Eric, sorry, I've read this a few times over, wanted to reply, decided not to, then decided to anyway...
SSD and RAM are cheaper than a top of the line processor...? hum, are you talking about proper top end server grade processors, perhaps, but no way is the average desktop processor more expensive then an SSD, Apple are chucking 256Gb SSD drives in their machines if you're prepared to pay for it, these things are like £350 - £400, about US$500 or so. an i7 Intel 2.9Ghz processor is less than that in money terms. and the idea that RAM takes the load off your hard drive is only true if you have very little RAM, or very large applications loading in and out of it, or huge wopping files switching in and out. 4Gb of RAM is massive, its huge, its stupendous, its like Pages plus Mail plus Safari, and Mac OSx, with say 50 text only e-mails open plus 50 different multi page documents open and still room to surf the net and have multiple tabs open, and even this won't be pushing it. don't forget this is DDR3 RAM with 1028 cache on board each stick of RAM etc. I'm sorry,but I cannot sit back and not say that we are applying old school thinking and logic to something which has changed drastically in the space of even the past 3 or so years. anyone who's been seriously involved in the computing scene for a length of time should know this. if we were talking PC, where Window's screen readers suck RAM like there's no tomorrow, the conversation would be different, but Voice Over is much better at resource responsibility, and uses an amount appropriately in line with its roll. Looking at my Mac right now, I have Mail up with four mail accounts being checked every minute for updates, Safari with 7 tabs, Pages with 3 documents, and numbers with 2 sheets. iTunes is also running and is downloading and syncing 2 iPHones and an iPad. Sonos controller is up and running as is Skype. oh and Voice Over. my system reports me as using 1.8Gb of RAM at peak... I have four available. lets please start being realistic and not talking about myth, or more accurately historical truths. if you want to talk about technology which has stood still over the passage of time, and this I appreciate is not quite as factual as it might seem, lets look at e-mail, something we now a days all take for granted. but did you know at the turn of the last century it took 8 minutes to transmit a telegraph from London to Calcutta, when you think it over, its still about that long to transmit an e-mail the same distance. yes of course, an e-mail can convey much more information and ccan handle attachments etc... but its pretty amazing when you think about it. Regards, Neil Barnfather Talks List Administrator Twitter @neilbarnfather TalkNav is a Nuance, Code Factory and Sendero dealer, for all your accessible phone, PDA and GPS related enquiries visit www.talknav.com URL: - www.talknav.com e-mail: - [email protected] Phone: - +44 844 999 4199 On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:27, erik burggraaf wrote: You know, going above four gb ram isn't strictly necessary for day to day computing. The article you're reading has it all backwards though. The processor is about 4 times faster than the ram in your computer. It's also a lot more expensive to buy a high end processor. Ram is a cheep upgrade, especially these days. It takes a load off of your hard drive by reducing the amount of swap space required. Maybe it does a few other things behind the scenes as well. If you want to spend money on a huge performance booster, chunk in a solid state hard drive. ssd rocks my world. Ram and ssd are both cheeper than a top of the line processor. Best, Erik Burggraaf User support consultant, Now posting occasionally on twitter at eburggraaf, 1-888-255-5194 http://www.erik-burggraaf.com On 2011-06-25, at 12:24 AM, Kliph&Sharrie wrote: > Okay, I am still on a few windows screen readers lists, since I teach a few > basic classes about JFW and know a lot about the windows side of things. > Anyways, someone said on this list that the average blind user needs no more > than 4 gigs of ram, at best anything over 8 would be a waste. I'm no exburt, > but I have done a little research, and googling and have found that the more > ram you have, the smoother your system will run, mac or PC. This person seem > to think even if you had a fast processor, that spending money on ram was a > waste. Now I will admitt, that apple is a little pricy when it comes to ram, > but there are third party sellers out there with compatible memory for just > about any system. Thoughts? Oh, 1 more thing this person said, that the > only way more than 4 gigs would be necessary is if you were doing some high > quality video or audio editing. What do you all think or know about these > numbers and comments? > > Sent from Minister Miller's IPhone > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
