"Few applications require performance so little that they will tolerate a 50-100 times slowdown." Applications and users had or still have to wait a lot more t

"Few applications require performance so little that they will tolerate a 50-100 times slowdown." Applications and users had or still have to wait a lot more than 100 times access slowdown when it gets to trashing (excessive number of page faults), memory swapping, or simply normal waits for some slow actions. "Even if they could, who's to say the right 0.1% ends up optimized?" I haven't said it's about only 0.1%, and that it has to be dictated by some policy. For all I care, even if they all would be manually cache managed, I don't expect the result to be worse than the caching mechanism currently employed, which works without really knowing what's going on. "This was all decided a long time ago, general purpose caches won and scratch memory lost." A long time ago they had a different world. Their reasoning might have been true back then. We are creatures of reason, however, aren't we? "Yes, that sounds like a [sell] idea. What is wrong with that?" Salesmanship and the engineering of future tech have at their cores different objectives. At least in my book.