 |
parallel tasks, or whatever have been my reasons to spend 160 bucks. |
| 12 |
Certainly not for wasting it to unnecessary bloat: This would mean |
| 13 |
to spend 160 buck to get ... eehmm ... what? An even slower system? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> 11GB used. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Great. What a pointless waste. |
| 18 |
My laptop has 512MB, my "small" PC 1GB, and my "large" PC 2GB. |
| 19 |
Especially the large one is reasonably fast (with a sane windows manager) |
| 20 |
and is used for all tasks a desktop is typically used for - including |
| 21 |
a *lot* of multimedia, firefox, emacs, tex, gcc; usually several instances |
| 22 |
of all these in parallel. |
| 23 |
Only in *very* rare situations ram gets low, so I do not really feel |
| 24 |
any restriction due to 2GB "only". |
Archives