Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!fang!att!cbnewsd!varney
From: varney@cbnewsd.att.com (Al Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Megs o' RAM (Was: MegaMac)
Message-ID: <1991Jun6.123155.20797@cbnewsd.att.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 12:31:55 GMT
References: <55538@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: varney@ihlpf.att.com
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Network Systems
Lines: 25

In article <55538@nigel.ee.udel.edu> PYC136@uriacc.uri.edu (Andy Patrizio) writes:
>"Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester" <galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu> writes:
>>     ... People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using
>>16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can ... be expanded to 128Megs of RAM.
  Is the 128Megs a limit for some reason?  Seriously, what is the "usable"
  size for MacIIFX?  Is it different for System 6 vs. 7 vs. A/UX?
  What is the maximum number of users supported by such a beast?
>
>Secondly, what in the world do you need 128 Meg of RAM for? Even UNIX doesn't
>suck up that much memory.
  While UNIX(tm :-)) may not "suck up" that much memory, it's users do.
  Supporting 500+ simultaneous users, many of whom wallow in GNU and/or
  Emacs-style software environments, producing PostScript output, etc.
  can really suck up the memory.  It can't all be virtual memory, some
  of it has to be REAL. :-)

  Users have a tendency to find a use for ANY available resource, whether
  CPU cycles, processors, memory, disk space, desk space, shelf space, etc.
  I've observed this for 25+ years, ever since we added more memory to the
  old IBM 1620...  Ask some R&D company or engineering school or other
  heavy computing supporter to plot the last 15 years "number of users"
  vs. the following:  CPU cycles/second, main memory, disk storage,
  square miles of computer paper, etc.  It's much worse than exponential...

   Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL