30 Mar
2001
30 Mar
'01
10:20 a.m.
John Foust skrev:
At 10:36 PM 3/30/01 +0100, you wrote:
>John Foust skrev:
>>128M is sick? It's not just an OS, it's an OS plus who knows what.
>
>Then they should learn to keep things neatly apart. And what would require
>128 megs of RAM? Simulations of a glaxy or two?
What's to keep neatly apart for a consumer PC?
They want all
the latest, not a microcontroller or DOS 3.0.
I'm not talking about a microcontroller or DOS 3.0 either! Could you keep this
at a civil level? I'm talking about a windowing OS, and why would that require
128 MB?
It's the minimum recommended for typical use, which
Microsoft will
happily define as the amount needed to make the OS functional,
plus being able to run a bunch of Microsoft apps. These days
that includes cable modems stuffing music and video and
bloat and crap onto 30 gig HDs.
But then that's another thing. Apps are not the same as the OS and may be
chosen according to requirements.
Surprisingly, the memory makers and PC makers don't
seem to complain as
requirements increase.
Exactly.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Fernsehen ist das einzige Schlafmittel, das mit den Augen genommen wird.
--- Vittorio de Sica