Originally Posted by DimGR
question is why do you need 4GB?
Somebody will find a way to eat 4GB easily. Most likely Microsoft, in this arena. Anyone else remember Gates telling us that 640K was more than anyone would ever use?
I find myself wishing for more than the 24GB (yes, twenty four GB) that I'm currently playing with. Of course that's an 8 CPU Sun Ultrasparc system running a lot of hefty loads (database and app and web servers in various Solaris containers) so that's not really a big machine by their standards. They have one box that maxxes at 576GB of memory. It costs more than my house. And the neighbors on both sides of me. And the neighbors across the street, too. Combined.
Getting back to the real world, Microsoft has always found ways to eat up any CPU and memory you can offer them. When Gates bought the original DOS from Seattle Computer Works, it fit on low density floppies. Uncompressed. Go to "Add/Remove Programs" and look at the size of Windows XP components now. Many are bigger than the 10 megabyte hard disk in the original IBM PC-XT. It keeps getting bigger and bigger. The limiting factor seems to be what can be done for about $800 on the desktop. If memory prices come down so that you can build an $800 desktop with 4GB of memory, Microsoft will gladly use it all.
Fortunately it's now a bit pricey to put 4GB in a PC, so that's limiting the audience and demand for even bigger bloatware.
Incidently, Solaris from Sun runs better than Windows in limited memory systems. Linux does pretty well, too.