4 ms·
It's so easy to weasel out of this statement that it's practically meaningless. Prices on now obsolete technology never went down either, and what's been obsol
by sublinear 3mo ago
It's so easy to weasel out of this statement that it's practically meaningless.
Prices on now obsolete technology never went down either, and what's been obsolete for a long time now is the low-end PC.
If the prices stay the same while the product improves (more per stick and faster), that's what everyone actually wants anyway.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3mo agoWe need like 3x the RAM to get the same value you were before.
- pipes 3mo agoDo you mean you need 3x the ram to run your pc than you did at some point in time? Maybe not, anyway, this graph puts the current memory "crisis" in perspective for me: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-comput...
- hdjrudni 3mo agoNope. I currently have 64 GB which is about enough. I'd do 128 or more if it were cheaper. But a decent stick size is about 16 GB. If I could get 48GB for the price of a 16GB stick, that'd be reasonable. Then I could get 2 of those instead of 4 16s and not pay horrendously more.
- 1718627440 3mo agoYou need n-times the ram to produce the same work, e.g. produce an office document, sort your mail or filter your files.
- 1718627440 3mo agoI think that's actually an underestimation.