PDA

View Full Version : PC's now shipping with 8 GB of RAM



Morty007
January 3rd, 2009, 03:46 AM
I noticed that dell.com is now offering pc's with 6 and 8 gigs of ram. Well we all know vista needs a minimum of 8:D, but I was wondering how Linux/Ubuntu would deal with all that ram. Isn't this another example of hardware leaping ahead of what the software can cope with?

Since this is evidently the future of computing, is there any work being done to take advantage of all this, linux wise? Even if you have money to burn, when should you get that much ram to begin with?

OutOfReach
January 3rd, 2009, 03:49 AM
I think 6/8 GB of RAM is a waste of money (even though it is fairly cheap), unless of course your doing something that is memory intensive (VMs, 3D, etc)...

I generally never use more than 500 MB of RAM.

Grant A.
January 3rd, 2009, 03:50 AM
I used to have Vista home basic on a laptop with 512MB RAM, and it ran faster than Feisty. Honestly people, quit spreading rumors.

Delever
January 3rd, 2009, 03:53 AM
What do you mean by "take advantage"? Linux already takes advantage of more RAM you can buy :D

EDIT: quick googling: it seems 128GB is current maximum on 64-bit systems for Linux, so-well, it is possible to buy with some effort :)

Koori23
January 3rd, 2009, 03:53 AM
I think 6/8 GB of RAM is a waste of money (even though it is fairly cheap), unless of course your doing something that is memory intensive (VMs, 3D, etc)...

I generally never use more than 500 MB of RAM.

I seldom see 350MB. I have a Gig.. It still makes me mad I use that much sometimes.. Darn Epiphany :)

I've always been *afraid* of running my processor at 100% or using a bunch of RAM. Don't know why.

SuperSonic4
January 3rd, 2009, 03:56 AM
I'd like to know if they're still shipping them with 32 bit operating systems, I mean most people wouldn't know if it was 32 bit or 64 bit

Morty007
January 3rd, 2009, 04:08 AM
What do you mean by "take advantage"? Linux already takes advantage of more RAM you can buy :D

EDIT: quick googling: it seems 128GB is current maximum on 64-bit systems for Linux, so-well, it is possible to buy with some effort :)


I guess what I meant was will the linux programmers write the programs so that they will use all of that extra ram. But then again it already does so well on a little bit, so I guess my linux inexperience is showing there.

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 04:09 AM
I seldom see 350MB. I have a Gig.. It still makes me mad I use that much sometimes.. Darn Epiphany :)


Just wait until it's ported to WebKit.


I guess what I meant was will the linux programmers write the programs so that they will use all of that extra ram. But then again it already does so well on a little bit, so I guess my linux inexperience is showing there.

There is no such thing as programming for 64 bit (as long as you don't use assembly or something).

BGFG
January 3rd, 2009, 04:13 AM
basically it's about stock being left behind. The i7 architecture takes ddr3 only and i can only assume that shanghai will take high end ddr2 at the least. Enteprise customers are already changing platforms, performance enthusiasts will move over, the rest of the world will follow, and manufacturers will be caught out with a lot of 667 and 800 ddr2 on their hands.

So why not get rid of it ? True it's 6 and 8 gigs, but unless it's i7 you will more than likely be stuck with 'slow' (by new standards) hardware.
With changing tech and economical strife, 2009 will see seemingly insane tech deals. Don't rush and grab without some research.

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 04:15 AM
I used to have Vista home basic on a laptop with 512MB RAM, and it ran faster than Feisty. Honestly people, quit spreading rumors.
Vista Ultimate, faster than Intrepid, both on fresh install. 1GB of RAM.

bruce89
January 3rd, 2009, 04:31 AM
Vista Ultimate, faster than Intrepid, both on fresh install. 1GB of RAM.

What metric are you measuring "speed" by?

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 05:01 AM
What metric are you measuring "speed" by?
How fast it boots, programs load, and overall zippi-ness (mostly menus).

When I bog Windows down with services, yes, it does start to become choppy. I do applaud the precaching idea, though. I wish Ubuntu did this by default.

BTW, on first boot, Ubuntu is faster than Windows. On second, Windows is slightly faster than Ubuntu. I do benchmarks with a stopwatch several times.

MikeTheC
January 3rd, 2009, 05:20 AM
@ OP - Any 64 bit OS can address that much RAM and more, as has been pointed out up-thread.


I myself am waiting for things to shake out with the new i7 platform. It'll be exciting to see the performance improvements and how they stack up in the real world to the test-article results thus far reviewed. However, this is the essential nature of technology -- that is, to continue to improve -- and as has already been said, it will become a driving force for the dropping in price of existing tech, especially in many of the world's sluggish markets.

Also, I am curious to see what improvements there will be once i7 makes the leap to laptops. Everything I've heard and read suggests that, once the power requirements issues are sorted out, we should have some really stunningly-powerful laptops (not that we don't already have some amazingly-powerful ones right now) and I'm also curious, since I would like to buy a laptop at some point down the road.

Polygon
January 3rd, 2009, 05:54 AM
honestly, im a gamer, and i have 4 gb of ram, and i dont think any game comes even close to using that (although i have to check.) let alone a standard computer user........

Skripka
January 3rd, 2009, 06:12 AM
honestly, im a gamer, and i have 4 gb of ram, and i dont think any game comes even close to using that (although i have to check.) let alone a standard computer user........

The only individual softwares which really need it are high-end 3D/graphics/professional software-a la Photoshop or Maya....where such is very much welcome (especially Maya).

BGFG
January 3rd, 2009, 06:20 AM
@ OP - Any 64 bit OS can address that much RAM and more, as has been pointed out up-thread.

Also, I am curious to see what improvements there will be once i7 makes the leap to laptops. Everything I've heard and read suggests that, once the power requirements issues are sorted out, we should have some really stunningly-powerful laptops (not that we don't already have some amazingly-powerful ones right now) and I'm also curious, since I would like to buy a laptop at some point down the road.

I agree, With i7, to me a laptop would finally be worth having. Two years down the road, who knows how powerful processors will be, but i don't think i'll be caught saying; Dammit, i only have an i7, or shanghai opteron for that matter.

I also really appreciate the stance intel took with their platform: ddr3. period.
Why bother to be compatible with tech on it's way out? ddr3 is the fastest, so get in the game or watch from the sidelines.
As for whether or not desktop users 'need' all that memory, I hazard to think that thousands of engineers, graphic artists and multimedia professionals will find a way to utilize quad core 64 bit processors and copious amounts of high end memory.
regular desktop users can count themselves lucky to benefit from these tech trends.

i mean really, the door is being opened for desktop users to be able to say:
Run a couple of VM's, while updating ubuntu, while burning a dvd for a friend, while enjoying you favourite graphics intensive game, and what do the minimalists have to say: 'ummm no thanks...'

Sorry guys, but the advance of hardware for the pc will not be decided by minimalist linux users :)
Much to my chagrin, of course.....

K.Mandla
January 3rd, 2009, 07:42 AM
I think 6/8 GB of RAM is a waste of money (even though it is fairly cheap), unless of course your doing something that is memory intensive (VMs, 3D, etc)...

I generally never use more than 500 MB of RAM.
Big +1. Never more than 128Mb, 64Mb without Firefox.

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 08:02 AM
If you stick with value ram you can hit 8 gigs for $100.

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 08:18 AM
How fast it boots, programs load, and overall zippi-ness (mostly menus).

When I bog Windows down with services, yes, it does start to become choppy. I do applaud the precaching idea, though. I wish Ubuntu did this by default.

BTW, on first boot, Ubuntu is faster than Windows. On second, Windows is slightly faster than Ubuntu. I do benchmarks with a stopwatch several times.

There is no way in hell Vista boots faster then Ubuntu. You must be using a skinned version of XP and confusing it with Vista. :)

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 08:19 AM
Anyway if you have 8GB of RAM and you are using Ubuntu you should probably install this (apt://preload).

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 08:31 AM
I agree, With i7, to me a laptop would finally be worth having. Two years down the road, who knows how powerful processors will be, but i don't think i'll be caught saying; Dammit, i only have an i7, or shanghai opteron for that matter.

I also really appreciate the stance intel took with their platform: ddr3. period.
Why bother to be compatible with tech on it's way out? ddr3 is the fastest, so get in the game or watch from the sidelines.
As for whether or not desktop users 'need' all that memory, I hazard to think that thousands of engineers, graphic artists and multimedia professionals will find a way to utilize quad core 64 bit processors and copious amounts of high end memory.
regular desktop users can count themselves lucky to benefit from these tech trends.

i mean really, the door is being opened for desktop users to be able to say:
Run a couple of VM's, while updating ubuntu, while burning a dvd for a friend, while enjoying you favourite graphics intensive game, and what do the minimalists have to say: 'ummm no thanks...'

Sorry guys, but the advance of hardware for the pc will not be decided by minimalist linux users :)
Much to my chagrin, of course.....


Really the whole introduction of DDR3 has been somewhat controversial. While DDR2 is slower on bandwidth but actually has better speed (round-trip time) then DDR3. That means some applications with bad cache locality actually perform better with DDR2 memory. DDR3 is obscenely expensive right now as well. It really feels like the whole RDRAM fiasco all over again. Really the Core i7 would be selling much better if they supported DDR2.

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 08:52 AM
There is no way in hell Vista boots faster then Ubuntu. You must be using a skinned version of XP and confusing it with Vista. :)

It's Vista. The cmd prompt shows Windows v6 (Vista).


Anyway if you have 8GB of RAM and you are using Ubuntu you should probably install this (apt://preload).

You can use that with 256MB+, but after 1GB, it doesn't show any improvement. You may want to change to readahead and have it index your most used startup items at boot. It would boot slow, but everything would launch very quickly.


Really the whole introduction of DDR3 has been somewhat controversial. While DDR2 is slower on bandwidth but actually has better speed (round-trip time) then DDR3. That means some applications with bad cache locality actually perform better with DDR2 memory. DDR3 is obscenely expensive right now as well. It really feels like the whole RDRAM fiasco all over again. Really the Core i7 would be selling much better if they supported DDR2.

Every time RAM increases bandwidth, latency also increases. There is a correlation between the two. This is not because it actually has higher latency, but DDR3 latencies are numerically higher because the clock cycles by which they are measured are shorter; the actual time interval is generally lower than DDR2 latencies.

3rdalbum
January 3rd, 2009, 10:29 AM
Believe it or not, gaming machines are the worst offenders when it comes to including RAM that cannot be addressed. There are these two perceptions:

1. "A 64-bit operating system won't work with my games!"
2. "I need at least 4 gigabytes of RAM in order to get good performance!"

So gaming desktops come with 4-6 gigabytes of RAM and a 32-bit operating system; and a 1gb graphics card too just to ensure that you can't use more than half the RAM!

toupeiro
January 3rd, 2009, 12:45 PM
What do you mean by "take advantage"? Linux already takes advantage of more RAM you can buy :D

EDIT: quick googling: it seems 128GB is current maximum on 64-bit systems for Linux, so-well, it is possible to buy with some effort :)

This is incorrect, you can buy Linux servers shipping with 256GB(32x8GB DIMMS) right now (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/).

64-bit addressing ranges from 0 to (2 to the 64th power) -1, or about 18.45 Exobytes maximum.. A maximum that we are far, far away from hitting anytime soon. The largest DIMM I believe you can buy today is 8GB.

Linux "takes advantage" of RAM far more efficiently than windows relative to how much linux will use of that physical memory pool before it begins to use swap. Even 64-bit windows Vista is still plagued with horrible memory management..

Kernel Sanders
January 3rd, 2009, 01:16 PM
To be able to use 8 gigs of RAM properly you really should have a high powered quad core, otherwise it's just a waste.

jordilin
January 3rd, 2009, 01:30 PM
I'd like to know if they're still shipping them with 32 bit operating systems, I mean most people wouldn't know if it was 32 bit or 64 bit

You need a 64 bit operating system for systems higher than 4Gb RAM, being either a Vista or a Linux.

el mariachi
January 3rd, 2009, 01:39 PM
I think I never broke the 1Gb of used memory barrier... my laptop came with 3gb and there's 2Gb laying around being wasted lol guess I'll fold some proteins or something...

(oh and Arch Linux is faster than Vista every single day! hehe)

Paqman
January 3rd, 2009, 02:49 PM
You need a 64 bit operating system for systems higher than 4Gb RAM, being either a Vista or a Linux.

32-bit Linux kernels can use more than 4GB of RAM (all the 2.6 line IIRC?) and I believe some of the Windows server kernels can too.

qamelian
January 3rd, 2009, 03:08 PM
I used to have Vista home basic on a laptop with 512MB RAM, and it ran faster than Feisty. Honestly people, quit spreading rumors.
It's not a rumour. Vista Home Premium crawls compared to Intrepid on my desktop. Even boot up take almost 10 seconds longer.

helliewm
January 3rd, 2009, 03:30 PM
See attached I am using 1.2 GB of ram. I have Firefox with a ton of extensions and 3 tabs opened. Evolution, Open Office Tunapie and Exaile running. I always seem to use about 1GB of ram. Its the same on my laptop too.

Helen

gn2
January 3rd, 2009, 03:48 PM
You need a 64 bit operating system for systems higher than 4Gb RAM, being either a Vista or a Linux.

Nope. 32 bit systems can use up to 64Gb of RAM with PAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension), this has been extensively debated here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6430327#post6430327) and elsewhere.

.Maleficus.
January 3rd, 2009, 03:49 PM
Believe it or not, gaming machines are the worst offenders when it comes to including RAM that cannot be addressed. There are these two perceptions:

1. "A 64-bit operating system won't work with my games!"
2. "I need at least 4 gigabytes of RAM in order to get good performance!"

So gaming desktops come with 4-6 gigabytes of RAM and a 32-bit operating system; and a 1gb graphics card too just to ensure that you can't use more than half the RAM!
Er, I don't know where you buy your gaming desktops but any computer we sell (I work at Best Buy) that has 4GB of memory or more has Vista 64-bit, which includes the video memory.

As far as memory goes, you can buy 4GB of DDR2-1066 on Newegg for $50 if you check for deals. I have 4GB of memory right now and a QX6850, but I don't plan on upgrading either for a while. I'm currently using ~1GB of that with Firefox and Netbeans open. The main attraction to the CPU and memory for me were the prices though - I got the memory for $70 and the CPU for $240 (with Intel's Retail Edge program). I know my current needs don't exactly justify it, but I like letting Crysis use all 4 cores :).

Skripka
January 3rd, 2009, 03:50 PM
32-bit Linux kernels can use more than 4GB of RAM (all the 2.6 line IIRC?) and I believe some of the Windows server kernels can too.


Yea, you can use PAE hacks to do it--but with the widespread availability of everything as native 64-bit on Linux there's no reason to use potentially buggy hacks.

arashiko28
January 3rd, 2009, 03:50 PM
I recently bought a Lenovo Ideapad Y530 and comes with 3GB DDR3 and my RAM usage has never been over 20% :P
Now on vista... well... I though that with a DDR3 there would be no problem, what a disappointment, I can't watch a movie not even listen to music without being all jumpy because of CPU and RAM at 100%...

hrod beraht
January 3rd, 2009, 03:51 PM
See attached I am using 1.2 GB of ram. I have Firefox with a ton of extensions and 3 tabs opened. Evolution, Open Office Tunapie and Exaile running. I always seem to use about 1GB of ram. Its the same on my laptop too.

Helen
Does that application show actual memory usage, or does it also include the buffers/cache?
Try free -m in a terminal and see if the number without the buffers/cache is different.

Bob

SuperSonic4
January 3rd, 2009, 03:55 PM
You need a 64 bit operating system for systems higher than 4Gb RAM, being either a Vista or a Linux.

Yeah, I understand that and most of the people on these forums do too. But would your average person who goes to PC world for example know that you need a 64 bit OS to address all that ram.

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 04:06 PM
Yeah, I understand that and most of the people on these forums do too. But would your average person who goes to PC world for example know that you need a 64 bit OS to address all that ram.

Why would they need to know?

helliewm
January 3rd, 2009, 04:10 PM
Does that application show actual memory usage, or does it also include the buffers/cache?
Try free -m in a terminal and see if the number without the buffers/cache is different.

Bob

Bob see attached free -m show this. I am using 64 bit Ubuntu by the way.

Helen

geoken
January 3rd, 2009, 04:35 PM
There is no way in hell Vista boots faster then Ubuntu. You must be using a skinned version of XP and confusing it with Vista. :)

It's pretty believable depending on the hardware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZaXf0hP_7w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPDQEykE1dE&feature=related

getaboat
January 3rd, 2009, 04:54 PM
In my experience MS systems always start off very nifty and get slower and slower over time so only fresh install will clean things up. My current dual core 2Gb XP laptop used to be like sh-off-a-sh but is now soooo sloow in quite a few thngs.

W98 didn't seem so badly affected - but XP in particular seems to get noticibly slower over (not much) time. I have no experience so far of Vista.

I've not been aware of my three Unbutu installations slowing down with no conscious housekeeping. Mind you time to load in most applications is still pretty poor (esp Thunderbird) - though when they are running they are file. And there is no comparison beteen file explorers in MS (zippy) and Ubuntu (very slow).

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 05:10 PM
32-bit Linux kernels can use more than 4GB of RAM (all the 2.6 line IIRC?) and I believe some of the Windows server kernels can too.
Only if they're PAE enabled. Windows XP SP2 Kernel and greater can natively address up to 64GB of RAM. Ubuntu needs the server kernel to do this.

andrewabc
January 3rd, 2009, 05:14 PM
Anyway if you have 8GB of RAM and you are using Ubuntu you should probably install this (apt://preload).

I've had this installed for a couple months. Dunno if there's a speed difference or not. But I have 3gb of ram, and normally only used 400-500mb with ubuntu, so I thought I'd try it.

Now with it running:

[Sat Jan 3 12:05:24 2009] readaheading 1762 files
[Sat Jan 3 12:05:45 2009] 1619510kb available for preloading, using 256712kb of it

So even using preload it only uses up 256mb extra. I still rarely go over 1gb of ram in use. Currently with music player and firefox open, I'm only using 575mb of ram. I really don't see how vista requires 2gb of ram to run efficiently. Do macs need 2gb of ram to run efficiently?

So when it comes to OS, to run under normal web surfing stuff for the computer to run efficiently (without slowdown):
ubuntu: 1gb
win XP: 1gb
vista: 2gb ?
mac: ??

andrewabc
January 3rd, 2009, 05:17 PM
Does that application show actual memory usage, or does it also include the buffers/cache?
Try free -m in a terminal and see if the number without the buffers/cache is different.

Bob


total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3014 1373 1641 0 169 598
-/+ buffers/cache: 605 2409
Swap: 501 0 501


Still not using 3 gb for me :)

Paqman
January 3rd, 2009, 05:40 PM
Only if they're PAE enabled. Windows XP SP2 Kernel and greater can natively address up to 64GB of RAM. Ubuntu needs the server kernel to do this.

Hence why I said "can" rather than "do" :)

My point being: the oft-repeated assertion that 64-bit is the only way to use lots of memory is not technically true.

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 05:42 PM
Hence why I said "can" rather than "do" :)

My point being: the oft-repeated assertion that 64-bit is the only way to use lots of memory is not technically true.
Aye

Mohamedzv2
January 3rd, 2009, 06:11 PM
8 GB would actually be pretty nice with some programs like GIMP and C4D which I happen to use quite a lot. The worst part is that you really can't make many things faster with the extra ram.

creek23
January 3rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
I generally never use more than 500 MB of RAM.

If you write Java apps with NetBeans, you wished you had 1GB or more. ;)

MellonCollie
January 3rd, 2009, 07:49 PM
So when it comes to OS, to run under normal web surfing stuff for the computer to run efficiently (without slowdown):
ubuntu: 1gb
win XP: 1gb
vista: 2gb ?
mac: ??

From my own experience I'd lower that to 1GB.

wolfen69
January 3rd, 2009, 08:02 PM
i personally have no need for more than 1gb. i never use more than 450mb.

insane_alien
January 3rd, 2009, 08:15 PM
hooray, now maybe developers will finally start coding decent 64-bit support into their apps.

jespdj
January 3rd, 2009, 08:19 PM
In my opinion, more than 2 GB RAM is probably overkill for most people. If you're just websurfing and e-mailing, then 1 GB is more than enough and most games also don't need more than 2 GB.

4 GB or more is really only useful if you're running memory-intensive programs, for example if you're running multiple OSes in virtual machines, or doing heavy graphical work in for example Photoshop (and up to CS3, Photoshop was 32-bit only which means that on Windows it can't use more than 3 GB anyway; CS4 is available in a 64-bit version which can use more memory).

My Dell XPS M1530 has 4 GB, which is more than enough. I'm running 64-bit Ubuntu on it. Dell now sells this laptop with 6 or even 8 GB as an option. I can't imagine why you'd want so much RAM in a laptop...

Skripka
January 3rd, 2009, 08:29 PM
I can't imagine why you'd want so much RAM in a laptop...

Because you don't want you battery to last very long. Afterall, lugging all thsoe extra electrons around in your battery really weighs your computer down.

jrusso2
January 3rd, 2009, 08:37 PM
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 4054 1097 2957 0 11 672
-/+ buffers/cache: 413 3641
Swap: 6259 0 6259

Here is my PC with only Four gigs of ram. I can't imagine 8 gigs.

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 10:51 PM
It's pretty believable depending on the hardware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZaXf0hP_7w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPDQEykE1dE&feature=related

Sorry, I don't believe it. I have a Vista dual-boot on this machine and the boot time of Vista is miserably slow. Like, almost as bad as go cook a meal while it boots. My experience with other Vista installs have been similar. I'll believe it this rumor I keep hearing, this rumor that Vista can be fast (well, on non supercomputer hardware)... when I actually see it, and no, not on some possibly fraudulent test on YouTube. :)

Windows XP vs Ubuntu I can believe though. Windows XP boots very fast, especially post install. But it seems to slow down massively as you install things. Overall performance wise, nothing beats Linux. :)

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 10:58 PM
hooray, now maybe developers will finally start coding decent 64-bit support into their apps.

Everything that is open source tends to be 64-bit as well, since we can compile it to 64-bit. Just one of the many benefits of using open source / free software :)

I mean now even with closed source Flash going 64-bit, you'll be able to have a completely usable system with 100% 64-bit software. That's basically impossible in Windows or really any OS where a lot of the userspace software is still 32-bit.

Frak
January 3rd, 2009, 11:15 PM
Sorry, I don't believe it. I have a Vista dual-boot on this machine and the boot time of Vista is miserably slow. Like, almost as bad as go cook a meal while it boots. My experience with other Vista installs have been similar. I'll believe it this rumor I keep hearing, this rumor that Vista can be fast (well, on non supercomputer hardware)... when I actually see it, and no, not on some possibly fraudulent test on YouTube. :)

Windows XP vs Ubuntu I can believe though. Windows XP boots very fast, especially post install. But it seems to slow down massively as you install things. Overall performance wise, nothing beats Linux. :)
Do I hear denial?

Vista boots fast on my computer, so I don't know what ancient hardware you're using.

Windows isn't the bloat-hog that you learned from the kool-aid machine. If I bog it down with services, it still isn't bloated, the services are bloated. It's dumb excuses to bash Microsoft that make me sad about much of the Linux community. Almost all of them have no real benchmark, are exposed to 3rd party environments, and/or subject to abuse and/or exploitation when tests are made.

I can't see how people find Microsoft so evil and wicked, even when they're the ones who are able to command 80% of the market. People say it's because Microsoft spreads lies and fear amoung the other OS world, but isn't that really what people like you are doing now?

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 11:30 PM
Do I hear denial?

Vista boots fast on my computer, so I don't know what ancient hardware you're using.

Core 2 Duo, 1 GB of RAM. I guess a 1 year old laptop is pretty old these days. :) No matter, Ubuntu runs fine!



Windows isn't the bloat-hog that you learned from the kool-aid machine.

You are right. I learned it from personal experience.



If I bog it down with services, it still isn't bloated, the services are bloated.

Not when those services are part of the operating system.



It's dumb excuses to bash Microsoft that make me sad about much of the Linux community. Almost all of them have no real benchmark, are exposed to 3rd party environments, and/or subject to abuse and/or exploitation when tests are made.

Is it really that difficult to you to believe that some of the criticism of Microsoft's operating systems are um? Not fabricated? Seriously.



I can't see how people find Microsoft so evil and wicked, even when they're the ones who are able to command 80% of the market. People say it's because Microsoft spreads lies and fear amoung the other OS world, but isn't that really what people like you are doing now?

Well, uh, I don't know, it could be something to do with the criminal anti-trust law Microsoft has blatantly violated to get into their position and yes even has been CONVICTED for? But continue to dismiss that and support their largely illegal marketshare. Boo me and everyone else for supporting justice, the law, and the free market over criminal enterprises.

ELD
January 3rd, 2009, 11:39 PM
Now now kidos calm the bitchyness.

I have yet to try vista properly buy from what i have seen it looks good and it isn't that slow.

I have had my share of choppyness, annoyances and slowdowns from any operating system i have ever used, everything has its flaws including linux, windows, mac etc etc.

Constant arguments about this kind of stuff is sooooooo pointless and frustrating to see.

phrostbyte
January 3rd, 2009, 11:42 PM
Yeah I rather not argue about how good/bad Vista is. Really the dislike for Microsoft should really not lie on their technology or operating systems, no matter how good or bad you think they are, but really on their business practices and their bamboozling of the United States Justice System. But I think a lot of people either weren't around when that happened, don't know all the details, or somehow don't care. Who knows. But the matter of fact is Microsoft is an organization which violated a criminal federal law, got tried, got convicted. I think it's fair to call them then, a criminal organization. It's not Microsoft bashing. It's not even Microsoft hate. It's simply a factual description. Microsoft is a criminal organization.

Really. I know it sounds almost unbelievable. But it's a valid way to describe them. :) A lot of people only know the technology side of Microsoft, not their legal or business sides. It's really as naive as judging Vito Corleone's business by the quality of the olive oil he imports.

Half-Left
January 3rd, 2009, 11:50 PM
I used to have Vista home basic on a laptop with 512MB RAM, and it ran faster than Feisty. Honestly people, quit spreading rumors.

Yer right, only when my wife get updates it absolutely unusable when they are done, with 512mb of ram and a 1.4Ggz Celeron, playing a few card games and web browsing is all it's useful for.

Morty007
January 4th, 2009, 01:34 AM
I think I found a good reason to have that much ram. The system monitor on ubuntu is such a resource hog it's crazy, lol.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 02:43 AM
Really the dislike for Microsoft should really not lie on their technology or operating systems, no matter how good or bad you think they are, but really on their business practices and their bamboozling of the United States Justice System. But I think a lot of people either weren't around when that happened, don't know all the details, or somehow don't care. Who knows. But the matter of fact is Microsoft is an organization which violated a criminal federal law, got tried, got convicted. I think it's fair to call them then, a criminal organization. It's not Microsoft bashing. It's not even Microsoft hate. It's simply a factual description. Microsoft is a criminal organization.

Well, the Linux kernel (allegedly) infringes on Microsoft's patents, which patents are law. I guess that makes everybody who worked on it a criminal.


The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits - Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman), Economist

That includes even breaking laws. How many companies dump pollutants into the environment in blatant face of the EPA laws? You buy from them every day. Will you stop buying from them because of it?

/broken_logic_fixer.patch

MisterFlibble84
January 4th, 2009, 03:05 AM
RAM is dirt cheap, this box originally had 2 gigs, but I got another 2 gigs at Newegg for like $16, thats $8 a GIGABYTE, I remember when a 128 meg stick was over $120.

RAM prices have hit the floor and you may as well just fill all the open slots cause you can. :P

Skripka
January 4th, 2009, 03:25 AM
RAM is dirt cheap, this box originally had 2 gigs, but I got another 2 gigs at Newegg for like $16, thats $8 a GIGABYTE, I remember when a 128 meg stick was over $120.

RAM prices have hit the floor and you may as well just fill all the open slots cause you can. :P


Yea well, just because it's cheap doesn't mean it works right and easily (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6489325#post6489325)

I apologize for the blatant crosslinking :o

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 04:27 AM
Well, the Linux kernel (allegedly) infringes on Microsoft's patents, which patents are law. I guess that makes everybody who worked on it a criminal.

Nice FUD attempt, but no Microsoft hasn't even attempted to sue Linux developers, let alone win a conviction. Microsoft was CONVICTED, and their case plaintiff was not civil, but the United States of America itself. That's why it's called USA vs Microsoft.



- Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman), Economist

That includes even breaking laws. How many companies dump pollutants into the environment in blatant face of the EPA laws? You buy from them every day. Will you stop buying from them because of it?

Are you saying people should turn a blind eye to organizations who break the law? Sure lets let gangs and hitmen roam free, it's only business in the end.

No. Businesses have to follow laws.



/broken_logic_fixer.patch

You should probably get that fixed.

AnonCat
January 4th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Well, the Linux kernel (allegedly) infringes on Microsoft's patents, which patents are law. I guess that makes everybody who worked on it a criminal.

Another problem with Microsoft, frivolous and idiotic software patents.


- Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman), Economist

That includes even breaking laws. How many companies dump pollutants into the environment in blatant face of the EPA laws? You buy from them every day. Will you stop buying from them because of it?

/broken_logic_fixer.patch

Well, I certainly have no problem with corporations having extremely punitive measures imposed on them if they break laws or do very socially irresponsible acts. Corporations can act in their own interest, but they definitely should be held accountable for bad behavior. And yes, I will stop buying products from a company who engages in practices which are irresponsible.

MisterFlibble84
January 4th, 2009, 08:48 AM
Yea well, just because it's cheap doesn't mean it works right and easily (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6489325#post6489325)

I apologize for the blatant crosslinking :o

Well, you have to know what type to put in, but your motherboard manual should tell you that, and if in doubt, it's probably stamped on the modules that are already plugged in.

RAM upgrades take like 2 minutes once you have the modules, it's not hard.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:04 AM
I would say "Nice FUD attempt.", but you are totally correct, Frak.

Why thank you :)


Are you saying people should turn a blind eye to organizations who break the law?

I never said that, and thank you for putting words in my mouth.
(+1 for Frak once again)
I'm saying that you cannot say Microsoft is an evil company that breaks the law if there are laws that exist that somebody else infringes on (I don't like software patents either, but we have to live with them for now). If something in Linux, or the GNU side infringes on these, then it is, by your logic, making every developer who developed it evil and corrupt.


I should probably get that fixed.

You should. ;)

earthpigg
January 4th, 2009, 09:55 AM
8 gigs of RAM, huh...

well, a full Ubuntu hard drive install takes up 3.5-4 gigs right?


tell you what, Mr Ubuntu... ill give you five minutes to boot up - i never turn my computer off anyways.

in return, i want the entire OS with any/all applications i tick (yes, i want a gui :) ) loaded into RAM.


deal?

(Puppy does this if you boot from the live CD. its amazing how fast... EVERYTHING is.)

-grubby
January 4th, 2009, 11:26 AM
/me faints...
Why should Dell be shipping with 8 GB? Most desktop users do not need 2 GB of RAM, let along 8 GB. I suppose they'll be buying it just because the box says it has higher specs...

On another note, I have 512 MB and it's still holding out here, even while playing Half-Life 2: DM

DarkDancer
January 4th, 2009, 12:16 PM
Back in September I bought 4 gigs of ram for about $101.00, I checked today (well, yesterday really) and the same 4 gigs of ram costs $41.00. Before i upgraded to that 4 gigs, I only had 1 gig and running Windows in a VM was, ok. Not terrible. Now, if someone snuck in here and loaded my virtual machine windows, I wouldn't notice for a while. Ubuntu runs like it's running alone. If I go into that VM Windows runs like it's running alone. Pretty awesome.

While I don't technically need it, I am tempted to put in another 4 gigs just because it's cheap (I may need it some day, but I will probably have upgraded by then anyway..... ;) ).

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 12:33 PM
I'm saying that you cannot say Microsoft is an evil company that breaks the law if there are laws that exist that somebody else infringes on (I don't like software patents either, but we have to live with them for now).

If MS was confident that their patents were valid and that the patent laws had been breached they may have taken action.

MS know full well that having this matter settled in a court of law could spell disaster for their business model should the court rule against them.

Only when it comes to court will it be established if the disputed patents actually hold water.

MS are reluctant to test the water, their record in the law courts isn't good.

Here's a few examples for starters:
http://tinyurl.com/7u5bxr
http://tinyurl.com/7jwptw
http://tinyurl.com/87lr7a
http://tinyurl.com/83mh8m

So I'm happy to say that in my opinion, which is informed by the facts of the court rulings against them, Microsoft are an evil and hypocritical company.

Bungo Pony
January 4th, 2009, 12:35 PM
I upgraded my machine from 512 to 1G and there was a noticeable improvement in Ubuntu's performance, especially using software in WINE. So I upgraded to 2G and there was just a slight performance increase. There's no way in hell I'd end up using 8G for anything.

jomiolto
January 4th, 2009, 01:53 PM
My current Ubuntu installation is only 3GB (and my root partition is actually only 8GB), so even if I ran that from memory, 8GB of memory would still leave me 5GB for other uses :p -- yes, it would definitely be an overkill for me.

(And to think that "just" a bit over ten years ago I couldn't find use for all of the 24MB of memory I had -- DOS wasn't very useful for multitasking and pretty much all the games worked with 4MB...)

MellonCollie
January 4th, 2009, 04:37 PM
There is no way in hell Vista boots faster then Ubuntu.

Vista eats 8.10 for breakfast on my PC .

Vista = ~30secs to desktop
Ubuntu = ~47secs to desktop (50secs to panels load, minus 3secs for grub timer)

I've attached a couple of small (and I mean small! :)) vids recorded with my mobile for anyone interested. Start your timers when you see the POST text.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 05:19 PM
Vista = ~30secs to desktop

Meaningless statistic.
Takes a good while longer to become usable after the desktop appears on the screen.
Worse when it's the first boot of the day.
How long till it's ready to safely surf the net when you boot for the first time each day?

MellonCollie
January 4th, 2009, 05:33 PM
Straight away.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 05:37 PM
So I'm happy to say that in my opinion, which is informed by the facts of the court rulings against them, Microsoft are an evil and hypocritical company.

You haven't spent much time in the corporation pool. Microsoft doesn't hold a candle to other companies such as CACI, Blackwater, and Haliburton, because in those cases, they have human rights violations by the U.N. Microsoft just has an anti-trust settlement against them, which hardly makes me think of them as "evil, corrupt monkey killers."

Everything I've heard so far is over-exaggerated. The people here are hating Microsoft just to hate Microsoft.


Meaningless statistic.
Takes a good while longer to become usable after the desktop appears on the screen.
Worse when it's the first boot of the day.
How long till it's ready to safely surf the net when you boot for the first time each day?

23 seconds for me, boot to desktop
Ubuntu has 36 seconds

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 05:37 PM
Straight away.

No way it'll update the A-V in that time.

Dream on.... ;)

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 05:43 PM
You haven't spent much time in the corporation pool. Microsoft doesn't hold a candle to other companies such as CACI, Blackwater, and Haliburton, because in those cases, they have human rights violations by the U.N. Microsoft just has an anti-trust settlement against them, which hardly makes me think of them as "evil, corrupt monkey killers."

Everything I've heard so far is over-exaggerated. The people here are hating Microsoft just to hate Microsoft.

I don't approve of the business practices of these companies either.
You forgot Union Carbide....

Just because there are worse companies out there doesn't make Microsoft any less bad.

lzfy
January 4th, 2009, 05:47 PM
No way it'll update the A-V in that time.

Dream on.... ;)

I have Antivir installed and while the virusccanner is updating, I can open firefox and surf the internet. I too have to say that Vista is faster then Ubuntu on my machine with 4 gig RAM.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 05:48 PM
I have Antivir installed and while the virusccanner is updating, I can open firefox and surf the internet. I too have to say that Vista is faster then Ubuntu on my machine with 4 gig RAM.

You're happy to surf the net with out of date virus definitions?

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 05:58 PM
So I'm happy to say that in my opinion, which is informed by the facts of the court rulings against them, Microsoft are an evil and hypocritical company.
The evil ones are the government officials who fail to properly regulate Microsoft. Microsoft just does what every corporation would do - try to make as much money as they can.

