PC 4GB RAM limit

[~misfit~]

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/
http://www.cedmagic.com/history/ibm-305-ramac.html
http://www.asme.org/history/roster/H090.html

There are lots more websites that cover the development of
mechanical/electronic computing machines. There is even a newsgroup,

alt.folklore.computers

with posts like the following:

****

"A brief mention of the Control Data 1700, described in a manual on Al
Kossow's web site, has been added to the 16-bit architectures I
describe on my page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/co0304.htm

I can't blame Al for the misprints and errors that appeared in Control
Data's manual for that computer - the illustrations for the shift and
conditional skip instructions got skipped, and the diagram shows the
same opcode for the shift instructions as the register to register
instructions (but the text gives them distinct opcodes) - but I think
I managed to sort it out.

It seems to me that this one was designed by Seymour Cray, and, if so,
he did stray from 24, 36, 48, 30, and 60 bit words at least once in
his career prior to the Cray 1. Even if this unit did use standard
18-bit memory modules (one bit for program protection, one bit for
parity).

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html"

****

It's a facinating subject, computer history. Enjoy.

Cheers Phil, much appreciated.

 

[kony]

And that's just examples of 'critical' needs, saving lives, but, after all,
other than propagating the species what's the purpose of living if not to
enjoy it?

I'm sorry, Dave. I can't allow you to do that.

The purpose of life is to build solar cells.

 

[Mxsmanic]

So what does?

GUI processing, disk I/O, possibly other things. I don't know exactly
what causes the delay, but the operation is far from instantaneous. A
lot of time is spent repainting revealed windows, too.

I'm running Windowblinds with DesktopX. If anything is
going to slow down the GUI, thats it.

I'm not familiar with either of these products.

 

[Mxsmanic]

A severely misconfigured card/driver might cause it but even
then it's doubtful, any 8 year old card can manage over
30FPS in 2D.

I agree.

In default configurations it might simply be
Windows' GUI effects which deliberately slow it down unto
the point of it being visually obvious, which was the whole
point of the effect.

I think it has a lot to do with the applications that are called to
repaint their windows. That involves a huge amount of processing and
applications are very slow to do it.

 

[Mxsmanic]

If memory serves that really was at least part of the motive behind
'scroll' and 'fade' presentation as an instantaneous 'POW' popup can be
startling and mildly disturbing.

I'd prefer that everything be instantaneous. I've yet to see a computer
that can manage that, however, no matter how powerful. All it has to do
is manage to complete all operations in 1/60 of a second or so, which
you'd expect it to be able to do at 3+ billion operations per second;
but thanks to bloat it still cannot.

 

[kony]

I agree.


I think it has a lot to do with the applications that are called to
repaint their windows. That involves a huge amount of processing and
applications are very slow to do it.

Which app(s) are you taking about? If you have a common one
in mind perhaps someone else can observe this lag. A random
trial here did not produce any lag in minimizing that would
be long enough to be concerned about at all, the windows
literally minimized fast enough to be considered
instantaneous, without lag.

 

[Mxsmanic]

If we were to step back and look at the real limitation, the
bottleneck is now the user, not the disk. How are you going
to upgrade the user on your system?

Time spent waiting for user input doesn't count, because it's not part
of response time. This is true whether the user is human or simply
another machine.

Even so, I agree that for simple, common tasks they "can" be
disk bound, if we ignore caching. Even then they may be
somewhat disk bound, BUT on these simple tasks, it's not
always necessary for the performance to increase more than
the user can perceive it, except with excessive software
bloat scenarios, and even then, caching helps.

Whatever the causes, computers still cannot manage to do anything
quickly enough to appear instantaneous. Anything done in 1/60 second or
less is going to appear instantaneous, but virtually no operation falls
below that threshold.

I'll consider computers fast when all applications start in less than
1/60 second, and all complex operations are finished in the same amount
of time. We aren't even remotely close today, thanks in large part to
software bloat.

Even if that link was to a local resource instead of on
internet, the bottleneck was as likely to be the network
speed (or server latencies).

No, it was not. I've measured the network and server delays. The
transfer of data from the server occurs at more than 5 MB/s; the server
responds within about 300 microseconds. Virtually all the time
respresented by the delay in response is attributable to disk I/O and
compute-bound rendering of the page. The page comes up quite fast, but
not nearly "instantaneously" (less than 1/60 second or so), even though
you'd think that today's computers would have more than enough
horsepower to do that (and they do--except that most of it is wasted by
bloat).

Even so, previsouly I did mention use of a ramdisk, you can use one for browser
caching if you choose to do so.

The browser is already doing its own caching. In fact, it is constantly
writing to a disk cache, which takes time.

As for the remaining reads
a large portion may have been from registry for user
configuration information, leading one to think if you
dislike IE you can simply choose another more secure browser
with a behavior you like more, IF you can accept a change
from the user's preferences standpoint- and if you can't,
you somewhat have to accept that IE has supported your user
config by making those I/Os.

I use Firefox most of the time, and it isn't really any faster in these
circumstances.

 

[Mxsmanic]

I think it far more likely to be the cost and the learning
curve involved. It's exceedingly rare when I hear someone
claim they don't "want a PC", compared to one of several
other reasons they don't currently have one such as space,
time available to use it, or that they actually DO have one
but it's partially broken and non-operational.

It's exceedingly rare that I hear someone say he doesn't want a GPS
receiver, and yet most people don't have one and don't want one.

A lot of people tell me explicitly that they don't want a PC. The
majority of those who have PCs use them primarily for checking e-mail
and surfing the Web, activities which in themselves don't really justify
the expense of a PC.

PCs are expensive because they are bloated; and they have to be bloated
because software continues to swallow every improvement in hardware,
such that the only way to get reasonable response time with
currently-available software is to buy a fast, new PC. It's a vicious
circle, deliberately created by vendors to drive sales. But it's hard
for the average person to justify $1000 just to check e-mail and surf
the Web. Most people can find many other, more interesting ways to
spend that kind of money, and they don't miss not having a PC at all.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Most people don't technically "require" electric can
openers, microwaves, or more than one pair of shoes either.
"Require" is a pointless word to use in this context, it may
even be inhumane to expect someone in a modern society to
only have in their possessions what they "require" to stay
alive.

Many people don't require and do not WANT a PC.

There will always be late-adopters and some that don't adopt
newer tech so long as older fits their needs.

The number of people in the latter category is enormous.

Ask them what, if they could use a laptap?
Yes.

I'll bet quite a few would answer "yes".

They'd say the same thing if you asked about a private airplane. But
you won't actually see people going out to buy either of these, mainly
because they just aren't that interested in such things, and they have
little use for them.

Some might not yet have a laptop but if you had that laptop
with you and had a trial to see if those who are
computer-literate (now a very large percentage of the modern
world's populace) could use it, again I suspect most of not
all of those would be able to.

I've had laptops before and they spend most of their time locked in a
desk, as I couldn't justify carrying them around for anything. I know
lots of other people in the same situation.

Again, similar arguements have been made in the past, yet
the devices were made, it was (in general) profitable to do
as people DO adopt these technologies and will continue to
do so.

If the market is large enough, there's money in it. But it may still
appeal to only a small minority of the population. The iPod is doing
very well even though only a small percentage of the population is
interested in having one.

More due to the benfits (or lack thereof). That's part of
what mobile computing is all about, providing the benefits
of smaller devices that can be used without being tethered
to a desk, being able to more transparently integrate the
interface to information and communication into other more
traditional tasks.

I've heard many people complain about being tethered to a laptop. For
many people, having a laptop equates to bringing one's work home, and
they don't want to do that. They don't need the laptop for anything
except work, and so they won't use or carry one unless forced to do so.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Which app(s) are you taking about?

All of them. When a window is closed to reveal other windows behind it,
every application that owns a revealed window is called by the OS to
repaint the window from scratch. Applications tend to be very slow at
this, often churning through a staggering amount of code to do so.

If you have a common one
in mind perhaps someone else can observe this lag. A random
trial here did not produce any lag in minimizing that would
be long enough to be concerned about at all, the windows
literally minimized fast enough to be considered
instantaneous, without lag.

You saw absolutely no hint of a partial window anywhere? You must have
a very fast system indeed.

 

[kony]

All of them. When a window is closed to reveal other windows behind it,
every application that owns a revealed window is called by the OS to
repaint the window from scratch. Applications tend to be very slow at
this, often churning through a staggering amount of code to do so.


You saw absolutely no hint of a partial window anywhere? You must have
a very fast system indeed.

On certain apps there is a pause, _before_ any closing of
the window as some apps update files upon close. Otherwise,
in general no there is no lag. I'm suspecting that you've
ran out of physical memory and so are waiting on paged data
to be read?

 

[kony]

Time spent waiting for user input doesn't count, because it's not part
of response time. This is true whether the user is human or simply
another machine.

In a situation where the user cannot respond before the
system is ready for further user input, the system would
then seem fast enough.

Whatever the causes, computers still cannot manage to do anything
quickly enough to appear instantaneous. Anything done in 1/60 second or
less is going to appear instantaneous, but virtually no operation falls
below that threshold.

Ceratinly it could depend on the user's eyes, possibly their
state of alertness as well what they perceive as
instantaneous. Regardless, minimizing and maximizing
windows does often appear instantaneous to me. I can't tell
you exactly what fraction of a second I _can_ perceive but
it is above 1/40th as I can see when such framerates in
video are dropping a frame in certain situations.

 

[David Maynard]

I'm sorry, Dave. I can't allow you to do that.

The purpose of life is to build solar cells.

LOL

I'm glad ya set me straight on that one Now I can cancel that mountain
trip to Tibet.

 

[kony]

It's exceedingly rare that I hear someone say he doesn't want a GPS
receiver, and yet most people don't have one and don't want one.

A lot of people tell me explicitly that they don't want a PC. The
majority of those who have PCs use them primarily for checking e-mail
and surfing the Web, activities which in themselves don't really justify
the expense of a PC.

What does justification have to do with it?
For whatever the reason, many do have one and many do adopt
new technlogies.

PCs are expensive because they are bloated;

That's a hard one to swallow. PCs are now far cheaper than
in the past for basic entry-level gear. One could even buy
older technology for even lower price. One pays for modern
performance, to offset the cost of development and so that
everyone who has their hand in the cookie jar, gets paid.

and they have to be bloated
because software continues to swallow every improvement in hardware,

I still disagree there. I DO find modern software bloated,
but you are free to make choices and in the situations where
one needs more performance they see these gains with a newer
PC. If one doesn't need those demanding apps then they
certainly do not have to pay a lot for a system. In fact
today for under $150 one can get a system that is quite
overkill for the most typical tasks.

such that the only way to get reasonable response time with
currently-available software is to buy a fast, new PC.

Then don't use new software, or make different choices.
This is all a rehash of the current thread. Point is, I
agree with part of your notions about bloat, BUT, of all
possible attempts to combat this, you seem taken to only
non-productive measures.

It's a vicious
circle, deliberately created by vendors to drive sales. But it's hard
for the average person to justify $1000 just to check e-mail and surf
the Web.

You must not check PC prices?
I've been throwing away parts fast enough to check email and
surf the web, $1000 is not a realistic way to describe the
situation at all.

Most people can find many other, more interesting ways to
spend that kind of money, and they don't miss not having a PC at all.

The argument only works if one buys the several leaps you've
made but that are clearly false. "Some" of the newer
software does seem bloated, but that's the end of the story,
it isn't a hardship to do simple things and $1000 is just
ridiculous, there isn't anyone that can't find a PC for 1/2
that if they bother to take a few minutes to look.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




I'd prefer that everything be instantaneous.

As a number of folks have mentioned, if you don't like the bells and
whistles then just turn them off. It's a trivial thing to do.

I've yet to see a computer
that can manage that, however, no matter how powerful.

And nothing will ever be able to do it "instantaneously." The laws of
physics don't allow it.

All it has to do
is manage to complete all operations in 1/60 of a second or so, which
you'd expect it to be able to do at 3+ billion operations per second;

As has already been pointed out, cpu cycles aren't the sole determinate of
system speed.

Case in point, Sachs 3D Fish screen saver won't run at speed on an old
Matrox Millennium no matter HOW fast the processor is.

but thanks to bloat it still cannot.

Whatever the problem is with your system, since others manage, it isn't
'bloat'.

 

[kony]

Many people don't require and do not WANT a PC.

What's your point again?
That because "some" don't want one, this means all
technology should stand still?

The number of people in the latter category is enormous.

Again, what is the point?
Random observations about minorities is kinda wasteful.
I have never stated that ALL will adopt, this is a waste of
both our time.

They'd say the same thing if you asked about a private airplane. But
you won't actually see people going out to buy either of these, mainly
because they just aren't that interested in such things, and they have
little use for them.

Same thing as in other areas of life, cost vs benefit vs
ability. Every day more people become more computer
literate. Take any person out there that has a laptop- at
one point in the past they didn't... you are trying to be a
fortune teller by predicting against clearly observed
trends. You need more evidence that a mere perctage of
people who aren't interested in new tech to argue that it
won't be desirable _and_ adopted by others.

Ayone could look around 15 years ago and claim same things
about cell phones. 15 years is not long at all in the grand
scheme of things, and 15 years is being conservative, maybe
8 years ago cell phones were far less popular too.

I've had laptops before and they spend most of their time locked in a
desk, as I couldn't justify carrying them around for anything. I know
lots of other people in the same situation.

Yep, the size is a large part of it. What if you were a
woman and had enough room in your purse for a smaller
version? Transportability and weight have everything to do
with how portable something is. Further, smaller devices
more readily find their ways into new places like cars and
perhaps classroom desks. Looking at the past only at those
who avoid technology is newer a good way to predict how
different new technology will impact the future. Many
people do not "need" (in the narrow context you've used) a
cell phone. Time changes things, and quite rapildly so with
technology.

If the market is large enough, there's money in it. But it may still
appeal to only a small minority of the population. The iPod is doing
very well even though only a small percentage of the population is
interested in having one.

Sure, it only does one thing. The number of people wanting
to listen to digital audio over headphones was already
obviously going to be smaller than (that group plus all
other groups with any kind of access to information,
communication, etc).

Again, what is the point?
You try to argue something that nobody has argued against
yet, apparently. Who said EVERYONE EVERYWHERE is going to
do ANYTHING in particular?

I've heard many people complain about being tethered to a laptop. For
many people, having a laptop equates to bringing one's work home, and
they don't want to do that. They don't need the laptop for anything
except work, and so they won't use or carry one unless forced to do so.

You ought to go to stores and advise them of this wisdom, as
many stores are still concluding that they are selling them.

 

[David Maynard]

In a situation where the user cannot respond before the
system is ready for further user input, the system would
then seem fast enough.





Ceratinly it could depend on the user's eyes, possibly their
state of alertness as well what they perceive as
instantaneous. Regardless, minimizing and maximizing
windows does often appear instantaneous to me.

He's probably got the windows effects enabled since XP will default to that
on a 'super powerful computer' if you "let Windows chose.".

I can't tell
you exactly what fraction of a second I _can_ perceive but
it is above 1/40th as I can see when such framerates in
video are dropping a frame in certain situations.

Just a thought but I'm not sure one can use frame rates to draw that kind
of conclusion because 'motion smoothness' depends on peculiarities of human
perception. In particular, the eye/brain does motion prediction and
irregularities in motion screw that up so it's 'detected' but not
necessarily because of the duration of the frame.

Case in point is movie to TV frame drop down. If an object moves fast
enough the 2:3 frame conversion can cause some people to see it as two
objects because the eye is predicting where it should be and it isn't...
but there's 'another one just behind it' because the repeated frame left it
there when it should have moved. The primary's 'predicted' location picks
up on the next frame, so the primary object remains, but there's a ghost
following that'll be in *it's* 'predicted' location again 3 frames later.

Put another way, human perception doesn't expect real moving objects to
repeatedly, rapidly, and regularly go move-pause-move-pause-move-pause so
it'll convert it to two smoothly moving objects more consistent with what
human perception expects

The "hold two fingers, one from each hand, together and move them back and
forth in front of someone's eyes" then

pop them apart

trick is a similar effect. The mind is startled when they take an
unpredicted separate path.

 

[David Maynard]

kony writes:




It's exceedingly rare that I hear someone say he doesn't want a GPS
receiver, and yet most people don't have one and don't want one.

A lot of people tell me explicitly that they don't want a PC. The
majority of those who have PCs use them primarily for checking e-mail
and surfing the Web, activities which in themselves don't really justify
the expense of a PC.

PCs are expensive because they are bloated; and they have to be bloated
because software continues to swallow every improvement in hardware,
such that the only way to get reasonable response time with
currently-available software is to buy a fast, new PC. It's a vicious
circle, deliberately created by vendors to drive sales. But it's hard
for the average person to justify $1000 just to check e-mail and surf
the Web. Most people can find many other, more interesting ways to
spend that kind of money, and they don't miss not having a PC at all.

What a load of malarkey.

 

[David Maynard]

What does justification have to do with it?
For whatever the reason, many do have one and many do adopt
new technlogies.


That's a hard one to swallow. PCs are now far cheaper than
in the past for basic entry-level gear. One could even buy
older technology for even lower price. One pays for modern
performance, to offset the cost of development and so that
everyone who has their hand in the cookie jar, gets paid.



I still disagree there. I DO find modern software bloated,
but you are free to make choices and in the situations where
one needs more performance they see these gains with a newer
PC. If one doesn't need those demanding apps then they
certainly do not have to pay a lot for a system. In fact
today for under $150 one can get a system that is quite
overkill for the most typical tasks.


Then don't use new software, or make different choices.
This is all a rehash of the current thread. Point is, I
agree with part of your notions about bloat, BUT, of all
possible attempts to combat this, you seem taken to only
non-productive measures.



You must not check PC prices?
I've been throwing away parts fast enough to check email and
surf the web, $1000 is not a realistic way to describe the
situation at all.



The argument only works if one buys the several leaps you've
made but that are clearly false. "Some" of the newer
software does seem bloated, but that's the end of the story,
it isn't a hardship to do simple things and $1000 is just
ridiculous, there isn't anyone that can't find a PC for 1/2
that if they bother to take a few minutes to look.

Don't even have to 'shop' to beat $500. Just walk into any Best Buy or
Circuit City and you'll find complete CPU-monitor-printer-XP bundles for less.

 

[kony]

He's probably got the windows effects enabled since XP will default to that
on a 'super powerful computer' if you "let Windows chose.".

I suspected as much too, but when he started going on about
software bloat and cancelling performance issues, I suppose
I had simply assumed at least for a moment that the more
common Windows enhancements were disabled.

Just a thought but I'm not sure one can use frame rates to draw that kind
of conclusion because 'motion smoothness' depends on peculiarities of human
perception. In particular, the eye/brain does motion prediction and
irregularities in motion screw that up so it's 'detected' but not
necessarily because of the duration of the frame.

Often that may be true, but I'd been observing it while
testing specifically for dropped frames in video, as I'd
been trying to determine how old a system could manage to
run DVD resolution divx at framerates higher than 30 FPS....
not DVDs but that's beside the point, which is that I knew
frame by frame what was there in fast action scenes and
could note instances were flashes of light weren't showing
up... then went to investigate and scrutinized it more. If
I hadn't been looking for that particular event it might
have gone unnoticed.