[rescue] Perverse Question
David A de Gruyl
david at bhaermandegruyl.org
Mon Jun 9 20:13:52 CDT 2003
* on [03-06-09 18:01] Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
>Like Dave, George, and I have said repeatedly, 64MB of 1996 RAM is 64MB
>of 2003 RAM. Email is still, by-and-large, 7-bit ASCII. The web is
>still, by and large, HTML and JPEGs. Wordprocessing hasn't changed
>much. Spreadsheets aren't much bigger. Aside from video editing and
>audio editing (which most people -don't- do, full-time), the things we
>expect out of our computers haven't fundamentally changed in the last
>seven years. 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.
I use computers (by and large) to design petroleum plants. This involves
enormous ammounts of calculations. I really do appreciate when the
simulations take 10% of the time that they took on my previous computer.
I can currently do the work of 3-5 engineers, with the aid of decent
computing power. Less waiting and all that.
Of course, most of the simulations I work with have been deveolped over
the past 15-20 years, and started life as fortran programs on Vaxen.
Later they moved to a comercial package with our fortran subroutines
embedded. So, we had some experience with slow. (start now, check on
it tomorrow or something).
But for the most part I agree with you. If I am using a program
designed for slower processors and optimized for memory, it will fly
with a new machine. Sometimes it is nice to get a cup of coffee though.
The biggest problem of today is the operating systems _REQUIRING_
massive amounts of memory. It is obscene that Windows 2K will die a
horrible death if you try to do anything with under 128M and needs 256M
to open Word in a reasonable time.
David de Gruyl <david at bhaermandegruyl.org>
More information about the rescue