[rescue] Perverse Question

Phil Stracchino alaric at caerllewys.net
Mon Jun 9 17:47:12 CDT 2003

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 05:02:39PM -0500, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> Like Dave, George, and I have said repeatedly, 64MB of 1996 RAM is 64MB
> of 2003 RAM.
> So, why was 64MB of 1996 RAM "living large", but 256MB of
> 2003 RAM "just getting by"?  It's sure not because the software is 3 or
> 4 times -better- than it was seven years ago.

Well, a cynical person [insert innocent look here] might speculate that
Intel releases faster processors to enable Microsoft to write more
bloated code, and Microsoft releases ever-more-bloated code that
requires ever-more-copious amounts of RAM to make sure people keep
buying ever-faster Intel processors ....

 .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
 : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
 :  alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net  :
 :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
 :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :

More information about the rescue mailing list