Pokertracker load time

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
256 megs is MORE THAN ENOUGH to run windows XP and poker tracker with any feasibly sized database. sure if you want to do that with 10 other programs runnings and your nightly de-frag at the same, it wont be enough... but to do JUST what you need to do at one time, it is more than enough.

If you have 1GB or RAM and your OS is constantly doing RAM swaps to disk while you JUST surf the web, you have problems

[/ QUOTE ]

Baloney. Your technical expertise has completely outstripped your common sense, and undoubtedly your actual experience too. God knows why; you must just like to argue. That is so full of crap I don't even know where to begin, and it doesn't fluster you a bit to come out with it.

If you were addressing me, I newer said that with a gig of RAM I constantly write to my hard disk. I got a gig so that would NOT happen. I will say that at 512 megs of RAM I got tons of slowdowns and sometimes even crashes when web surfing.

That all said, 256 megs of RAM is CRAP. My databases are pretty small. The problem is, you first exaggerate enormously by saying people need to be running a defrag and 10 other programs on the one hand to make it seem absurd that they could have slowdowns with normal usage, and secondly you compound that with the absurd statement that 256 RAM is fine for normal usage.

WINDOWS CAN EAT 128 megs of RAM all by itself. That leaves you with as little as 128 megs to run ALL YOUR PROGRAMS. Just opening a few programs uses up good chunks of that, much less running them and opening their various files. Where does all the memory come from when you do that? From swapping to your hard disk.

I never said I constantly grind to the hard disk, but there are frequent slowdowns when people use their computers. People DO tend to have a few things going on at once. There is no such thing as JUST surfing the web. Do you close every window once you're done looking at it? Every program? I don't. Is that absurd? Hardly.

Normal usage eats plenty of RAM. If you think 256 megs of RAM is generous and enough to run a typical user's computer without repeated disk writes and notable slowdowns, your idea of what is generous is nuts.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's being done well or at an acceptable pace, making for a reasonably pleasant experience. 256 RAM is such a crappy amount of RAM for the typical user's use that it would make his online experience a misery. If you want to scrupulously open and close every window when you're done with it or think you might be done with it, run virtually nothing unless you run it in isolation, and don't do much of anything that requires hard disk usage, then maybe you can squeak by with 256 megs of RAM, but you'll have a miserable computing experience.

But most people don't want to squeak by, and they damn sure don't want to be miserable.

I sincerely doubt you operate on a 256 meg system, and I bet if you had to, you'd be very tempted to kick it through the wall. Why on earth you would recommend a piece of junk like that I have no idea, because you certainly know better and wouldn't dream of putting up with it yourself. Your chance of going anywhere and saying 256 megs of RAM is fine for today's typical home user is non-existent.

Why is a system that's utter crap such a great idea for others? No way in hell would you be caught dead using a system like that yourself. At least, if you're like 99% of other people out there.

But perhaps you're not?