[geeks] value of PIII PC servers

[Micah R Ledbetter]

On Jun 22, 2006, at 18:50, der Mouse wrote:

>> I have a DUAL PIII 1 GHz system with some ludicrusly tiny amount of
>> RDRAM installed (128 Meg?).
>
> If you think 128 megs is a "ludicrously tiny" amount of RAM, well,  
> I'll
> cheerfully take it off your hands. :-)
>
> Seriously, if you think 128 megs is tiny you must run mega-bloatware.
> I have a laptop that until recently had 16 megs, and provided I didn't
> start the live-backup stuff it was perfectly usable.  (It now has 40
> megs, and that turns out to be plenty.  With a smaller disk I probably
> could have run the live-backup stuff, even.)
>
> Usable for me, that is.  But then, I don't run bloatware.

<flame>

Now that's a silly insinuation. You seem to be implying that there is  
no reason except bloatware for the use of more than 128MB of RAM.

procmail, php and perl generated web pages, (...) will all benefit  
from 128, 256, 512, 1024 MB. You use, like, *tar*, right? That  
certainly benefits from having more RAM.

The least amount of RAM I have on one of my systems is 80MB, in a  
Pentium 133 laptop. Lemmetellya, it sucks if you want to copy files  
over the network or untar pkgsrc. I couldn't imagine running a modern  
(desktop/workstation) operating system on 16MB of RAM. 128MB would  
make a huge difference. 256MB would be even better. But then, tar  
must be mega-bloatware. Along with any C compiler, considering how  
long it takes to compile a software package like GNU coreutils. CD  
burners must be mega-bloat(hard)ware, since you'll need way more than  
16MB to pull that off at anything close to reasonable speed. Same  
with DVD video discs.

Systems that supported RDRAM were in the 1+GHz range (right?). Do you  
have any 1GHz machine that has less 128MB or less of RAM? 128MB *is*  
ludicrously tiny, even if just because of the bottleneck it creates  
for a CPU of that speed.

</flame>