>> You probably don't need 16GB of RAM capacity, either.
>
>
> Really, 256K ought to be enough for anybody ...
>
> Don't you find it a little ridiculous when 95% of the motherboards in use
> can be maxed out with $50 worth of RAM?
I have a couple of letters from lawyers somewhere around here, asking me to
claim my piece of the pie. (probably a coupon for $10 off a $100 purchase,
ha ha) Basically, RAM manufacturers were sued in a class action suit and
LOST. Seems they were price fixing until recently. I don't find it
ridiculous that 95% of motherboards can be maxed out with $50 worth of RAM.
I find it ridiculous that this hasn't always been true.
> I expect to use the board for five years or more. We are not going to be
> running on 32 bits five years from now. Some people are now building
> programs that use 16GB and more. Software is the only thing holding us
> back ... hmmm ... now how did that happen?
RAM manufacturers stopped price fixing?
NOW it is LCD screen manufacturers who are price fixing. I didn't make that
up btw, but I'm too lazy to search for a link right now.
> Oh, I thought the future was multicore, not multi-CPU.
That's true. But by the time you need a program that REQUIRES 16GB of RAM,
it won't matter how many cores you've got on one chip...you'll need more
than one chip!!!

-Dave