Get to know the Zune HD>>
PC hardware: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
- 10/30/09 3:38 PM
I don't see the answers to the legitimate questions
by desirawson - 11/5/09 11:32 AM In reply to: No Way by msgaleThere seems to be a huge problem with techs that have been doing this since the invention of computers. They don't want to grow with the technology nor do they want to learn about it so it can be utilized its best possibly functionality for all.
20 years from now when they are all retired maybe we'll get somewhere with the new generation that expects fast or they don't touch it, and will find out how to get it. There will be no cost issue or size issue involved.
I became certified because every single technician that I would take my computer to would do something else to my computer that wasn't there before and didn't help a thing. Most people don't want to learn about computers they just want them to work.
As for RAM there seems to be a huge discrepancy between whether 32 will use anymore than 3 GB - it doesn't. 64bit uses 4 GB
You haven't read all the comments if you see no answers
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/5/09 5:33 PM In reply to: I don't see the answers to the legitimate questions by desirawsonOther threads have very clearly stated the RAM limitations for different operating systems. 32 bit versions of windows can not directly address memory greater than 3.2 GB, but no one sells that specific quantity as far as I know, which means you need to buy 4 GB. However 64 bit versions of windows can address far more than the 4 GB you stated. Basically the addressing limit is 2 raised to the power of the number of bits, minus 1, which is why the first generation PC could use only KB of memory until 16 bit chips with a new version of DOS came out. Programmers developed work around solutions that broke programs into segments of acceptable size, that paged in and out of addressable memory as needed, but 32 bit chips eliminated most need to do that and made programs much more efficient except that less knowledgeable programmers were trained and got careless about using memory and other resources which drove the development of 64 bit chips, which was the size of the registers used in the very old mainframe 6400 computer.
The worst thing about your remark is that you did not restate the actual question you are saying wasn't answered, nor did you propose a question that you wanted answered. The original question was how much RAM to buy in a new PC, and everything else came originally from that simple question.
As to old programmers and computer staff I was one 20 years ago and observed many retiring. My impression is that most stayed very interested in keeping up with their field until the last year or two just before retirement. You had to or you became obsolete quickly.
The difference between young and old programmers is largely that the old programmers were more disciplined employees who were loyal to both their employer and their professionalism. The young ones often have not made the serious mistakes that cause companies losses and cost overruns and will just move to a different company when they do instead of taking the heat. You will find as you get older that those who get ahead do so primarily on either extreme skill like I had (but have mostly lost to time and non-use) or a combination of adequate technical skills and good people skills.
I have shared your experience with computer repair techs. although not with network techs who want the latest to make their jobs easier. Even those trained by software and hardware companies have a second line after looking at the online help of a tech who mostly picks answers from a manual before you get to talk to anyone with meaningful technical knowledge. By the third level you have actually reached someone who almost certainly can fix your problem, even all the way to India by phone. That is why I have always built and maintained family PC's in my retirement years even though it costs more initially than buying a PC off the shelf.
However, you have to be fair with techs at repair shops too. Very rarely are components worth fixing rather than replacing and it doesn't take much skill to swap components until you find one fixes the problem. What you lack at home is merely a supply of spare parts to plug into your PC.
Many years ago when windows was on floppy disks, one PC repair shop introduced me to a serious virus infection simply because they got careless and did not make the install discs read only. As a result they picked up a virus from a customer who got it using the internet and sought a hardware repair. The shop then gave it to others including at least one business customer and went promptly out of business.
In the 20 year future you forecast so casually, I frankly doubt that anyone will have a PC. Some multifunction device on your person and at home will likely combine the functions of electronics control, energy management, some home lighting, clocks, phones, and computer with tasks voice controlled, at least for the households with the latest and greatest technology. Right not doing these things is not standard and very costly but it won't be in 20 years. At work your monitor of function will probably be sewed onto your cubicle partition wall.
Fast comes with Moore's law and is thus a function of elapsed time, so everything electronic will be fast in 20 years. Moore's law on the doubling of processor speed will one day break down when we reach quantum state computing, but it won't be in the next ten to fifteen years. It is for example already possible to make clothing that is powered by solar power and displays whatever the user wants. It just is not cheap or yet fashionable. The clothing cleaning is also more challenging than simply using the washing machine and dryer.
The questions I was referring to were addressed to SOAPBOX
by desirawson - 11/5/09 6:13 PM In reply to: You haven't read all the comments if you see no answers by Walter L. JohnsonThe questions that weren't answered were in the threat addressed to SOAPBOX from "msgale"
Mr. Johnson: I appreciate your knowledge but you have admitted, unwillingly for some reason, that most tech professionals close to retirement do not want to learn anything new and want to deal with everything "the way they used to" (the quote from same that I now personally know from taking the certification courses in order to build my own as well). I live in a small town where the median age is 68 so that ought to give you a clue.
I am not disagreeing with anything that you said except that "msgale" had a few valid questions but no one agrees on the answers which is why he is so confused. If you've read the thread I am sure you would agree. I am also running 4 GB on a 32 bit and I do NO gaming at all but my system resources are taxed because of the number of programs that I need open to work on at one time and the reality that 4GB are not available to me.
I do not miss working in I.T. anymore - as a matter of fact most employers have no knowledge of what is needed and I.T. is the bain of their existance (they don't want to spend any money but everything must run at maximum speed/level/quality - and NOW).
For those who are trying to get answers on the fly on this website, there are so many conflicting answers, most of them are over their heads but they are just trying to get a firm answer on questions that (as you well know)if you do not do this for a living or have not attended the expensive classes for certification can be mind-boggling. They just want their computers to work and work right without maintenance, updates or additions (not possible).
Computers are not magic but they are advertised as such. The worst of it is that the very programs that protect novice users from viruses and accidentally ruining their computers are the same programs that slow their new beautiful fast machine down to a crawl (McAfee being the biggest legal virus and until recently, hopefully due to educating the consumer, cost a fortune.)
Actually not!
by msgale - 11/5/09 8:48 PM In reply to: You haven't read all the comments if you see no answers by Walter L. JohnsonThe maximum amount of memory on a 32 bit computer is 2 raised to the power of the number of bits. The address ranges is from zero to 2 raised to the power of the number of bits minus. Example the maximum address memory of a 32 bit machine is 4,294,967,296. The address range is 0 to 4,294,967,295. Since a PC uses memory mapped I/O all the assdess are not useable.
I am assuming your reference to 6400 computer is a CDC 6400, the baby brother to the CDC 6600. It had a 60 bit data word not 64 bits, however the address register was 17 bits which meant it had a maximum memory size of 131,072 words. The 6400 was word addressable, not byte addressable. Note too, a character was six bits not eight. bits.
I got careless
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/9/09 2:55 AM In reply to: Actually not! by msgaleI got careless and accepted the number given elsewhere in the discussion without calculating the value, which is actually 2 to the power or 31, presumably with one bit still to keep the sign of the number.
As to the CDC it was just to make a point. You are right about the 60 bit, but the choice of six or eight bits to make a character depends on the use of ASCII (64 characters) or Extended ASCII (255 characters) character sets. Today there are even more choices, but the CDC 6400 ran with ASCII.
What was most annoying about the CDC 6400 (6500 and 6600) is that they were so slow to print a graphic I wrote it to a monitor and the monitor was filmed on microfilm which could then be printed. There was a CalComp plotter but it would take a half hour per graph. Back then the earlier IBM 1401 Computer was used as a card sorter at the computer center I used.
My boss had an even rougher introduction to computers by hard wiring computer programs with plug in cables.
You want to see JUNK code?
by TreknologyNet - 11/8/09 5:57 PM In reply to: No Way by msgaleWrite the simplest BASIC program:
10 CLS
20 PRINT "Hello world!"
Now run it through a compiler, and just take a look at how much JUNK there is. Why are there DOS messages about disk errors? Why is virtually every error message that DOS can ever generate for itself buried inside your compiled program?
For such a simple program, DOS is loading the file, and should handle all disk errors itself. Proper program execution only requires video access and then terminates. So why is the compiled version something like 50k?
Sorry, but you are wrong
by msgale - 11/8/09 7:41 PM In reply to: You want to see JUNK code? by TreknologyNetAn error messages for any possible error has to be included. If an error can happen proper design requires it, how else would the user know what to do if the program fails?
An error message is "possible errors"
by wasyed - 11/8/09 8:24 PM In reply to: You want to see JUNK code? by TreknologyNetSorry but I think you might be wrong TreknologyNet. When you get an error during programming (in any language) it usually gives you a number of possibilities, and of course they are all tied together sometimes too. one error can generate another error simply because the second error depends on the first and so on. But many many times when you get a bunch of errors, its throwing possibilities at you, its letting you know it can be any number of things. Error messages are there to help a programmer determine whats wrong.
Sorry but this is not what junk code means.
sorry
by wasyed - 11/8/09 8:34 PM In reply to: An error message is "possible errors" by wasyedsorry i just realized i repeated what msgale just said above me... Well at least this way I know someone agrees
The OS is already dealing with those errors.
by TreknologyNet - 11/8/09 8:51 PM In reply to: An error message is "possible errors" by wasyedIf I want to deal with those errors inside my program, I don't get messages, I have to look for error "codes" and process them accordingly.
I think IBM had great error manuals
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/9/09 3:05 AM In reply to: An error message is "possible errors" by wasyedI never liked getting error in programming, but it seems harder now to diagnose errors with windows than it took to diagnose mainframe computer errors. IBM described basically every possible error code and in enough detail no one had to guess what system was involved. I once even diagnosed a floating point processor error that was due to a hardware failure the computer center didn't know about because only a few users used that component.
Now it seems that unless Microsoft has experienced an error and added it to the knowledge base decoding errors is a guessing game. Let me know if you know of a comprehensive error code manual as IBM had.
Even today you always have to start with the first error and work your way through the others, that aren't obvious in retrospect, one at a time until all are gone, as wasyed states. Each programming language is prone to different kinds of basically similar error. The logic ones are by far the hardest to fix and are rare among great programmers.
Errors
by msgale - 11/9/09 6:18 AM In reply to: I think IBM had great error manuals by Walter L. JohnsonI believe it was called "Error Messages and Codes." DEC had a simular manual for the VAX computer. UNIX was a little different,
"Dennis Ritchie, designer of the C programming language, revealed his design for a new model of car today. Instead of the multiple confusing gauges on the dashboard is a single light that lights up with a '?'.
"The experienced user", Ritchie says, "will usually know what's wrong."
for info on "old" computers
by jonah jones - 11/14/09 2:55 AM
In reply to: Old Computer by scleung
http://www.vintage-computer.com
jonah "first computer was the 'rubber keys' Spectrum with a cassette player and B&W TV" jones
,.
TRS80 = NOT the first comercialy available computers.
by Alain Martel1 - 10/31/09 3:16 PM In reply to: You're Correct by HformanWhen I bought my Apple ][+ with a full 48K of RAM, the TRS80 was not available. It only came along about 2 years later.
At the time, there where MANY different computers available on the commerce.
Atari, Texas Instrument, Comodor Pet and CBM, and many, many others.
Most had less than 48K of ram, sometimes, only 2 to 8K.
Every brand used different media for the programms and data storage, different versions of the Basic language, and where essentialy uncompatible with one another.
At the time, computers where 8 bits machines, with at most, the possibility to access 64K of total memory with a 16 bits address path.
It was even smaller than that
by gjkezski - 11/1/09 4:44 PM In reply to: You're Correct by HformanMy first computer was the Radio Shack MC-10 mini color computer, it had 3k usable memory with audio tapes for memory storage. I was given that back in '82-'83.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
