Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- From: krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:54:54 -0400
In article <465bc5ce@kcnews03>, jrweiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
"Richard Fangnail" <richardfangnail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Every year computers have more harddisk space but not that much more
memory. I just saw an ad for a computer with 160G drive but 512M
memory. Compared with three years ago, that drive is way bigger but
the memory is about the same.
Why is the disk size growing more than memory?
Disk size is growing because the videos, music, and games that a lot of
consumers want take up HD space.
No, disk size is growing because technology demands it. Data density
increases every year. There isn't any point in producing a drive
with less than one platter. ;-)
RAM isn't growing much because Win XP can only effectively use 2 GB of it
in the typical consumer machine. Vista might be able to effectively use 4
GB, but it's just on the street. I suspect you'll see more lower-end
computers with 1 GB of RAM...
RAM *IS* growing. It's still doubling every two years or so. A year
or so ago, 256MB was standard, with 512MB an upgrade. Today 512MB is
standard with 1GB a common upgrade. DRAM prices just fell big time.
Watch for box manufacturers to start adding more.
I believe XP can use 3GB effectively. To get to a full 4GB you
really need a 64bit OS (and processor, of course). 64bit Windows
does exist, but it's not common, yet.
For mainstream computers, it's all about competition -- putting in what the
consumers want for the lowest sticker price possible. Low-end HDs are
cheap, so 300 GB is easy.
100-160GB is easier, and more common.
MS sez XP will run on 256 MB, so the consumer
thinks all his "stuff" will run fine on 512 MB. Therefore the mfgr gives
him the big HD and barely adequate RAM for his $500.
True. XP doesn't run too badly on 512MB, though I'd not run with
less than 1GB. Vista sucks eggs. In 512MB it's even worse. ;-)
--
Keith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- From: Richard Fangnail
- Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- From: John Weiss
- Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- Prev by Date: Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- Next by Date: Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- Previous by thread: Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- Next by thread: Re: Computers - growth in drives but not memory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading