SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
About how much RAM does your primary computer have?
| 2% | 10 votes |
| 3% | 17 votes |
| 10% | 48 votes |
| 28% | 134 votes |
| 30% | 141 votes |
| 15% | 74 votes |
| 3% | 17 votes |
| 5% | 28 votes |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
About how much RAM does your primary computer have?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 73 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday July 12 2016, @05:27PM
A better option if you are on a budget is to spend the money (and watts) on something more useful like storage, CPU or GPU upfront, and either leave a few RAM slots free for a later upgrade if/when you really need it, or plan for a total RAM replacement when the price will no doubt have fallen even lower.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 12 2016, @10:40PM
I burn through so much of the 8 GB RAM on my primary laptop just from opening dozens of web browser tabs, that I will certainly aim for at least 16 GB on the next one. If I had "too much" (32 GB), I think I'd just set up a ramdisk or something.
It seems possible to get 2x8 GB of laptop DDR4 for $50, and 2x16 GB for $100. Some of these costs could be saved if a laptop came with a single 8 GB stick and an empty slot (possible), or a single 16 GB stick (seems unlikely).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @02:38AM
I would get a laptop with less and just upgrade once the warranty expired. The memory upgrade costs from OEMs is insane. But I upgraded a machine from 4GB to 16GB and it was $35 about two months ago. You also have to watch the prices as the market is insanely volatile and different first and third party site have drastically different prices on the same items. For example, the two sticks I mentioned earlier varied in price from $30 to $77 over the two months I looked.
One thing that worries me about the more and larger RAM is that it is somewhat difficult to find ECC support among major laptop manufacturers. To be honest going larger than 16GB without it is somewhat frightening to me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday July 13 2016, @03:15AM
https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ [codinghorror.com]
If there's evidence that this matters in a home/laptop scenario, I haven't really seen it. I understand that the increasing density makes bit errors more likely, but these are still rare and usually harmless events.
I wonder if a move to High Bandwidth Memory and similar stacked DRAM designs could change the equation. They use larger process nodes, but could ultimately include more memory in a smaller space due to the up-to-8-high stacks. Xeon Phi/Knights Landing is including 16 GB on-package, but it seems to have ECC support anyway. Ultimately, some consumer GPUs and APUs from Nvidia and AMD will have HBM, and ECC support appears to be optional.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday July 30 2016, @01:59PM
If there's evidence that this matters in a home/laptop scenario, I haven't really seen it. I understand that the increasing density makes bit errors more likely, but these are still rare and usually harmless events.
In any kind of home system it's unnecessary, and for servers in general it is as well. For supercomputers OTOH, whose memory banks are basically large-scale silicon particle detectors, you'd better use ECC if you want your system to work.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 30 2016, @02:12PM
ECC RAM in HPC is pretty much a foregone conclusion. That's also where we're seeing the densest RAM, like the 16 GB of stacked High Bandwidth Memory that is being put on Intel Xeon Phi, Nvidia Tesla and some other products.
I've heard that 3D XPoint is going to be used in some HPC scenarios. I wonder if it's vulnerable to flips.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday July 22 2016, @07:57PM
Using chrome? Chrome loves memory. I once killed a tab that freed up 1GB. The fuck.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 22 2016, @08:32PM
I expect web browsing to take up a lot of memory, especially at the scale that I do it at. I might have 2-4 different browsers (distinct browsers, not browser windows) open at once, with dozens of tabs open in the primary one.
Tabs that chew 1 GB of memory probably have some kind of "memory leak"... now that web pages are becoming more like applications, certain ones could use up lots of resources and become noticeably slower when open for many hours, cluing you into the problem.
I'm also not entirely sure that I begrudge the browser maker for using so much RAM. You want things like the previous page and other contents to load fast, then you need that stuff in memory. I'd rather use all of the 8 GB of RAM than let it go dormant.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday July 22 2016, @09:12PM
I've had chrome eat a lot of ram, usually 2-3GB with just a three or four tabs open. Ive seen tabs with pretty mundane websites, light on JS and images, consuming 1+GB. Though, like you said, could be cached content.
I think I am just in swe that something which was once simple has grown to be such a memory hog.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:32PM
You want things like the previous page and other contents to load fast, then you need that stuff in memory.
No, when I hit back, I want to see the latest version of that page, so my browser should re-fetch it. The only thing in memory should be the URL (and its request) to re-fetch.
I'd rather use all of the 8 GB of RAM than let it go dormant.
Same here...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:52AM
A single chrome tab looking at streetview can easily grow to 3Gb or more.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:57AM
That seems excessive. I doubt the desktop Google Earth application (which now has all the features of Google Maps and streetview) has that problem. The mobile application has an option to download (map) data for offline use. So I'm surprised that any form of it would use such a massive amount of memory unless there was a bug in the browser.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday July 30 2016, @01:48PM
I burn through so much of the 8 GB RAM on my primary laptop just from opening dozens of web browser tabs
Firefox user eh?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 30 2016, @02:10PM
No, my primary is Chrome and it knows well how to burn through gigabytes of RAM.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday July 13 2016, @07:20PM
Your use case sounds similar to mine but instead of video I do some GIS and that will eat through 32GB of RAM without issue. That said I tell most people that 8 is good and 16 is more than enough unless they have special edge cases.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday July 21 2016, @06:31AM
i7-6700k with 64GB DDR4 and a 512Gb Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD. For CAD and 5 axis CAM. Just ordered a 2nd 950 Pro as the 1st one's almost full and my mobo has two m.2 slots.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday July 12 2016, @06:59PM
Still have not fixed my computer with 4GB of RAM, so I am using one with 384MB at the moment.
I think my cell-phone has about 1GB as well.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday July 12 2016, @07:41PM
I'm having trouble defining "primary computer." By amount of time used, I really don't know what comes out on top. I'm guessing that would be one of my laptops, at 16GB. The next contender would be my Pocket CHIP. It only has 512MB, but I'm mostly using it to SSH into a number of remote servers so local processing power isn't really an issue. I could easily see this overtaking my laptop in usage, and it may have already. This is quite a spread in RAM.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 12 2016, @08:16PM
I had the same problem: There's the machine I work at when I'm in the office, the machine I use most of the time at home, a laptop that travels with me and also gets used frequently, and another box that sits in my home recording studio until I need it which actually has better specs than any of the others. And of course my cell.
I went with "Whichever machine I'm typing on right now".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 12 2016, @09:22PM
I have a Primary Computer at work. And a Primary Computer at home.
Both are 32 GB memory.
But the one at home has:
* Linux (not Windows, hey this is not at work)
* NO swap space (hey, I've got 32 GB)
* All SSD, no spinning rust
This configuration is sweet to run ad-hoc virtual machines on.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday July 13 2016, @02:36PM
Amen to no swap. I have 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD, so if I wanted to put swap on the high performance drive (really where it should go) I would be taking more than 10% of that space.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @04:58AM
If you run Linux, you can get some of the same benefits of having swap but not actually use a drive with zram. Basically, it s a ram disk for swap with transparent compression. Depending on how you use your machine, you can turn 1 GB into 5 GB at the expense of CPU time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @12:38PM
No swap sounds nice but it's not actually a good idea. Even with huge amounts of ram, you can end up in situations where it all gets used and in those cases it's a hell of a lot easier to fix the problem if you have swap space to fall back on. What you should be doing is using a swap partition of noteworthy size and setting vm.swappiness=10 (or 1 if you REALLY don't want to swap unless necessary). That setting tells the kernel that you'd really rather not swap anything out of ram if it's not absolutely necessary BUT leaves you the option to start slowing down performance rather than spitting out out-of-memory errors.
Bonus points if you script up something to regularly check swap usage and alert you if you're actually using any. That way you hopefully know in plenty of time to stop whatever just used up 64GB of ram from making your system freak the fuck out and start crashing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 14 2016, @01:16PM
I keep an occasional eye on memory use. I'm not even close to running out of memory.
Are there specific programs that you suspect can suddenly consume huge amounts of memory? I haven't had any problems in practice.
If I ever get close to running out of memory, I can always set up a swap file, rather than a swap partition. On one or more SSDs, the swap file(s) should perform far better than a swap partition would on spinning rust. (no seek or rotational latency) But I won't cross that bridge until, or unless I come to it. And if I do get to that point, it probably won't be a surprise. It might be a deliberate decision reached during planning of a new program.
And . . . I can always just get more memory if I really, actually, need that much.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @01:26PM
I wasn't thinking regular use, I was thinking bug-caused OOM conditions. Whether it was someone else's bug or yours, they do occasionally happen. I've run into that situation at least half a dozen times on my own systems, quite a few more on systems I was paid to administer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday July 19 2016, @11:33AM
Yes to this. Swap provides an extra margin of safety should a bug use up all the system memory. Swap's very slowness is useful. Gives the administrator time to notice that the system is thrashing and do something about it. The system will be so slow it might take 5 minutes to log in, but can still log in remotely. Then you can make a more intelligent diagnosis than the process killer about the cause, and deal with it yourself. More than once this allowed me to let a system down easy, head off a possible hard crash that would have required a trip to the data center to flip the power switch (this was before the company added remotely controlled power switches). The cause wasn't always a serious bug in the latest update to company's web services. Once it was a file system problem (xfs was being extremely slow to delete a large tree of files such as the Linux kernel source, was a lot of work to fix as had to move everything off that partition so I could reformat it with better parameters), another time it was badly designed scripting of server metrics programs, etc.
Another use for swap is a place to park slop. By which I mean a place to put processes that will never need to do anything more but which weren't terminated, maybe can't be terminated, but aren't zombies. For example, two scripts often used to start XWindows manually are startx and xinit. These scripts cause the launch of a shell interpreter to read the commands to get Xwindows running, but once X is running it may just sit there in system memory. There will never be another command sent to the shell interpreter, but thanks to sloppy scripting the shell interpreter can't exit, it's left hanging around until XWindows terminates just so it can collect a return value. Even better if the shell interpreter is a child of a terminal session so that too has to hang around in memory doing absolutely nothing. Another small waste of memory are the 6 gettys and text screen terminals most Unix systems launch by default. Granted they don't take much memory, only a few K, but still. Could configure your system to launch only 2 text screen terminal sessions, but meh, keep all 6 and let swap deal with it. Swap is an excellent place to store that kind of stuff.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 19 2016, @01:13PM
I understand your argument. Yes, if there were a surprise, it would be nice, especially on a remote machine, to notice the thrashing, remotely log in, and fix it.
This machine is a DESKTOP workstation. Not a server. 32 GB of memory is plenty with no swap. When I'm not using it, it's not doing anything. No surprises. I've had it half a year. In practice the configuration with no swap works great. The software I use also has no surprises about memory use.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @06:42PM
What would be noteworthy size?
For me I normally prefer to set it to something small for swap on slow drives. If stuff starts swapping I'd rather have some slowness and at worst case run out of memory than spend one hour and still not get sshd/UI to respond and eventually have to hard power-off the entire system...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 17 2016, @09:26PM
That's precisely why you want it to be able to swap. Slowness is better than everything you try to do to correct the issue giving you an out of memory error and failing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @04:27PM
Part of the problem is that people don't understand the OOM killer. Whenever I hear someone saying that they cannot connect to the ssh daemon because the OOM killer got it, my first question is always "why didn't you exempt it from being killed?" If your have a system that absolutely cannot lock, start a process in your init that creates a child that allocates 10 meg or so and sleeps for 5 minutes then quits, the parent immediately adjusts that processes OOM priority on launch and relaunches it on a sigchild. That should give enough headroom to avoid a complete lock of your system for the paranoid. Also, the OOM killer received some big changes in later kernels, but I cannot remember the actual version numbers off hand.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:03AM
Not really, I much prefer a runaway process to get reaped for OOM then to start swapping, either to HDD or to SSD for different reasons.
I consider the lack of swap a FEATURE. It's also great for stopping the kernel from overzealously swapping preemptively. I'd like all the memory pages IN memory, thanks, I don't want to need to do disk IO just because the OS thought it might be nice to move these "unused" pages out.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Monday July 18 2016, @08:18AM
ISTR being told/hearing once that going no-swap is a bad idea performance wise even if you have tons of RAM - you always win by enabling swap.
Essentially it came down to IO caching behaviour - you *want* to use swap for things you don't care about, to improve the available RAM for dynamically cached files that you do.
Using swap enables the kernel to drop the "in-use" memory for things you never use back to disk (which you won't notice the slowdown on), and so you wind up with more memory room for the dynamic caching of files which would otherwise be discarded and reloaded when accessed (which you do see).
Admittedly this is me (mis?)remembering a long ago conversation based on some LKML traffic, and this was back when 1GBy was a colossal amount of RAM, and kernel tuning parameters where more limited, so take it with a pinch of salt....
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday July 26 2016, @01:03PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @12:25PM
Definition: The one you would prefer to use most of the time while at home.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 14 2016, @05:08PM
Oh, that actually changes my answer completely. I spend very little time at home, and the computer I use most there is a tablet with 1GB of RAM (I play mp3s on it).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:39PM
See, me, I need a keyboard. Large fingers and onscreen keyboards do not work well together. In truth no fingers and onscreen keyboards work particularly well together when compared to a real keyboard and the ability to touch type.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 14 2016, @10:20PM
Totally agree. Note that I use it as an MP3 player, which doesn't require much typing. I like large, clacky keys. I used to write code on the tablet sometimes, but the typos were just too much. I still find it tolerable for looking up information. I'm using the Pocket CHIP for jotting down breif bits of code now, and it works a lot better. I type much slower on it, but also much more accurately. If you haven't seen the keyboard, it's... different. [imgur.com] The keys aren't large, but they're very clicky. I'm not accidentally typing anything with it. Some people are having problems with the keys not always inputting when they click down (IT'S A FEATURE!), but that seems to only affect one of my keys and my thumb is learning quickly where to press. I like it much better than the Android Hacker's Keyboard [github.com] (which is the best soft-keyboard I've seen so far), but obviously not as much as a real full-sized mechanical behemoth. It's a trade-off in portability and usability; I'll sometimes even split the difference and plug a larger keyboard into the Pocket CHIP.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 14 2016, @10:41PM
The keyboard I linked actually looks slightly different from the final one. I think the one pictured has a combination Escape/Tilde/Backtick key next to the number buttons, and the final one has a dedicated Escape key on the other side of the arrows. It makes Tilde and Backtick into fn-modified keystrokes on the letters. They also swapped the positions of Ctrl, Tab, and Left-Shift around. Otherwise I see no differences. Keys missing from both versions: Meta, Insert, Delete, Page-Up, Page-Down. Meta is sorely missed, my Alt-modified shortcuts are going to collide with something one of these days.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday July 26 2016, @01:23PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:20AM
Well. In that case my primary computer is my android phone.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @08:57PM
I came here brag that I only have 640k based on some guys recommendation that that should be enough for anyone, but you actually made that one of the options in the poll, you insensitve clod!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @01:10AM
Writing this from my TRS-80 with 64k ram {out of memory error}
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 16 2016, @07:48AM
Luxury. The ZX81 came with only 1KB of RAM. Although I admit I never used it without the memory expansion pack, giving me a whopping 16KB.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Monday July 18 2016, @10:59AM
I think I had spectrum 48K
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @09:53PM
Hah! I call my PDP-11 (compatible Russian computer) that had 12Kwords, each word 12 bits!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 20 2016, @06:40AM
PDP-11: 12K * 12 bits = 144 Kbit.
ZX81 + memory expansion: 16K * 8 bits = 128 Kbit
Determining the smaller of the two numbers is left as exercise to the reader. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @07:05AM
I can't, my ZX81 just went OOM
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday July 14 2016, @10:46PM
That really should have been a poll option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @01:00AM
A Superdome-X is an awesome machine!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @03:51PM
It took FEMA four days to get water to Superdome-X, four days!
(Score: 2) by bziman on Wednesday July 13 2016, @02:11AM
My phone is the computer that goes with me everywhere... that's got 2 GB of RAM.
The laptop that I'm on now, on which I do everything that can't be done by the phone, has 16 GB of RAM.
My workstation at the office was recently updated to 64 GB of RAM. That shouldn't require another update for three or four years.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday July 13 2016, @08:03AM
Had the laptop upgraded with as much memory as it could hold when I bought it.
Apparently, there was some they could replace and some not, so in went 2 4GB sticks, and voila: 10 GB laptop. Feels big enough for now.
(Score: 1) by Stardaemon on Wednesday July 13 2016, @09:17AM
It's an old Bloomfield.
I needed the extra RAM for Minecraft at one point. 6 GB modded server, 6 GB modded client and 12 GB for os with browsers with 100+tabs and whatever else I might be running.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 13 2016, @10:52AM
It has always staggered me how much of a RAM hog stock Minecraft can be, let alone some of the modpacks (*cough* Tekkit */cough*)
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnampff on Wednesday July 13 2016, @07:05PM
Thats what you get for using Java.
*runsforhislifewhilethejavadevsthrownullpointerexceptionsafterhim*
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @04:43PM
At work, my computer has 16GB of RAM.
At home, my main computer/laptop has 4GB of RAM.
At both, my "phone" has 1GB of RAM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @06:49PM
There's no option for 21 GB.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday July 14 2016, @05:20PM
and none for 3GB, either, for us poor suckers who suck with sucky 3GB and a sucky poor sucking graphics card, as well.... that sucks.)
Damn, i suck. :(
(Prays to the computer god(s) for a better computer, but i suck too much and they are probably ignoring me.
Sucking Suckers.)
At least i3wm helps me suck not so much.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @05:54PM
But it varies depending on which drugs I'm on at the time.
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Friday July 15 2016, @07:45AM
The options should have been ranges. Why should total computer memory be a power of 2?
My primary computer has 6 GB of memory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @12:42AM
My phone has 3GB..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2016, @02:41PM
This. With tri-channel you get values that can not be selected in this poll. i have 3x2GB=6GB
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 15 2016, @06:57PM
Until I got this Supermicro, I never had enough memory. I thought I had a lot of memory when I had 4 gig. Then, I thought 8 gig was plenty. I got a package deal on a Supermicro mainboard and 24 gig of memory, so I jumped on it.
Yeah, it's a server board, with Opteron server CPU's. But, it's my "workstation".
I can run my main Linux desktop, two, three, or four virtual machines, and not run out of memory. The most memory-hogging applications on my machine are browsers - they eat and eat and eat memory. Even so, I never see the paging file used. I NEVER have to wait for the paging file, and that was my main goal in buying this thing.
Today, there are cheaper, faster systems available that support a lot more memory, but I'm pretty happy with what I have right now.
Despite it's age and limitations, it still runs circles around any of the computers that my employer runs. Those are newer and faster than my Opterons, but they only have two gig of memory, and paging file runs all the time. Click on an excel document, go have a smoke, and the document might be loaded when you get back. THAT is the difference between adequate and inadequate memory!
(Score: 1) by HonestFlames on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:42AM
I stuffed 24GB into my laptop, upgrading from 8GB. Those VM's.... maaaan, they love RAM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17 2016, @10:10PM
Bought 32GB for my main computer since it was cheap enough to do so. But I'm typing this from a 32MB laptop (NetBSD 6.1.5).
(Score: 2) by toygeek on Monday July 18 2016, @11:30AM
I'm curious as to what browser you're using? I have a 1.5gb laptop with a 1.4ghz celeron in it that is all but useless due to the heavy use of JS on the web. A lightweight browser helps (midori) but then everything tells me I'm using an unsupported browser, which gets rather old. I dunno, maybe I should try Chrome with a no-js plugin? Interested in how you're doing it. Thanks!
There is no Sig. Okay, maybe a short one. http://miscdotgeek.com
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday July 19 2016, @04:01AM
Try a webkit based browser.
I use a webkit browser (webkit-leopard) on my powerbook G4 laptop (1.5ghz 1.25gb) and it works fairly well. I find it works better than firefox based browsers and I get to keep JS on.
I've no idea how a celeron stacks up against a G4 but I'm sure they're both underpowered for the modern web.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2016, @02:38PM
6GB for me (tri-channel 3x2GB), so no option to choose. Maybe ranges would have been better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:08AM
It would be interesting to conduct this survey every four months and to graph how these numbers change over time as technology advances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @04:12PM
I've already used up enough memory seeing this here for 3 weeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @04:18PM
Or, considering how often polls change, might just leave this one up forever :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @04:57PM
Added "###poll-block" to Ublock. Done.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 31 2016, @05:42PM
What do you mean by "primary?" I have a tablet, a phone, and two laptops and each has different uses. Now, if by "primary" you mean the first computer I ever owned, it was a TS1000 with 2k of memory. This Acer laptop has 1 gig, the big HP laptop has 4, not sure about the phone or tablet but I doubt eithr has 2 gigs.
I just bought another laptop from a friend, an ancient top of the line Gateway with an RCA output for video and a stereo input. I'll load Linux on that one and use it to stream videos from the network drive to the TV set, and record tapes and LPs. I won't be on a lap, will likely sit under the DVD player; I'll interact with it with my cordless mouse/keyboard.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org