[rescue] several second lag...

[joshua d boyd]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 12:46:41PM -0400, Ken Hansen wrote:
> Office is a system killer - you need obscene resources for a "full install"
> of Office...
> 
> On modern PCs, ram is on the order of $100-150/Gig - why would you spend
> *any* time trying to save the last $10 by running a machine with 64M (or
> less?) - better to drop your CPU investment by the same $10.

I can not just run out and buy ram for $10 for 64, or $150 for
gig.  Locally, the cheapest place to buy ram is currently staples (as of
earlier this week), and they want $30 for 64 (PC100, which hasn't yet
been established to work in this 66mhz machine, some where picky about
PC100, like my other old pentium system), $50 for 128, $90 for 256, and
that's it, nothing larger.  If I want ram at a reasonable price I have to
wait for a computer show (every 2-3 monthes) or order it online.  For
ordering it online, I either need a credit card (which I don't have) or to
buy it on ebay, which is somewhat iffy.

So, it is not that I am trying to save a little money, it is just that
since her other dimm died, I haven't had an opportunity to buy memory at a
decent price.  On Sept 1st, there is another computer show near by, so
maybe she will finally get more ram.
 
> Who said 40 megs was good for a PC running Win98, Office 97, IE5 and AOL
> (isn't AOL running Netscape, so that would be *two* browsers active if she
> had both AOL and IE5 running at the same time, right?)?

AOL (for windows and Mac at least) does not use netscape at this
time.  They do use netscape on that appliance thingy that they were
demoing though.

Well, I remeber when people laughed at me for putting a whopping 24megs of
ram in a windows 95 box running office 95, and IE 3.  And I fail to see
any additional functionality here, so why should it need more memory?  She
doesn't even push her software as hard as I was pushing mine back then.

Anyway, I didn't say it was a PC.  It was a Sun.  But the point is, the
sun would do the same types of things as the PC, and risc isn't even as
memory efficient as cisc, so what justifies the giant memory leap?

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd