Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro!norton From: norton@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Norton Chia) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Virtual Memory and Sys 7 Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 11:25:40 GMT References: <1991May8.143042.20137@bigsur.uucp> <1991May9.042425.598@gla-aux.uucp> <1991May9.162601.19210@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991May10.010859.14103@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia Lines: 51 Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au While I can appreciate the ability to access so much memory, ultimately, we'll still have to address the issue whether the CPU can handle that much workload. You may find that the current 680x0 chips have been able to address a lot of memory for some time, but eventually, performance will still be hampered due to the CPU's inability to keep up with all the information it has to deal with. I think the ability to access a lot of RAM either real or virtual is great, but only of the need arises. For a personal desktop computer/workstation, it's up to the individual to decide. For my money, I'll need the bare minimum of physical RAM that can hold at least 150% of the largest process requirements, and let the other processes take a backseat. Don't forget, even if the 68040 is so much more powerful than the lowly 68000, it's only that much more... probably at most 20 times realistically. Can you imagine having a machine 20 times faster than a Classic? C'mon, you'll still be left wanting! Anyway, arguments aside, I think it is very healthy to want more than we ever do at present. That's the way to advance and stop from feeling complacent. Original post as follows:--- ml27192@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Lanett) writes: >dbert@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Douglas Siebert) writes: >>In article <1991May9.042425.598@gla-aux.uucp> glenn@gla-aux.uucp (Glenn L. Austin) writes: >>I wonder how long virtual memory will remain a useful solution however. >[para deleted] >>Virtual memory provides a temporary solution, but the way things are going, >>I'll wager virtual memory will not be used ten years from now. Because if >>memory usage continues to double, we'll be running around 16G (that's 16,384M >>for those of you not aware what a "G" is :) ) Of course we'll have run into >>the 680x0's addressable limit of 4G by then, but many of us will have migrated >>to 64-bit processors by then. >Virtual memory is never a usefull solution -- it's only a temporary, slightly- >inconvenient solution to not having enough RAM. If you only have 8 megs and >need to run something larger _just_once_ it's great: no having to buy more >memory, just use the hard disk. If you need that much memory on a regular basis, >tho', you'll quickly find that it's much too slow. Also, it _does_ cost you that >disk space. (How many optical drives do you have hooked up to give you that >Gig, anyway? :-)) >-- >//----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mark Lanett ml27192@uxa.cs.uiuc.edu >Software Tools Group, NCSA mlanett@ncsa.uiuc.edu -- <<<< My employers ignore me, I'm on my own when I speak out in public :^( >>>> < Norton Chia | Mail me on norton@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU APPLELINK:AUST0240 > < Micro Support | "There are only 3 types of people in the world: > < Uni of Sydney | Those who can count, and those who can't" >