From: James Higgins (jameshiggins@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 22:43:41 MDT
True, but cheaper ram doesn't have anything to do with the 4GB limit on
cost effective Pentium based PCs. The vast majority of systems (mother
board / BIOS combos) simply can't handle more the 4GB. Some of the very
high end systems might, but they are much, much more expensive than systems
that can handle 2-4GB. So even if RAM was significantly cheaper still it
won't be cost effective to go beyond 4GB until new BIOSs and mother boards
which can handle this become generally available.
At 11:51 PM 7/17/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Ben Goertzel wrote:
> >
> > It happens that the most RAM you could get in a relatively inexpensive
> > computer (pentium-based, I mean) as of last year was 4GB of RAM, and so
> > that's what we had at Webmind Inc. If you can afford a Starfire or an IBM
> > mainframe, then there are no worries; and I imagine this is the primary
> > initial market for the 64 bit JVM.
>
>RAM prices are dropping precipitously. A quick look at Yahoo! Shopping
>almost instantly brings up a PC133, 168-pin, 512MB SDRAM chip for $56, and
>that's if I'm not buying in bulk:
>
> http://shop.store.yahoo.com/jazztechnology/genbranpc511.html
>
>The only reason I would fear to burn RAM is that burning RAM might also
>consume bandwidth.
>
>-- -- -- -- --
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT