On 3/6/23 13:41, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 6:10 PM Bret Busby <b...@busby.net <mailto:b...@busby.net>> wrote:

    On 3/6/23 06:33, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
     > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 4:49 PM Bret Busby <b...@busby.net
     > <mailto:b...@busby.net <mailto:b...@busby.net>>> wrote:
     >     On 2/6/23 23:55, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
     >     <snip>
     >      > Luddites of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your
     >     upgrade
     >      > treadmills
     >     If, by upgrade treadmills, you mean the flatbed treadmills,
    that have a
     >     belt that is turned by the human walking on it, rather than the
     >     electric
     >     ones with electric motors for lazy humans, the ones that have
    the belt
     > I'm afraid he meant the treadmill that used to be called "planned
     > obsolescence". The thought that a perfectly satisfactory machine no
     > longer suffices for you because it is "yesterday's model".
    Thereafter it
     > will stop working with newer machines (or software) which are
     > to be incompatible with it.
     > And what is the end in view?
     > Sell you a new machine.


    Last year, I bought the computer described below, as a refurbished
    machine, and, it is far superior to the new computers that do not come
    with enough RAM to be worthwhile.

    This computer, with 128GB RAM, I regard as far superior to an i9
    computer with 8GB RAM.

    Refurbished computer profile (with 128GB RAM (that runs about 200
    windows of Firefox (I have one saved session, with 229 windows, and
    about 3200 tabs), while viewing movies (I also have about 10 movies
    at present, in Celluloid and SMPlayer), although, at present, I have
    only about 127 Firefox windows open, with 1689 tabs):

Holy cow! :-)
No wonder you have 128GB RAM. You will need that much for that much Firefox. It's a peeve of mine how resource intensive it is for a browser compared to the competition.

The problem in the demand for resources via web browsers, is the gratuitous malicious use of javascript; client side processing, that steals a user's resources, rather than server side processing, which is what ethical web application developers use (server side processing, that is, that is used by ethical web application developers).

Running SeaMonkey, with javascript disabled, uses hardly any resources; on my i7, 16GB RAM, All-In-One (also, a refurbished Dell), I have currently 80 Firefox Windows, 20 Pale Moon Windows, and, (free of javascript) 16 SeaMonkey Windows running.

Also, having the primary HD, with an appropriate (I use 32GB as standard) swap partition, as an NVVME (?) SSD, causes the systems to run better.

My point was, and, is, that the "speed" of a system is not solely reliant on, and, should not be assessed solely on, the age of the CPU; many other factors, including the amount of RAM, the speed and capacity of the primary HD, and, the responsible use of a swap partition, should, I believe, be taken into account.

Bret Busby
West Australia

Reply via email to