You're happy to surf the net with out of date virus definitions?
Antivirus definitions are a pathetic concept that provide a very weak illusion of security. Zero-day assaults and the sheer amount of malware out there make traditional definitions-based antivirus apps utterly worthless. The only AV I´ve seen that actually provides adequate protection is ThreatFire (http://www.threatfire.com/), which monitors in real-time for the tell-tale signs of a security breach. No outdated definitions necessary.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:14 PM
The evil ones are the government officials who fail to properly regulate Microsoft.

Do you not commit crimes because the government regulate you?

Or do you have an inbuilt sense of morals and understand the difference between right and wrong?

Chokkan
January 4th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Shame this thread was taken over by 2 topics that have been done to death a thousand times.

I run 2 gigs in my system and I don't think I ever use more than 50% of it. Next computer I will stick with 2 gigs..

init1
January 4th, 2009, 06:18 PM
Big +1. Never more than 128Mb, 64Mb without Firefox.
On my system, Firefox alone takes up about 200MB.

lzfy
January 4th, 2009, 06:22 PM
You're happy to surf the net with out of date virus definitions?

Before I had 4gig of ram, I didn't even use a virusccanner : )

Back on topic: I think I will upgrade to 8 gig just because it's so cheap now.

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Do you not commit crimes because the government regulate you?

Or do you have an inbuilt sense of morals and understand the difference between right and wrong?
Greed is a natural human impulse. When regulated, it can make society better. When let free, it pushes us towards immoral acts. All corporations are fundamentally powered by greed, which is why we have antitrust laws.

On my system, Firefox alone takes up about 200MB.
What OS are you using? Right now, I'm using 94 MB of RAM for Firefox and cplay on SliTaz.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Back on topic: I think I will upgrade to 8 gig just because it's so cheap now.

What you gonna do with it all?

halovivek
January 4th, 2009, 06:26 PM
I hope this will be useful if we use live CD8(linux) so with the ram we can just configure and it can be used for Hacking. thats all i know. May be useful if it is used if we changed system computer to a server nothing more in that one.

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 06:28 PM
I hope this will be useful if we use live CD8(linux) so with the ram we can just configure and it can be used for Hacking. thats all i know. May be useful if it is used if we changed system computer to a server nothing more in that one.
What?

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 06:28 PM
OK guys. I have 2 gig in my system I never use over 1 gig, So for me 8 gig would be a waste. Now as far as MS and Vista goes, I don't care if it took 10 minutes to boot up into ubuntu. Because I don't have to do all windows stuff like scan for viruses, ad-ware, and spy-ware. No hard drive fragmentation. All that takes time. So even if ubuntu took longer to boot. I still save time by not using windows.

Now ubuntu boots faster, runs faster, and uses less ram than my XP systems do. Now I could manage the windows systems better but this is more time. I want to use my systems not spend most of my time fixing the systems.

I have been working with windows from 3.1 and up. Every version of windows degrades in time. Just the normal use of windows does this. I believe windows is flawed by design. Now all this is in my experience and may be different to others. If it works for you good keep up the good work. But for me ubuntu is by far better.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:28 PM
All corporations are fundamentally powered by greed, which is why we have antitrust laws.

But not all corporations break those laws.
Microsoft have a long history of doing so.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Do you not commit crimes because the government regulate you?

Or do you have an inbuilt sense of morals and understand the difference between right and wrong?
Corporations have no morals. As I said before, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". There is no one person making decisions for a corporation. It is the decision of the stockholders, CEO's, and employees along with their superiors to make sub-independent changes to the whole entire corporation.

That said, if they break a law, the head may have not heard the foot kick the can. Sometimes a corporation isn't aware of it's own doing. This is where the government comes in and regulates the company, telling it what it's doing wrong, how to fix it, and the punishment if they do not comply.

A corporation is a morally inept. It is fueled by greed, always.

lzfy
January 4th, 2009, 06:31 PM
What you gonna do with it all?

Well I do use Photoshop a lot and with 8 gig I can make my documents bigger :)

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 06:32 PM
But not all corporations break those laws.
Microsoft have a long history of doing so.
Would they have that "long history" if the government adequately punished them?

spupy
January 4th, 2009, 06:35 PM
What you gonna do with it all?

You can mount some or all of your root partition in RAM. Programs will start almost instantly.

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-296892-highlight-mount+root+ram+tmpfs.html

halovivek
January 4th, 2009, 06:35 PM
What?

Server system requires lot of RAM to run. but the normal one does not need that much. So what is the use of 8GB RAM.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Would they have that "long history" if the government adequately punished them?

Yes, they just see the fines that have been imposed as a business expense, pay up and carry on regardless.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:37 PM
Corporations have no morals. As I said before, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits".

Thankfully you are not the sole arbiter of corporate morality or ethics.
Corporatons' liability to society extends far beyond the balance sheet.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:39 PM
You can mount some or all of your root partition in RAM. Programs will start almost instantly.

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-296892-highlight-mount+root+ram+tmpfs.html

Cool, till you trip over the power lead :D

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Thankfully you are not the sole arbiter of corporate morality or ethics.
Corporatons' liability to society extends far beyond the balance sheet.
If the corporation could cut out the consumer, dump them into a flaming pit, and just get their money with no questions asked, they would. Corporations have no, and will never have without force, liability to society, ever.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 06:45 PM
If you knew a person that had the morals, greed, or even the personality of a corp that person would not be your friend. You may even say that person is evil. The way cooperations are is natively bad. It is fine to want to make as much money as possible but never at the expense of morals.

sendblink23
January 4th, 2009, 06:46 PM
I hate the fact of many users reply in this thread all confused on what they are reading... THE THREAD IS NOT TALKING ABOUT.. HARD DRIVE GIGABYTES its talking about *RAM CHIPS*


Anyways... my honest reply about Dell selling new PCs with 8gb RAM

OFCOURSE I WOULD BUY IT!!! Or just simply Buy those RAM chips apart, I'm a Graphic Designer & Sound Engineer I need them Always.

Here is the Thing, for all of those *Softwares*.. I strictly use Windows XP. Which it really shows off your RAM velocity, Vista Controls it.. you don't notice a huge difference *Since Vista uses allot more virtual memory compared to XP*.. and some machines crash with such RAMs inside (4gb +).. I tested it all.. and Windows XP simply works extremely fast with more RAMs.

Now for my Ubuntu.. yeah it also shows Differences it does work really Fast, compared to my original Specs 1gb (2 - 512mb).. changed those to 4gb(4 - 1gb), and it runs Awesome.... but yes for my Ubuntu I'm not planning to use it for Graphic Design or Sound Engineer softwares (I prefer to use the full advantage on the original programs running where its suppose to be at, WINE isn't perfect, nore GIMP *I need the whole Adobe Suite CS4-MC I use them* or Ubuntu Studio *I use Protools, Reason, Live 8 & Others*), I just use *Ubuntu... because I like how its designed, secured, especially all the cool effects & as a Server.

So if my computer could handle more than 4gb of RAM yes I would Buy them, it makes allot more differences, especially in my case *Designer/Engineer.

marvelljones
January 4th, 2009, 06:48 PM
And in a few years we will see multi TB hard drives as the norm, THz processors, and double-digit (possibly triple-digit) GB amounts of RAM being the norm. I used to sell computers when I was younger and I remember some of the 8086 vets calling GB "giggle-bytes" because no one will ever need that much space. My 486DX2/66 Leading Edge brand computer had a 720 MB HD, a whopping 8MB of RAM, and an ATI video card that sat in a VESA slot which I cannot remember the specs of. It was considered bleeding edge and way more than anyone would ever need until Pentiums hit the market.

The above long winded exposition was just meant to illustrate one simple thing: PCs specs will continue to progress forward to bigger capacities, faster, etc. As long as Microsoft (and to a lesser extent Apple) exists there will always be a "need" for hardware to progess so it can handle the bloated memory leaking OS preinstalled on it.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Corporations have no, and will never have without force, liability to society, ever.

Sorry Frak, there's no way around saying that on this particular issue you're just plain wrong.

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Sorry Frak, there's no way around saying that on this particular issue you're just plain wrong.
Could you name one for-profit corporation that would do that would care about anything but the bottom line without regulation?

@topic: The only use I would have for more than 512 MB of RAM is if I used OpenSolaris, which gobbles up RAM.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Corporations are ran by people. It is every persons responsibility in life to use good judgment and use good morals. So when a cooperation violates these morals it is a direct failure in the persons in charge. Where the cooperation it self fails is in the hiring of competent and moral people.

Yes the corporation is accountable and the persons in charge and they should be. We all have to live within the laws and morals of society.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Corperations are ran by people. It is every persons responsibility in life to use good judgment and use good morals. So when a cooperation violates these morals it is a direct failure in the persons in charge. Where the cooperation it self fails is in the hiring of competent and moral people.

Yes the corporation is accountable and the persons in charge and they should be. We all have to live within the laws and morals of society.

Very well put, glad someone sees the world in a similar light to me, I was beginning to think my brain was wired up wrong or something.

mips
January 4th, 2009, 07:04 PM
We all have to live within the laws and morals of society.

Morals are not enforceble unfortunately, they come from within.

Edit: Where there is shareholders/greed involved morals go out the window. In a private company things can be different.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 07:06 PM
mips, I agree and that is why we have laws. But there is a difference between greed and gluttony and allot of corporations operate under gluttony instead of greed

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Very well put, glad someone sees the world in a similar light to me, I was beginning to think my brain was wired up wrong or something.
Well, good luck with that. The employees have maybe 5% of influence on a company. The people who hold the ultimate power are the shareholders, because they want a return on their investment, and in the process they want the corporation to do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can.

If you're an employee and think that everything you say is making a dramatic change, keep dreaming.

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Well, good luck with that. The employees have maybe 5% of influence on a company. The people who hold the ultimate power are the shareholders, because they want a return on their investment, and in the process they want the corporation to do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can.

If you're an employee and think that everything you say is making a dramatic change, keep dreaming.

If you like you can have a read of the corporate responsibility statement of the organisation I work for. Here it is (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/corporate%20responsibility%20report/corporate%20responsibility%20report%202007-08.pdf).

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 07:28 PM
The share holders are people too. The board members are people too. They have the same responsibilities in society.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 07:44 PM
The share holders are people too. The board members are people too. They have the same responsibilities in society.
The shareholders aren't the ones who make decisions. They tell the head of the company to increase profits by X% for example. Now, those heads need to increase the profits in any way possible. They'll analyze the easier ones, cutting production costs, cutting employees, etc. If they cannot stand to do that, they need to find another way, usually either difficult or illegal. Now, they have some leeway with it considering the fact that if the corporation is accused of wrong-doing, it falls on the corporation, not the heads. If they do not complete their job, they'll be cut. You might as well try instead of just giving up.

Responsibilities in business are not the same as responsibilities in society. When they enter that door, they are waived of their social responsibilities in the attempt to better the company (or the shareholders view of the company).

pp.
January 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM
The people who hold the ultimate power are the shareholders


The shareholders aren't the ones who make decisions.


You're off topic.
Make up your mind. Do they hold power without making decisions?
If you've never heard of ethical companies, you might want to start catching up on your reading.
You're off topic.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 08:23 PM
I would not invest in a company or cooperation that was morally bad or constantly breaking the law. I also would not work for a company that was doing the same. Now I do understand mistakes happen. Accidents are natural in life. But if the companies or persons deliberately did dishonest things then I would take my money and leave, or work for another company.

I do hold all persons responsible for good judgment and morals. I expect this from everyone. No company, corporation, or persons are excused of the responsibility of society. I also have the same feelings on government. You may think I am crazy or naive. That is how I feel and that is how I live my life.

atngplusultra
January 4th, 2009, 08:27 PM
You're off topic.
Make up your mind. Do they hold power without making decisions?
If you've never heard of ethical companies, you might want to start catching up on your reading.
You're off topic.


made me laugh, I'm not gonna lie.

anyway, 6-8 GB of RAM? sure, sounds cool. at the very least, it'd make some other components more feasible.
(unless of course I'm completely talking out my backside and have no clue what I'm saying)

pp.
January 4th, 2009, 08:33 PM
made me laugh,

Glad to hear that. You're off topic, too.

For all interested in the topic: Windows XP handles 3.2 GB at the moment. Hopefully, other OSs might be able to handle more. Who knows for sure?

8GB might be a boon for all of us who run virtual machines.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 08:38 PM
You're off topic.
Make up your mind. Do they hold power without making decisions?
If you've never heard of ethical companies, you might want to start catching up on your reading.
You're off topic.



So are you
Say I were a king, and you were my slave. I could order you to cut all my crops or I'll behead you (equivilent to getting fired). I didn't tell you *how* to cut the crops, nor with what tool, etc. I just told you to cut the crops. Therefore, I didn't make your decisions, I just told you what needs to be done, or you're dead/fired.
OK, newman's own foods. They're an ethical company, but they're still in it for money. They didn't just say "were giving all the money we make to charity", they set aside a certain amount for charity and an amount for payment of their own employees. Therefore, they're still in it for the money, since a corporation is the employees, shareholders, and CEO's, the employees and shareholders still want a payment.
You're OCD with even numbers aren't you? ;)


Oh, and XP SP2 can handle up to 64GB if your processor supports PAE. Mine does.

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 08:45 PM
So are you
Say I were a king, and you were my slave. I could order you to cut all my crops or I'll behead you (equivilent to getting fired). I didn't tell you *how* to cut the crops, nor with what tool, etc. I just told you to cut the crops. Therefore, I didn't make your decisions, I just told you what needs to be done, or you're dead/fired.
OK, newman's own foods. They're an ethical company, but they're still in it for money. They didn't just say "were giving all the money we make to charity", they set aside a certain amount for charity and an amount for payment of their own employees. Therefore, they're still in it for the money, since a corporation is the employees, shareholders, and CEO's, the employees and shareholders still want a payment.
You're OCD with even numbers aren't you? ;)


Oh, and XP SP2 can handle up to 64GB if your processor supports PAE. Mine does.

You know it was more interesting when you just talking/shilling about how great and awesome Microsoft is. This whole philosophical ethical/unethical debate is kind of um, silly. And waaaaaaaaaaaay off topic.

Grant A.
January 4th, 2009, 08:46 PM
8GB might be a boon for all of us who run virtual machines.

Most definitely, I use a 64-bit Xubuntu virtual machine in my 32-bit Windows installation to utilize my 4GB of RAM to its full potential.

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 08:48 PM
I would not invest in a company or cooperation that was morally bad or constantly breaking the law. I also would not work for a company that was doing the same. Now I do understand mistakes happen. Accidents are natural in life. But if the companies or persons deliberately did dishonest things then I would take my money and leave, or work for another company.

I do hold all persons responsible for good judgment and morals. I expect this from everyone. No company, corporation, or persons are excused of the responsibility of society. I also have the same feelings on government. You may think I am crazy or naive. That is how I feel and that is how I live my life.
Would you purchase the products of an immoral company?


8GB might be a boon for all of us who run virtual machines.
Indeed. That's the one time I could see using so much RAM.

pp.
January 4th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Say I were a king, and you were my slave. I could order you to cut all my crops or I'll behead you (equivilent to getting fired).

1. What children's picture book did you use to form your ideas about monarchies?

3. Not OCD, not even with numbers, I'm afraid.

5. Still off topic. Computers with 8GB of RAM are on topic. You were saying?

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 09:00 PM
cardinals_fan, I try my best to not buy products from companies like that. But that is almost impossible to never buy a product from corporation like that.

And that is the biggest reason I use GNU/Linux. Not that I thought is was any better. But now for me it is better than closed source. I also do not like DRM because potential product lock in a company that is not moral.

Systems with 8 gig of ram I do not see a problem with it. Because it will not be long when It will be needed.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 09:21 PM
The only thing I could see is if you don't need it in a laptop would that give you more battery life with less ram? And would it run cooler with less ram?

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:32 PM
XP SP2 can handle up to 64GB if your processor supports PAE. Mine does.


5. Still off topic. Computers with 8GB of RAM are on topic. You were saying?

Err... Fail?

Anyways, XP SP2 enables the NX bit, but in the process needs to enable PAE also. In this process, the kernel changes to 36-bits wide, which allows for up to 64GB of RAM.

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 09:35 PM
cardinals_fan, I try my best to not buy products from companies like that. But that is almost impossible to never buy a product from corporation like that.
It was a question with only one right answer. You chose it :)


Systems with 8 gig of ram I do not see a problem with it. Because it will not be long when It will be needed.
Needed by what?

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Needed by what?

MEH!!!11one!!!!1!!eleven!!

:D

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Err... Fail?

Anyways, XP SP2 enables the NX bit, but in the process needs to enable PAE also. In this process, the kernel changes to 36-bits wide, which allows for up to 64GB of RAM.

It seems you are wrong in that contention too.


http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx)

It seems that Windows XP 32-bit in fact, supports a max of 4 GB of RAM. Linux kernel compiled with bigmem support will support 64 GB of RAM.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:39 PM
It seems you are wrong in that contention too.


http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx)

It seems that Windows XP 32-bit in fact, supports a max of 4 GB of RAM. Linux kernel compiled with bigmem support will support 64 GB of RAM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Windows


However, desktop versions of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista) limit physical address space to 4 GB for driver compatibility reasons.

I'm still correct. It supports 64GB of RAM, but limits it for compatibility reasons, but still supports it.

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 09:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Windows



I'm still correct. It supports 64GB of RAM, but limits it for compatibility reasons, but still supports it.

Um, the wiki you just posted actually says Windows XP supports a maximum of 4 GB of RAM. Supporting PAE is not the same thing as supporting 64 GB of RAM.

Linux with PAE support in fact, supports 64GB of RAM, but not Windows XP.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Um, the wiki you just posted actually says Windows XP supports a maximum of 4 GB of RAM. Supporting PAE is not the same thing as supporting 64 GB of RAM.

Linux with PAE support in fact, supports 64GB of RAM, but not Windows XP.
You can force XP to disregard the memory barrier by various hacks. It can support 64GB after being changed. Beware, it does become unstable.

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 09:50 PM
You can force XP to disregard the memory barrier by various hacks. It can support 64GB after being changed. Beware, it does become unstable.

Well I am happy I don't have to use hacks to get proper 64 GB PAE on Linux.

Anyway, Do you have instructions on how to 'hack' or reverse engineer the Windows kernel and add support for 64 GB of memory?

gn2
January 4th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Computers with 8gb of RAM might be on topic, but it's a boring topic.

Next year it'll still be as boring when 16gb RAM PC's are being shipped.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 09:51 PM
cardinals_fan, in time software and os's will need more ram for the added features. That is why I say will be needed.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 09:55 PM
cardinals_fan, in time software and os's will need more ram for the added features. That is why I say will be needed.
When that time comes around, our computers of now might as well be tossed, as they could very well be too obsolete to do any possibly basic functions. It'd be like DOS running KDE4.

Now, I don't need that much RAM for anything else than Photoshop and CAD. My compiling is sent to my XServe cluster, so I don't even need it for that. I plan on building a new computer when that much power is needed.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 10:01 PM
I don't need it either, I was just saying in time it would not be wasted.

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 10:03 PM
I don't need it either, I was just saying in time it would not be wasted.
Well, if you're bored, you could take 5 min out of your life and load your entire / into RAM. It'd be exceptionally fast :D

cardinals_fan
January 4th, 2009, 10:04 PM
cardinals_fan, in time software and os's will need more ram for the added features. That is why I say will be needed.
Indeed. Unfortunately, most of those ”features” will probably do nothing productive, and it will still take just as long to open a web browser.

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 10:06 PM
cardinals_fan, I hear on that!

bshosey
January 4th, 2009, 10:09 PM
You know that is where I have to give ubuntu credit. It appears most of it features updates or upgrades are usually good on increasing productivity.

earthpigg
January 4th, 2009, 10:24 PM
back on topic!

do i need 8gb of ram? no.

would i like it? yes.

how would i use it? well, im glad you asked:

my ubuntu install plus all the apps i generally install are probably about 6gb.

i'd like to see the option of a super long boot time, which gives you (in exchange) the entire OS and all apps loaded into RAM. can you imagine a faster system?

Frak
January 4th, 2009, 10:26 PM
i'd like to see the option of a super long boot time, which gives you (in exchange) the entire OS and all apps loaded into RAM. can you imagine a faster system?

An OS completely loaded into the L1 cache.

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 10:29 PM
back on topic!

do i need 8gb of ram? no.

would i like it? yes.

how would i use it? well, im glad you asked:

my ubuntu install plus all the apps i generally install are probably about 6gb.

i'd like to see the option of a super long boot time, which gives you (in exchange) the entire OS and all apps loaded into RAM. can you imagine a faster system?

You can probably do that with UnionFS (http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html) or some kind of RAMdisc/init setup. If you don't want that trouble, there is Preload (apt://preload), which uses a statistical model to load up in memory the applications you most commonly use. Lastly, there is Linux's native memory manager, which takes a more passive approach then preload, but is very good at using up unused memory anyway.

earthpigg
January 4th, 2009, 10:39 PM
You can probably do that with UnionFS (http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html) or some kind of RAMdisc/init setup. If you don't want that trouble, there is Preload (apt://preload), which uses a statistical model to load up in memory the applications you most commonly use. Lastly, there is Linux's native memory manager, which takes a more passive approach then preload, but is very good at using up unused memory anyway.

you are getting way to un-ubuntu for me ;)

(but i do know and appreciate that it is possible, if i am smart enough.)

phrostbyte
January 4th, 2009, 10:50 PM
you are getting way to un-ubuntu for me ;)

(but i do know and appreciate that it is possible, if i am smart enough.)

If you have like 8 GB of memory or something, I'd really recommend installing Preload. It will make good use of unused memory by caching things you commonly use (it learns using a statistical model), and it will cache until it feels it is using too much of your RAM. There is no set up or anything, all you have to do is click here (apt://preload). :)