On BNET: Give your browser a panic button
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 12 of 15:
Next »
« Previous
Way back when, 16K was huge....
Hey, I had to pay $200 to upgrade my first computer from 4K (that's right, not M or G!) to 16K!!!!!

When the Commodore 64 came out with a whopping 64Kb of RAM I thought my dreams had all come true.

Bill Gates has been attributed (possibly apocryphally) with the statement, "Why would anyone ever possibly need more than 640K?"

Soon we'll have terabytes of RAM running on many servers for database apps and I expect that by 2005 you won't be able to buy a PC with under a gig of RAM.

Those don't reflect peoples' real needs however, just what the market dictates. It begs the question as to what is the least amount of RAM that people actually need? Speaking for myself...I'm running stripped-down Linux on an XBox with 64MB and it thrashes...I think 128MB is the minimum you really need these days. With XP et al, you really need at least 256MB.

What do y'all think?
Posted by: jeroly   Posted on: 01/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Not so strange after all....  Hard Cider | 12/12/03
Prescott  middle of nowhere | 12/12/03
Come on, that's not the reason.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/13/03
The need to keep this CPU cool  boreguard@... | 12/13/03
Not that hot  Suicida| | 12/14/03
i guess we can see who uses there processor more  JWatson77 | 12/14/03
(NT) Anyone old enough to remember 2Mb RAM was hugh?  toomuchgreeatea@... | 12/14/03
Atari 520ST  phorvath2110 | 12/15/03
Atari 520ST  SysAdmin202 | 12/15/03
Ha!  savagesteve13 | 01/06/04
132 bits only !  mister_rf | 01/12/04
Way back when, 16K was huge....  jeroly | 01/15/04
Prescott... the new P4  XxFaeryOnFirexX | 12/27/03
Pipelines  savagesteve13 | 01/06/04
Then Itanium will die...  NIBONED | 01/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here