5 ms·

I am confused by this comment. You said "RAM" (contrast to "DRAM" in the article title) but I think you are talking about DRAM sticks? But those have not gone a

I am confused by this comment. You said "RAM" (contrast to "DRAM" in the article title) but I think you are talking about DRAM sticks? But those have not gone away (other than with some laptops where it's soldered on and not upgradable). Going from 8MB to 32MB in the 90s is still comparable to going from 8GB to 32GB today. One difference is just that the price isn't dropping at the same rate anymore [1], so it doesn't make as much sense to buy small and re-buy next year when bigger chips are cheaper (they won't be much cheaper). Another is that DRAM speed is at the top of an S-curve [2], so there's not that same increase in speed year-over-year, though arguably the early 2000's were when speeds most dramatically increased. [1] https://aiimpacts.org/trends-in-dram-price-per-gigabyte/ https://aiimpacts.org/trends-in-dram-price-per-gigabyte/ [2] http://blog.logicalincrements.com/2016/03/ultimate-guide-computer-ram/ http://blog.logicalincrements.com/2016/03/ultimate-guide-com...

emptiestplace 2y ago
> Going from 8MB to 32MB in the 90s is still comparable to going from 8GB to 32GB today. This statement makes it difficult to believe you were there.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  How so?
  - phil21 2y ago
    8GB -> 32GB doesn't really give you a whole lot more than opening more browser tabs or whatnot. Cache some more filesystem into memory I suppose. 8MB -> 32MB enabled entirely new categories of (consumer-level) software. It would be a game changer for performance as you were no longer swapping to (exceedingly slow) disk. They simply are not comparable, imo. 8MB to 32MB was night and day difference and you would drool over the idea of someday being able to afford such a luxury. 8GB to 32GB was at least until very recently a nice to have for power users.
    - winrid 2y ago
      Yeah, the equivalent nowadays would be like going from 256mb to 16gb. Even most AAA games will still run on 8gb ram just fine.
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      Going from 4MB to 16MB made Autocad and Orcad Capture under Win 3.1 no longer slow. I remember a few years before that you'd zoom in on a drawing and do as much as you could without zooming back out because it would take a full minute to redraw the screen. And then another minute to zoom back in somewhere else.
    - smolder 2y ago
      Disk speed is definitely a key factor. Solid state is dramatically lower latency than HDDs were, while DRAM latency in absolute terms has been pretty constant for a long time. So even if you're doing something very demanding that works with large amounts of data relative to standard quantities of RAM (a situation that gets harder to come by,) having it all in RAM at the same time is much less important than back in the 90s/00s.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - rasz 2y ago
      Depends on your definition of "there". Going from 8MB to 32MB did very little for you pre Windows95. Every piece of x86 software up to that point was maxing below 8MB because ram was insanely expensive and you needed to populate 4 modules at a time. Motherboards came standard with 4 or 8 ram slots limiting your ram choices to 1,2,4,5,8,16,17,20,32 MB with last 4 costing more than motherboard and CPU combined. In 1992 standard desktop was still 386 + 4MB, with highend 486 + 8MB. 1MB SIMM was $30-50. 4MB $150 January 1992, dropping to $100 in December 1992, and back to $130 in December 1994. Afaik 72 pin simms were first introduced in 1989 IBM PS/2 (55SX? proprietary variant) and later around 1993 in clones. You could run 1,2,3 or 4 simms of any size independently. In December 1994 2MB 72pin Simm was $80, 4MB $150, 8MB $300, 16MB $560. 32MB $1200, 64MB $2800. 486DX2-66 itself was ~$300, + $100 VLB motherboard meanwhile $1100 got you Pentium 90MHz with PCI motherboard. In December 1994 for the price of 486 with 32MB ram ($1600) you could have bought P90 with 16MB ($1660).
  - tsobral 2y ago
    It's simple, and for context I made both upgrades scenarios: 8gb -> 32gb: yeah, it feels a bit snappier, I can finally load multiple VMs and a ton of containers. Which rarely happens.. 8mb -> 32mb: Wow! I can finally play Age of Empires 2 and blue screen crashes dropped by half! The feeling isn't the same even remotely...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Going from an inflatable pool in your backyard to a community pool is world changing. Going from the Pacific Ocean to the Seven Seas is still lots of water.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      Lots of water that you don't really need, so hardly makes a difference...
    - account42 2y ago
      Great analogy as both the ocean and RAM today end up being used as the garbage dump of inconsiderate assholes.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Resolutions for video might be good comparison. SD to HD(or 720p) is very nice jump. HD to 4k some benefit. 4k to 8k... Well I suppose there is things. The starting to point really does matter. Resolutions are actually good example of things at low end(today) scale. 1920x1080 * 24 bits = 6220800 bytes. So 6 megs. Just to store 16 million colour screen state.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      4K to 8K (and for that matter 30fps to 60fps+) is REALLY noticeable in VR video. Normal video, not so much.
      - account42 2y ago
        Does anyone even consider VR below 90 FPS? Sounds like a miserable experience. But yes, for resolution the angular pixel size is what matters and since VR covers more of your field of view you also need more pixels for the same results.
- rob74 2y ago
  Of course, the really significant step back then was being able to go from 640 kB (+/-) to more than 1 MB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory).
  - specialist 2y ago
    Yup. We maxed our Tandy (Radio Shack) 286 boxen, juiced to a blistering 8mhz, with 2.5mb RAM. I got blisters from stuffing RAM into daughter boards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#Expansion_boards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#Expansion_boar... Twas early years of PC-based image scanning and processing. We only had 1 image capture board. The boot's POST duration for 2.5mb was ridiculous. So after a cpature, my coworker (hi Tim Hall!) would ever so quickly yank the board out of a running box (now doing image processing) to be used in another box. Multitasking! As I remember it, the jump to 386 (much delayed by Micron's protectionist racket) was the next biggest step up.
- exe34 2y ago
  Nowadays electron apps will just baloon and take up the slack. Back in the days, it meant you could run 4x more stuff or handle bigger files/models with less thrashing of your very slow hdd.
tomnipotent 2y ago
Most RAM found in consumer PC's during the 90s was still DRAM, including SDRAM, EDO, and Rambus. I believe OP is just being nostalgic over the period of time when RAM upgrades were very a exciting thing, as hardware was changing very quickly in that era and each year felt considerably more capable than the prior.
- rob74 2y ago
  In fact, I'd venture as far as to say that all memory in personal and/or "home" computers, starting with the earliest generation (Apple I & Co), has always been some variation of DRAM - with the possible exception of the external cache memory chips used by some CPUs (e.g. 486, Pentium IIRC).
  - 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
    There were SRAM-based home computers, they just weren't very competitive when DRAM-based ones could offer 4x the RAM for the same price. VIC-20 did well for its day, though.
  - bregma 2y ago
    My first "home" computer (a home-built COSMAC Elf) had 256 bytes of static RAM (in two DIPs). No DRAM at all. I don't think Radio Shack even sold DRAM.
- mumblemumble 2y ago
  I'm not sure it's easy to understand what a big change there has been in the perceived pace of computer technology development if you weren't there. I'm typing this on a laptop that I purchased 11 years ago, in 2013. It's still my one and only home computer, and it hasn't given me any trouble. In 1994, though, an 11 year old computer would already be considered vintage. In 1983 the hot new computer was the Commodore 64. In 1994 everyone was upgrading their computers with CD-ROM drives so they could play Myst.
  - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
    Hilariously enough, you could still purchase a brand new Commodore 64 in 1994... albeit right before Commodore went bankrupt in May of that year. I vaguely remember some local electronics store in Pittsburgh having Commodore 64s for sale on the store shelves for really low prices back in the day. Admittedly, this was an unusual sight to behold in the US, because we had well since moved on to IBM PC Compatibles by then. In Europe, C64s were a tad bit easier to source. It was definitely more of a curiosity and a toy rather than a serious computer in 1994.

emptiestplace 2y ago

> Going from 8MB to 32MB in the 90s is still comparable to going from 8GB to 32GB today. This statement makes it difficult to believe you were there.

CalRobert 2y ago
How so?
- phil21 2y ago
  8GB -> 32GB doesn't really give you a whole lot more than opening more browser tabs or whatnot. Cache some more filesystem into memory I suppose. 8MB -> 32MB enabled entirely new categories of (consumer-level) software. It would be a game changer for performance as you were no longer swapping to (exceedingly slow) disk. They simply are not comparable, imo. 8MB to 32MB was night and day difference and you would drool over the idea of someday being able to afford such a luxury. 8GB to 32GB was at least until very recently a nice to have for power users.
  - winrid 2y ago
    Yeah, the equivalent nowadays would be like going from 256mb to 16gb. Even most AAA games will still run on 8gb ram just fine.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    Going from 4MB to 16MB made Autocad and Orcad Capture under Win 3.1 no longer slow. I remember a few years before that you'd zoom in on a drawing and do as much as you could without zooming back out because it would take a full minute to redraw the screen. And then another minute to zoom back in somewhere else.
  - smolder 2y ago
    Disk speed is definitely a key factor. Solid state is dramatically lower latency than HDDs were, while DRAM latency in absolute terms has been pretty constant for a long time. So even if you're doing something very demanding that works with large amounts of data relative to standard quantities of RAM (a situation that gets harder to come by,) having it all in RAM at the same time is much less important than back in the 90s/00s.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rasz 2y ago
    Depends on your definition of "there". Going from 8MB to 32MB did very little for you pre Windows95. Every piece of x86 software up to that point was maxing below 8MB because ram was insanely expensive and you needed to populate 4 modules at a time. Motherboards came standard with 4 or 8 ram slots limiting your ram choices to 1,2,4,5,8,16,17,20,32 MB with last 4 costing more than motherboard and CPU combined. In 1992 standard desktop was still 386 + 4MB, with highend 486 + 8MB. 1MB SIMM was $30-50. 4MB $150 January 1992, dropping to $100 in December 1992, and back to $130 in December 1994. Afaik 72 pin simms were first introduced in 1989 IBM PS/2 (55SX? proprietary variant) and later around 1993 in clones. You could run 1,2,3 or 4 simms of any size independently. In December 1994 2MB 72pin Simm was $80, 4MB $150, 8MB $300, 16MB $560. 32MB $1200, 64MB $2800. 486DX2-66 itself was ~$300, + $100 VLB motherboard meanwhile $1100 got you Pentium 90MHz with PCI motherboard. In December 1994 for the price of 486 with 32MB ram ($1600) you could have bought P90 with 16MB ($1660).
- tsobral 2y ago
  It's simple, and for context I made both upgrades scenarios: 8gb -> 32gb: yeah, it feels a bit snappier, I can finally load multiple VMs and a ton of containers. Which rarely happens.. 8mb -> 32mb: Wow! I can finally play Age of Empires 2 and blue screen crashes dropped by half! The feeling isn't the same even remotely...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Going from an inflatable pool in your backyard to a community pool is world changing. Going from the Pacific Ocean to the Seven Seas is still lots of water.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    Lots of water that you don't really need, so hardly makes a difference...
  - account42 2y ago
    Great analogy as both the ocean and RAM today end up being used as the garbage dump of inconsiderate assholes.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Resolutions for video might be good comparison. SD to HD(or 720p) is very nice jump. HD to 4k some benefit. 4k to 8k... Well I suppose there is things. The starting to point really does matter. Resolutions are actually good example of things at low end(today) scale. 1920x1080 * 24 bits = 6220800 bytes. So 6 megs. Just to store 16 million colour screen state.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    4K to 8K (and for that matter 30fps to 60fps+) is REALLY noticeable in VR video. Normal video, not so much.
    - account42 2y ago
      Does anyone even consider VR below 90 FPS? Sounds like a miserable experience. But yes, for resolution the angular pixel size is what matters and since VR covers more of your field of view you also need more pixels for the same results.
rob74 2y ago
Of course, the really significant step back then was being able to go from 640 kB (+/-) to more than 1 MB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_memory).
- specialist 2y ago
  Yup. We maxed our Tandy (Radio Shack) 286 boxen, juiced to a blistering 8mhz, with 2.5mb RAM. I got blisters from stuffing RAM into daughter boards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#Expansion_boards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#Expansion_boar... Twas early years of PC-based image scanning and processing. We only had 1 image capture board. The boot's POST duration for 2.5mb was ridiculous. So after a cpature, my coworker (hi Tim Hall!) would ever so quickly yank the board out of a running box (now doing image processing) to be used in another box. Multitasking! As I remember it, the jump to 386 (much delayed by Micron's protectionist racket) was the next biggest step up.
exe34 2y ago
Nowadays electron apps will just baloon and take up the slack. Back in the days, it meant you could run 4x more stuff or handle bigger files/models with less thrashing of your very slow hdd.

tomnipotent 2y ago

Most RAM found in consumer PC's during the 90s was still DRAM, including SDRAM, EDO, and Rambus. I believe OP is just being nostalgic over the period of time when RAM upgrades were very a exciting thing, as hardware was changing very quickly in that era and each year felt considerably more capable than the prior.

rob74 2y ago
In fact, I'd venture as far as to say that all memory in personal and/or "home" computers, starting with the earliest generation (Apple I & Co), has always been some variation of DRAM - with the possible exception of the external cache memory chips used by some CPUs (e.g. 486, Pentium IIRC).
- 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
  There were SRAM-based home computers, they just weren't very competitive when DRAM-based ones could offer 4x the RAM for the same price. VIC-20 did well for its day, though.
- bregma 2y ago
  My first "home" computer (a home-built COSMAC Elf) had 256 bytes of static RAM (in two DIPs). No DRAM at all. I don't think Radio Shack even sold DRAM.
mumblemumble 2y ago
I'm not sure it's easy to understand what a big change there has been in the perceived pace of computer technology development if you weren't there. I'm typing this on a laptop that I purchased 11 years ago, in 2013. It's still my one and only home computer, and it hasn't given me any trouble. In 1994, though, an 11 year old computer would already be considered vintage. In 1983 the hot new computer was the Commodore 64. In 1994 everyone was upgrading their computers with CD-ROM drives so they could play Myst.
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  Hilariously enough, you could still purchase a brand new Commodore 64 in 1994... albeit right before Commodore went bankrupt in May of that year. I vaguely remember some local electronics store in Pittsburgh having Commodore 64s for sale on the store shelves for really low prices back in the day. Admittedly, this was an unusual sight to behold in the US, because we had well since moved on to IBM PC Compatibles by then. In Europe, C64s were a tad bit easier to source. It was definitely more of a curiosity and a toy rather than a serious computer in 1994.