On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:38, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements > > in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM > > instead of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they > > mean, though, in which case, they should say so explicitly. > > Well, isn't it assumed that it means free Ram?
I've never made such an assumption, as free RAM is going to be completely variable, which means the installer could run at one point and not run at another. That would result in lots of tech support calls. > . . . It is confusing though. > http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/productinfo/systemreqs/ Says > 256Megs of Ram as well. One I hear "256Megs of Ram" I hear "256MBs of RAM chips installed in the computer." If someone means FREE RAM, they should say "256MBs of MEMORY" or they should specify AVAILABLE MEMORY. > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html And this says > 320Megs. So, if I have a system with just that I can run it? > > While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an > > excellent way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually > > has very little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's > > not a RAM-hungry program in the first place. > > I think we have had this debate > before, and Finale does run better with more Ram. . .. Almost every program does, but some programs benefit more. Also, programs like Finale with low relatively resource requirements will plateau sooner and get no further benefit from additional RAM. > . . . I think it was a > discussion about using a Ram disk for temp files or something of the > like. RAM disks on Windows have never made any sense whatsoever because Windows always managed virtual memory and disk caching better than the old Mac OS. I don't know if under OS X disk caching and VM are now comparable to what Windows had in 1993. > > Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the > > basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I > > think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out > > that it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM. > > > > I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no > > sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes > > not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so > > changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the > > system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you > > haven't added any actual RAM to the system. > > > > It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead > > of INSTALLED RAM. > > I suppose you can argue that running photoshop with just 320Megs of > actual ram is possible, but who really does it? Again, $20-$40 and the > problem is solved (IE: more RAM). That's not the point. If Adobe says Photoshop will run with 320MBs, then it had better install and run, however slowly. In this case, MM is saying it will install and run with 256MBs (however slowly), but it's refusing to install on a machine that really has 256MBs of RAM (with no blocks of RAM permanently allocated to video processing/etc.). Either the installer is broken, or MM really *does* mean 256MBs of FREE RAM. In either case, MM has a problem, one that the end user shouldn't have to solve by buying more RAM. The end user should be able to trust what the software maker says, and in this case, either MM is untrustworthy (by using misleading terminology) or the installer is broken. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
