I can't imagine a commercial environment where this really matters. Sub-optimal ram install layout makes minimal difference in performance one you get past "en

I can't imagine a commercial environment where this really matters. Sub-optimal ram install layout makes minimal difference in performance one you get past "enough" for your workload - for a huge percentage of corporate workloads - and for those where it does matter, budgets tend to allow for it. We all know RAM costs will usually be marginal compared to software costs, whether that's licensing, development, implementation, or all three! Maybe, in very cost conscious smaller envs this might allow for slightly more options under the "buy the smallest number of the largest size dimms that we can, so we upgrade later without taking anything out" purchasing pattern. But my experience of such envs is that they're cashflow sensitive, and they're actually ok with you filling a machine with smaller, cheaper dimms then rip and replacing to upgrade, even if the original ram still depreciating, because that cost comes out of a different months budget - especially if it's cheaper up front. You do need to be upfront that that's the tradeoff decision you're making - but it'll be even less of an issue if you've got a way to reuse the replaced ram, even if it's of minimal benefit ( any use > wasted ). For home users tho... um, nope, 8-32gb seem to cover 99% of users and probably even 50-80% of HN readers. Gotta be honest tho, was expecting this to be about gender fluid memory (!?) or perhaps someone finding a way to efficiently encode more than 0/1 for better density.. so it was definitely a let down of an article.