[rescue] Perverse Question
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