When are programs going to start making smart use of huge memory?

[Kwad Guy]

With the floor completely removed from memory prices,
it is now within the financial grasp of just about anyone
to load their PC with 256Mb or 512Mb or more memory.

So far, however, there isn't much software out that
really takes advantage of these new levels of memory.
Sure, Photoshop and a few other programs of that ilk
can use lots of memory. But there are many other programs
that don't, even if the programs could be made to
run better with more memory.

We've already seen this phenomenon with disc space and
CDroms: As hard drive space got cheaper and bigger,
and CDroms became the norm, programs "stretched out"
to embrace the newly available media. Most program
installs now take a LOT more disc space than would
even have been conceivable just a few years ago.

How long until the same thing occurs with memory. And what
do you think the first benefits will be?

Kwad

 

[Xenon14]

When are programs going to start making smart use of huge memory?

Unreal 2

 

[GremlinHater]

Hehe, it's called a Mac, IMHO it uses memory in a by far superior fashion than windows crap, none of that high memory, extended memory, blah blah blah, in mac, what you see is what you use, when your done, mac doesn't store the memory in a hidden closet and snicker at you when you crash.

 

[Soccerman]

boy is that ever a contradiction..

first of all, if a program really uses that kind of memory, it's either bloatware, or some proffesional app (video editing, photo editing, sound editing).

if it's the former, then they probably are also too lazy to make it manage memory efficiently as well.

 

[dullard]

I think that companies will take a little longer to adjust for this one. Why? All customers could play a game requiring large HD space - even if they had a smallish sized HD. They just needed to uninstall some older programs, and install the newer ones. You cannot do this with memory. If a game requires 512 MB of memory, and you have 256 MB you CANNOT buy that product. For this reason, game makers must be sure that their target audience has enough memory. Right now I'll guess that half of the target audience has only 128 MB. So if you are a programmer, would you limit your sales by about 50% just for a little better graphics?

True some games will always be cutting edge, but going from 128 MB to 256 MB will not improve the gameplay one bit. A boring game with great graphics requiring 256 MB minimum is still a boring game.

Remember that a huge percent of the world purchased computers right before the year 2000 started (y2k bug fears). These computers are still powerful enough to run almost every program. So the consumer sees no need to upgrade/buy new computers. Did you notice the PC slump? At the start of 2000, 128 MB was typical so most people still have only 128 MB. I'd give them another year before lots of them upgrade to 256 MB.

 

[kylef]

GremlinHater: That's a troll if I've ever smelled one. I won't feed it.

To answer the original question, I think that video editing software will probably fill that void. What Soccerman calls a "professional app" is very quickly becoming popular in the home.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm with dullard. The average home PC probably has 64 MB, the average gaming PC 128 MB. Heck these folks still have TNT1/2 or GF1 cards. A few apps will trickle out that require 256 MB+ but it'll be years before that's mainstream.

I have a feeling when broadband is installed in > 50% of homes we'll see a surge of new apps (video, etc.) that'll demand much more RAM. Again, the biggest group today is 33.6 bps users followed by 28.8 users! Long way to go.

 

[GremlinHater]

<< GremlinHater: That's a troll if I've ever smelled one. I won't feed it.
>>



Eh.., not exactly sure what you mean, but that's alright, as I stated it as MY opinion, who knows, there's difference of opinion in everyone.

 

[wyvrn]

Well the fact that up until OSX Mac's didn't use a real memory manager might have something to do with his comment. I have never seen a serious problem with the &quot;high memory, extended memory, blah blah blah&quot; standard in Windows, but I have seen a simple program crash bring down the entire Mac OS in record time. Until recenly Steve Jobs and Co. couldn't even spell protected memory space, or know how to separate 32 bit programs from 16 bit.

Perhaps that is why he called it a troll thread

 

[tigerwannabe]

i'd settle for windows apps to make smart use of computing resources period

 

[grant2]

Hehe, it's called a Mac, IMHO it uses memory in a by far superior fashion than windows crap, none of that high memory, extended memory, blah blah blah, in mac, what you see is what you use, when your done, mac doesn't store the memory in a hidden closet and snicker at you when you crash.

Uhh ok maybe you should come out from that cave into the 21st century mac-boy!

no doubt your mac-plus has better memory management than a typical 386, but this kind of trip down hardware memory lane is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand!

 

[Sohcan]

<< Hehe, it's called a Mac, IMHO it uses memory in a by far superior fashion than windows crap >>

Ummm, Gremlinhater, I like Macs, but I hate to break it to you...Macs have far worse memory management than PCs...it's not a matter of opinion. Besides, you're using antiquated comparisons with DOS (who even remembers extended memory anymore? )...NT/Win2K (and even 9X to some degree) has much better memory management than MacOS 9 or below...hell, MacOS 9 doesn't even have real protected memory space.

OS X is another issue, but it's based off of BSD, so obviously it has real memory management.