From: Brian Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 23:27:58 MDT
Luckily this all should be changing by the second half of next year
when AMD rolls out new consumer and server level 64bit CPUs. The 2
or 4GB mem limit should be ancient history for desktop PCs of 2003.
James Higgins wrote:
> 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
-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.intelligence.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT