PC 4GB RAM limit

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




As I've said, 1/60 second is synonymous with instantaneously,

I have no problem if you want to say your personal criteria is 1/60'th of a
second but I do have a problem with you saying "instantaneously" and then
claiming 1/60'th is "synonymous," because it isn't.

There are many times when a 1/60'th of a second response would be
disastrously inadequate. Not necessarily in a 'GUI' but for other things.

and it's
certainly technically possible to do that.

And you base that on what?

It's likely true, just a wild stab of faith on my part, if one is willing
to sacrifice other specifications for it but, short of that, it's
impossible to say without knowing what all the other specifications are.

It just isn't being done.

Assuming it isn't, and that's it's possible, the likely reasons are 1.
people are unwilling to sacrifice other specifications for it, 2. not
enough people give a tinker's dam if it's slower than 1/60'th of a second,
or a combination of the two.

 

[kony]

No, I have 1.5 GB with two thirds of it idle.

I suggest that you Google for tweaks to your OS and
double-check drivers for video, chipset, etc.

When the OS is optimized to avoid GUI special effects, the
lag in maximizing or minimizing windows is so short that
even if not instantaneous (which I still feel is attainable
for all practical purposes), is still far faster than a
human can react. It's rather pointless to try to optimize
something towards an end where there would be no real
benefit, if the GUI is already faster than the user can
react it is then faster than it needs to be.

 

[kony]

I too would suggest it was the SIS because I use ~1.35 gig tualatins (one a
mildly overclocked 1.2 and the other an overclocked 1.1) for a couple of
small HTPCs (two different rooms) and there is moderate room to spare.

Yes Sis integrated video on S370 was a poor joke, taking
same general system config but running from a BX board with
just about any old AGP card made even 2D faster. Even a box
here with Celeron 500 & i810 video without
dedicated/discrete frame buffer onboard was faster than the
Sis video when it had a 33MHz higher memory & front side
busses.

I admit I was a bit surprised at just how much power real time encoding
consumes, though. They're enough for what I'm doing but not for a 'full
featured' HTPC.

Yep, I had a T'Bred @ 1.8GHz encoding @ 640x480 ok, "medium"
quality Divx v3.11 then v5.0(n). Later (unsure of version,
maybe 5.1 or 5.2) Divx versions have more optimizations for
modern CPUs but also effectively redefine what "medium"
quality is, calling what was formerly high quality/slowest,
now medium quality.

 

[kony]

Massively parallel systems have problems of their own.

Anyone can lament or complain... "if only something were
faster", but the real question is, if you find this such a
problem, what are _you_ doing to help make it faster?
I'm sure there are engineers that would love to reduce
latency even more but pointing at what they haven't
accomplished yet isn't productive relative to using what
they have accomplished as effectively as possible.

 

[kony]

This is the case for something like typing text on a screen (usually),
but for many other operations one must wait.

I still feel the biggest bottleneck to modern "light" tasks
is the user. Typing text should not only "usually" be fast
enough, it should always be fast enough.

Of course "some" operations require a moment of hesitation,
but generally they are things compute-bound, intensive
applications that would have even (much) longer wait with
older hardware.

If all else fails, stop using XP and the apps you use.
Use a modern system with older OS & apps. If you choose to
run something that you feel lags when there were other
alternatives, who do you have to blame?

 

[kony]

No need. It's a general problem. I've never seen any exceptions. No
machine is fast enough to escape the problems.

Then I guess you're just damned. IMO the larger problem is
your fixation on supposed "problems", not the supposed
problems themselves. Plenty of people manage to use their
systems and of all things they feel worth mentioning, a
1/60th second lag just isn't remotely near the top of any
list.

 

[kony]

Perhaps you have lower standards. Since all machines force users to
wait, one tends to accept it without noticing it. But there is
virtually nothing that even the fastest PCs do "instantaneously."

Yes they can, because a human cannot perceive below a
certain threshold, so anything you can only theoretically
describe as non-instantaneous, has no significance in actual
use.

 

[kony]

As I've said, 1/60 second is synonymous with instantaneously, and it's
certainly technically possible to do that. It just isn't being done.

You write the OS & apps and I'll dedicate a box to testing
them.

 

[kony]

Most people won't spend money without a sufficient reason for doing so.

.... and yet devices sell. You're trying to make a circular
argument when it is inescapable that the market exists,
devices sell, people have them. Not ALL people have any
particular device.... it was never claimed that was the
case.

They are still far more expensive than they could or should be.

Considering their complexity, being able to get a used box
for under $150 isn't at all expensive relative to most other
consumer products.

I don't always have any choices.

.... but you do sometimes have some choices... and you run
XP... already you're doing the opposite of what's necessary
to realize your expressed goal.

Even half that price is still expensive.

Then don't buy a new PC... and why would you since you
already feel there is no gain?

 

[Mxsmanic]

Anyone can lament or complain... "if only something were
faster", but the real question is, if you find this such a
problem, what are _you_ doing to help make it faster?

I try to write tight code that isn't constantly going out to disk.

If you can't reduce latency, then you need to reduce disk I/O.

 

[Mxsmanic]

I have no problem if you want to say your personal criteria is 1/60'th of a
second but I do have a problem with you saying "instantaneously" and then
claiming 1/60'th is "synonymous," because it isn't.

Perceptually it is. The threshold varies with a number of physiological
and environmental variables, but 1/60 second is pretty safe for video
displays.

There are many times when a 1/60'th of a second response would be
disastrously inadequate. Not necessarily in a 'GUI' but for other things.

If it's not in a GUI, why mention it?

And you base that on what?

On all the monitors and video boards that do it routinely.

Assuming it isn't, and that's it's possible, the likely reasons are 1.
people are unwilling to sacrifice other specifications for it, 2. not
enough people give a tinker's dam if it's slower than 1/60'th of a second,
or a combination of the two.

Mostly (2). Besides which many people are used to waiting and don't
realize that they don't necessarily have to wait.

 

[kony]

No. My point is that there is a big wide world out there beyond the
geeks, and almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form.

LOL
You really should get out more.

That's why geek arguments are so weak. Most people aren't geeks.

The averge home in any country with good computer
availability & cost, and primary wage earners under 60, ie-
those young enough to not be 100% set in their ways, is
likely to have a PC. Having at least one PC for primary use
is not a situation one could desribe as being "geek".

If you're trying to point to peoples with wages too low or
poor availability of parts, then of course PCs won't be as
widespread but NOT for the "geek-like" reasons you suggest.

I'd use the room for something else.

You'd use the room for what you, personally, found most
useful until the size or weight as at maximum acceptible
level. If you, personally, don't want one, that is entirely
a subjective decision contrasted with any other subjective
decision.

For what purpose?

If you can't see any purpose behind being able to
communicate, access data/information, then of course it's
not for you. The purposes are only limited by the
infrastructure to support them, something that always
requires a user base to be profitable. The two (hardware
and services/software) are dependant on each other.

And how do you type on such small computers? How do you read the tiny
screens?

If you have a long pointy nose I guess you could use that,
but generally I would suspect fingers will be most popular.

How to read a tiny screen? Do you read books? Do you ever
notice any detail on anything or are you nearly blind?
People manage.

Some sell them, some don't. The attraction is fat margins, not volume.

Once upon a time it was true, but these days the competitive
pricing makes volume fairly important.

 

[Mxsmanic]

No one claimed everyone had a PC and no one claimed all sales are to 'new
owners'. The point of discussion was your claim that, outside of the world
of geeks, "almost no part of it is interested in computers, in any form."
And the magnitude of sales indicates otherwise as you don't have to sell
one to every soul on the planet just to demonstrate an interest by more
than "almost no part"

The magnitude of sales isn't that great. Twelve billion dollars is only
about $40 per person in the U.S., which roughly implies that only one
American in ten or twenty is buying a computer. And PC penetration is
very high in the U.S.; it is dramatically lower in most other countries.

A PDA isn't a desktop, nor is it intended to be a desktop.

Then assimilating it with desktops is fallacious, isn't it?

You tell me since you're the one who claimed it's "fat."

I don't have exact figures, but I'm certain it is easily ten times what
it is for, say, commodity items like foods, which often have razor-thin
margins. It may even approach or surpass the margins of luxury items
such as perfume (50% or more).

I didn't say a thing about margins and didn't intend to, so your 'rebut' is
arguing against nothing.

Since I spoke specifically of margins, what does this imply?

 

[Mxsmanic]

I still feel the biggest bottleneck to modern "light" tasks
is the user.

The user doesn't count; she is not part of the system being measured.

If all else fails, stop using XP and the apps you use.
Use a modern system with older OS & apps.

The older OS and apps won't support modern hardware. Firewire and USB
are not supported by older software, and newer hardware isn't available
with ISA or SCSI.

If you choose to
run something that you feel lags when there were other
alternatives, who do you have to blame?

There aren't any alternatives.

 

[kony]

There are still many people without PCs, and many PCs are sold to people
who already own PCs. Additionally, on a worldwide basis, PCs are rare.

On a worldwide basis Goretex hiking boots are rare too.
It's a matter of economy, not customer choice.

I haven't seen anyone looking for solutions to these problems.
Keyboards continue to shrink, as do displays. The machines may be tiny
and portable, but they are not at all ergonomic.

Untrue.
Consider the cell phone.
It IS a computer that mimics a traditional telephone.
Naturally the more advanced a product's features are, the
more elaborate the interface would need be, but believe it
or not- people manage. Even small children manage to learn
to text-message their classmates. They have smaller
fingers, but also less coordination. Their smaller size
makes portable devices less portable yet they still manage.
Proportionally a larger person will have same situation
carrying a device with interface large enough for them to
use.

Remember, this is not "all" people. No product is expected
to be sold to everyone everywhere.

Just as watching a movie in the back of a car on a screen the size of a
paperback book in traffic doesn't match the experience of watching the
movie on a wall-sized screen in the comfort of home,

... and yet, some people choose to do so, and they're not all
geeks, merely like movies.

struggling to use a
palm-sized computer with one hand in a subway car does not match the
experience of typing comfortably on a full keyboard in a comfy chair at
home (or in the office).

Who ever said there would be zero tradeoffs for portability?
There are always tradeoffs to be made in product design.
If YOU dont' want anything to do with mobile devices, that's
fine. Others have already decided differently and not only
geeks. Even more will follow when they find devices suiting
their needs.

 

[Mxsmanic]

... and yet devices sell.

Some buyers are geeks who feel compelled to buy the newest of anything.
Some are users who are forced to buy new systems because of the snowball
effect of any change or upgrade in a computer system. Some are
first-time users.

Considering their complexity, being able to get a used box
for under $150 isn't at all expensive relative to most other
consumer products.

Complexity doesn't necessarily matter.

... but you do sometimes have some choices... and you run
XP... already you're doing the opposite of what's necessary
to realize your expressed goal.

There are no alternatives.

Then don't buy a new PC... and why would you since you
already feel there is no gain?

I haven't.

 

[Mxsmanic]

LOL
You really should get out more.

I do. And not just in San Jose.

The averge home in any country with good computer
availability & cost, and primary wage earners under 60, ie-
those young enough to not be 100% set in their ways, is
likely to have a PC.

Really? I know lots of affluent young people in this country who do not
have PCs, even though PCs are readily available. Most of those who
don't have them say that they can't think of a reason to buy one.

Having at least one PC for primary use
is not a situation one could desribe as being "geek".

Many people don't have a use for a PC, not even a primary one (whatever
that means).

If you're trying to point to peoples with wages too low or
poor availability of parts, then of course PCs won't be as
widespread but NOT for the "geek-like" reasons you suggest.

No. Lots of people have plenty of money but choose to spend it on other
things than PCs.

You'd use the room for what you, personally, found most
useful until the size or weight as at maximum acceptible
level. If you, personally, don't want one, that is entirely
a subjective decision contrasted with any other subjective
decision.

A lot of people subjectively decide not to invest in personal computers.

If you can't see any purpose behind being able to
communicate, access data/information, then of course it's
not for you.

A lot of people can't see any purpose to it.

If you have a long pointy nose I guess you could use that,
but generally I would suspect fingers will be most popular.

Small keyboards are too small to type upon with fingers, especially for
those who prefer to touch type for the sake of speed.

How to read a tiny screen? Do you read books? Do you ever
notice any detail on anything or are you nearly blind?
People manage.

Books are much easier to read and don't try to crowd as much on the
page.

 

[Mxsmanic]

On a worldwide basis Goretex hiking boots are rare too.

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Untrue.
Consider the cell phone.
It IS a computer that mimics a traditional telephone.

It is unergonomic for anything other than that mimicry.

Naturally the more advanced a product's features are, the
more elaborate the interface would need be, but believe it
or not- people manage. Even small children manage to learn
to text-message their classmates. They have smaller
fingers, but also less coordination.

It's not a question of coordination, it's a question of small buttons.
I haven't seen anyone touch-typing on a cellphone keyboard.

 

[kony]

The user doesn't count; she is not part of the system being measured.

When all is said and done, a computer is a means to an end.
The time it takes to reach that end is significant.
Discounting the user is pointless, as the system is there
FOR the user(s).

The older OS and apps won't support modern hardware. Firewire and USB
are not supported by older software,

You don't consider Win2K older than XP?
Or is that you only want to consider what supports your
argument?

What makes you think USB and firewire aren't supported by
Win98? Because they need a driver? Welcome to Computers
101, it should be expected that hardware needs a driver
unless told otherwise.

and newer hardware isn't available
with ISA or SCSI.

What's the point here?
You're claiming there are _NO_ boards with ISA anymore?
That isn't true.
SCSI is also still available, but you also have the other
alternatives... so what?

There aren't any alternatives.

OH YES THERE ARE!

You make a sweeping conclusion without bothering to try
*anything*... of course that seems hopeless.

Just to prove there are other alternatives, I will finally
do what you're suggesting all along!

Since there are no gains to modern computers, I will just
use an abacus to post any further replies. As soon as I
gather up enough slave volunteers I will begin construction,
gathering up the beads and pebbles needed. I may need
airport clearance to build a 40 story high abacus capable of
enough calculations to run windows and access usenet, but I
estimate that by the year 2590, my descendents will have
completed the project and can then further correspond on
this issue.

Until then, I won't bother using an ineffective modern
system to reply to your posts.

 

[kony]

I try to write tight code that isn't constantly going out to disk.

If you can't reduce latency, then you need to reduce disk I/O.

Since there are no gains to modern computers, I will just
use an abacus to post any further replies. As soon as I
gather up enough slave volunteers I will begin construction,
gathering up the beads and pebbles needed. I may need
airport clearance to build a 40 story high abacus capable of
enough calculations to run windows and access usenet, but I
estimate that by the year 2590, my descendents will have
completed the project and can then further correspond on
this issue.

Until then, I won't bother using an ineffective modern
system to reply to your posts.